DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-17, 19-24, 27-30, 33-34, 41-47, 50-57, 63-69, 72-74, 76, 78, 80, 85-96, 98-100, 102-104, 107-108,110-112, 119, 124, 127-128, 130-131, 157, 162, 165, 168, 172, 175, 179 and 183-288 are pending.
Claims 50-57, 63-69, 72-74, 76, 78, 80, 85-96, 98-100, 102-104, 107-108, 110-112, 119, 124, 127-128, 130-131, 157, 162, 165, 168, 172, 175, 179, 183-196 and 213-287 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 5-6, 18, 25-26, 31-32, 35-40, 48-49, 58-62, 70-71, 75, 77, 79, 81-84, 97, 101, 105-106, 109, 113-118, 120-123, 125-126, 129, 132-156, 158-161, 163-164, 166-167, 169-171, 173-174, 176-178, 180-182 and 266 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 October 2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The status identifier for claim 13 states “previously presented” however claim 13 appears to be amended.
The status identifier for claim 14 states “previously presented” however claim 14 appears to be amended.
The status identifier for claim 29 states “previously presented” however claim 29 appears to be amended.
The status identifier for claim 30 states “previously presented” however claim 30 appears to be amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –1
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 15-16, 44-45, 197 and 199 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291).
Regarding claim 1, Naarman discloses a device for continuous production of polypyrrole films (title) (= a reactor for an electrochemical reaction), the reactor comprising:
An electrolysis vessel (1) containing an electrolyte solution (2) (abstract) (= a vessel for containing an electrolyte solution);
A cathode (3) and an anode (5) of rotating cylinder roller (4) (abstract) disposed in the vessel (1) (Figure 1) (= at least one electrode and at least one counter electrode, wherein the electrodes are disposed in the vessel such that a first portion of the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode are immersed in the electrolyte solution, a second portion of the at least one electrode is not immersed in the electrolyte solution, wherein the at least one electrode is arranged to move in such a manner so that products formed from the electrochemical reaction are deposited on and stick to a surface area of the at least one electrode, as a position of the at least one electrode remains, and as a size of the surface area of the first portion that is not immersed in the electrolyte solution remains), and
A detaching device such as a scraper or stripper blade (Col. 4 lines 39-64) (= a removal device disposed in contact with the at least one electrode for removing the deposited products form the at least one electrode with the removal device, wherein the removal device facilitates a scrubbing action). The disclosure of Naarman includes a detaching device which is not shown in the figures. The detaching device of Naarman makes contact with the cylinder since it removes the electrolytic product from the cylinder. Regarding the claimed “wherein the removal device facilitates a scrubbing action”, the detaching device of Naarman performs a scrubbing action by scrapping or stripping. Regarding the claimed “stick” and “stuck”, the polypyrrole is deposited onto the cylinder and therefore reads on the claimed “stick” and “stuck”.
PNG
media_image1.png
222
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Naarmann et al.
Regarding claim 2, Naarmann discloses wherein the at least one counter electrode (3) further comprises a first portion that is immersed in the electrolyte solution, and a second portion that is not immersed in the electrolyte solution (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 197, Naarmann discloses wherein the cylinder rotates and therefore stirs the electrolyte solution in a homogeneous manner (abstract). The claimed “for maintaining a substantially homogeneous concentration” is regarded as intended use and does not further structurally limit the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Naarmann discloses a rotating cylindrical roller (4).
Regarding claim 8, Naarmann discloses the electrode may alternatively be an endless belt partially submerged (Col. 4 lines 18-38).
Regarding claim 15, Naarmann discloses the detaching device removes the film outside the electrolyte solution (Col. 4 lines 39-64) and therefore the removal device is in contact with the second portion of the roller (4).
Regarding claim 16, the blade or scraper of Naarmann reads on the claimed rigid plate.
Regarding claim 44, Naarmann discloses the use of a reference electrode for determining the precise potential of the electrochemical system (Col. 8 lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 45, the device of Naarmann necessarily includes a support for the electrodes since neither of them are free-floating in the device.
Regarding claim 199, Naarmann disclose forming polypyrrole on the surface (abstract). The instant claim does not particularly limit the coating to a specific material. The claimed “slippery” is relative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Barrett (US 4,193,846).
Regarding claim 4, Naarmann fails to disclose a conducting brush in contact with the at least one electrode to supplement electrical contact during electrode movement.
In the same or similar field of rotational electrodes for electrolytic devices, Barrett discloses a cylindrical cathode (1) mounted between assemblies of bearings (2) on a tubular shaft (3) wherein at each end of the cylinder, a current collector plate (4) and sliding brushes (5) are mounted in such a position that the current is brought by the brushes towards the collector plate. Barrett discloses that in addition to mechanical connections, electric connections (6) from the plate to the end of the cylinder ensure a good conductivity and minimize the loss resistance (Col. 3 lines 8-17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising conducting brush because Barrett discloses that good electrical connection is produce when using brushes connected with collector plates.
Claim(s) 9-14, 17, 22-23, 34, 205, 211-212 and 288 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525).
Regarding claim 9, Naarmann fails to disclose wherein the conveyor belt electrode further comprises pulleys, chain drives, or a combination of two or more thereof.
In the same or similar field, Huba discloses an electrolytic apparatus comprising an electrolytic tank (10) for containing a liquid-solids composition (12) (Figure 1) (Col. 5 lines 26-31), an anode (14) and a cathode (16) are immersed in the composition (12) (Figure 1), the anode is arranged to rotate (Col. 3 lines 29-41) and a scraper member (24) removes a layer of solids deposited on the anode (Col. 6 lines 2-14). Huba discloses wherein the conveyor belt includes pulleys (Col. 4 lines 2-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising pulleys because in order to move the endless belt of Naarmann one of ordinary skill would necessarily utilize a mechanical system such as a pulley for performing the movement of the belt.
Regarding claim 10, Huba discloses the pulleys made of dielectric material such as PVC (Col. 10 lines 6-8).
Regarding claims 11-12, Huba discloses a v-belt drive pulley system connected to an electric motor (Col. 5 lines 34-39 = at least one pulley fixated onto a shaft).
Regarding claim 13, the designation of “a secondary transmission system” of instant claim 13 does not depend on a claim that includes a primary transmission system, therefore the v-belt drive pulley system of Huba reads on either a primary or second transmission system (Col. 5 lines 34-39).
Regarding claim 14, Huba discloses the v-belt drive pulley system (Col. 5 lines 34-39). Regarding any apparent duplication of a pulley system, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless and new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 17, adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. Adjusting the doctor blade of Huba or scraper or blade of Naarmann would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to remove more or less deposit from the drum (MPEP § 2144.04 V D).
Regarding claim 22, Huba indicates that the scraper may be located at any point along the belt for removal therefore the scraper may be located at a position with the first portion (Col. 6 lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 23, Huba discloses the system including orifice (28) whereby composition is removed, pumped (via pump 32) and sent to an ultrafiltration unit (34 = washing) which also includes conduit (40) (Figure 1, Col. 7 lines 4-16).
Regarding claims 34 and 205, Huba discloses the device comprising a gas bubble removal system (e.g. hood, 52) (Col. 9 lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 211, Huba discloses a pulley system which intrinsically eases movement (Col. 5 lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 212, Huba discloses the device comprising a wheel (Col. 7 lines 66-68).
Regarding claim 288, Huba indicates that the scraper may be located at any point along the belt for removal therefore the scraper may be located at a position with the first portion (Col. 6 lines 57-62). Positioning of the scraper within the solution would therefore cause the solution to stir.
Claim(s) 19-21, 23 and 201 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Sciver et al. (US 3,434,938).
Regarding claim 19, Naarmann fails to disclose a conveyor belt system positioned at the other end of the removal device that is not in contact with the at least one electrode for removing the deposited products off the at least one electrode by friction.
Sciver discloses an electrolytic apparatus for producing a metal screen sheet (title, Col. 2 line 10) comprising a tank (12) for containing an electrolytic solution (Col. 2 lines 3-10), a cathode drum (10) and anodes (13), wherein a first portion of drum and the anodes are immersed in the electrolytic solution and a second portion of the drum is not immersed in solution (Figure 1), and the drum is configured to rotate while maintaining a position (abstract) such that a surface area of the immersed portion remains the same and a film is deposited onto the cathode drum and removed by a peeling roll (16) which makes contact with the cathode drum (Figure 1, Col. 2 lines 21-26). Sciver discloses a belt system (15) positioned at a right most end of the tank not in contact with the electrode and moves the product away from the electrode. Friction is necessarily present in the belt system of Sciver.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a conveyor belt system because Sciver discloses a belt system for removing product away from the electrode. It would have been obvious to modify the removal or detaching of Naarmann with the belt system of Sciver for completely removing the deposited material on the roller.
Regarding claim 23, Sciver discloses wherein the film is peeled off at peeling roll, cleaned with solvent and water, dried and wound into a roll which occur at a position not in contact with the at least one electrode (Col. 2 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 201, Sciver discloses a cleaning tank with nozzle (= flowing fluid in open channel) (Figure, Col. 2 lines 21-26).
Claim(s) 24 and 202 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Sciver et al. (US 3,434,938) and in further view of Gowans et al. (US 6,349,751).
Regarding claims 24 and 202, Naarmann fails to disclose a flap for preventing spilling.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Gowans discloses an electrochemical system for removing a component from immersion in a liquid comprising a flap (94) with the liquid collector for avoiding spillage onto any surrounding equipment (Col. 10 lines 23-28). The positioning of claim 202 appears to include a number of broad positions. Figures 7 and 10 of Gowans for example shows various angled positions of flaps. Selection of the flap position would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to capture any liquid of the device.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a flap because Gowans discloses that a flap present in a collection system prevents spillage to surrounding equipment. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Naarmann with a flap for preventing any spillage of liquid during collection.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Lacasse et al. (WO 2008/092265).
Regarding claim 27, Naarmann discloses a rotating cylindrical roller as described above. Naarmann does not explicitly disclose a disk.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical reactions (abstract), Lacasse discloses that a rotating working electrode may be any of rotating drum, rotating disk electrode, etc. (claim 26) to carry out the process of electrodeposition for example. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute one rotating electrode (e.g. drum) with another rotating electrode (e.g. disk) to produce the same or similar predictable result. Moreover, the selection of the shape of the rotating electrode is an obvious engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 204 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Mishchenko et al. (RU 2023061).
Regarding claims 28-29 and 204, Naarmann fails to disclose wherein the at least one electrode comprises a worm screw in rotation.
In the same or similar field of galvanic processes and devices, Mishchenko discloses wherein a worm screw (1) is electrolytically treated while being rotated with gear motor (7) [0009]. The surfaces of the worm screw ensure circulation of the electrolyte (3) [0012].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the electrode such as a worm screw for ensuring circulating of the electrolyte as disclosed by Mishchenko. Selection of the electrode shape is an obvious engineering design choice. The claimed “a specific direction” of claim 29 is directed towards the intended use of the spiral worm screw and the manner of operating the claimed device. Further, a ‘specific’ direction is not particularly limiting. Regarding the removal device as a worm screw and also as an electrode, the shape of the worm screw is similar to a blade or scraper of Naarmann and therefore would have utility as a removing device. Claim 204 depends on claim 1. There is no first worm screw of claim 1 therefore the designation of “second” worm screw is not further limiting.
Claim(s) 30 and 203 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of in view Mishchenko et al. (RU 2023061) and in further view of Fukuda et al. (JPS61133369).
Regarding claims 30 and 203, Naarmann and Mishchenko fail to disclose a second worm screw as claimed.
Kawatetsu discloses a galvanizing device comprising a removal system including a worm wheel (14) connected to motor (15) and worm gear (12a). Kawatetsu teaches that the pressing force of a doctor blade (12) is advanced by the motor (16) to remove deposits adhering to the surface of the roll (4a) (page 2, middle of page “zinc roll 4a…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a worm screw of a removal device because Kawatetsu discloses that a blade, worm wheel, worm gear and motor work together to remove a deposit from a surface. It would have been obvious to equip the blade of Naarmann with a worm-type position adjustor for removing deposits while preventing the submerged roll from stopping rotation due to an excessive pressing force of the doctor plate against the submerged roll (bottom page 2 of Kawatetsu).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of in view Nishi (CN 103097589).
Regarding claim 33, Naarmann fails to disclose wherein the counter electrode comprises conducting materials fixed onto the walls of the vessel.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Nishi discloses wherein an anode (30) is arranged with a cathode drum (20) in an electrochemical cell (10). The anode plates of Nishi are depicted in Figures 1-2 as being fixed to the walls of the device [0014]. Nishi teaches such a configuration so as to perform maintenance on the anode easily (i.e. easy access) [0014].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device wherein the counter electrode comprises conducting materials fixed onto the walls of the vessel because Nishi teaches providing the anode as a portion of the exterior wall for performing maintenance. An anode intrinsically includes conductive materials.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Tsuda et al. (JPS5980791).
Regarding claim 41, Naarmann fails to disclose wherein the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode are separated by a separator, a diaphragm, or a conducting membrane.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Tsuda discloses an ion exchange membrane (7) disposed between an anode (6) and a rotating drum cathode (1) [0003]. Tsuda teaches that the membrane is arranged in order to perform electroplating at high current densities while controlling the bath composition. Tsuda also discloses that the use of the membrane makes it possible to separate the plating solution from the anolyte and gas generation occurs only in an anode chamber.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a diaphragm or separator for example because Tsuda teaches that the membrane is arranged in order to perform electroplating at high current densities while controlling the bath composition. Tsuda also discloses that the use of the membrane makes it possible to separate the plating solution from the anolyte and gas generation occurs only in an anode chamber.
Claim(s) 42-43 and 198 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291).
Regarding claims 42-43, the instant claims require at least one electrode and at least one counter electrode. The instant claims do not require multiple electrodes of each. The electrodes of Naarmann are arranged one and then another (e.g. alternating). Moreover, any duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Any grouping of the electrodes would have been an obvious engineering design choice. If multiple electrodes of at least one electrode and at least one counter electrode are present, selecting the arrangement of a corresponding cluster of an electrode and a counter electrode is an obvious engineering design since the electrodes are opposing polarities carrying out the electrochemical process (i.e. in order to carry out an electrochemical process, an electrode and a counter electrode are required).
Regarding claim 198, Naarmann discloses a detaching device. The mere duplication of a scraper or blade has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Additional scrapers would provide additional chances to remove material from the drum (e.g. attempt to completely remove material). Stacking the scrappers is an obvious engineering design choice since the scrapper would be positioned along the edge or surface of the drum and therefore stacked.
Claim(s) 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291) in view of Yane (US 2010/0167460).
Regarding claims 46-47, Naarmann fails to disclose wherein the mechanical support comprises a retraction mean to retract the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode from the vessel containing the electrolyte solution and wherein the mechanical support is independent of and can be isolated from the vessel containing the electrolyte solution. It is initially noted that the claimed “can be” (claim 47) isolated does not require the mechanical support to be isolated.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Yane discloses a conventional holding and transporting device including a robot arm for moving for example the substrate [0035], [0037], [0047] (not pictured).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a mechanical support as claimed because Yane discloses a conventional transferring device such as a robot arm for transferring and/or transporting parts of an electrochemical device. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Naarmann with a robot arm for transporting the various parts including the electrodes. A robot arm may be considered independently controlled and positioned with an electrochemical vessel.
Claim(s) 200 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525) and in view of Jin (KR 100825641).
Regarding claim 200, Naarmann in view of Huba fails to disclose a spring system for the scraper.
In the same or similar field of coating processing and devices, Jin discloses wherein a frame member (36) is formed with a scraper (38) which is in close contact with the coating roll which maintains connection with the housing, auxiliary housing and spring to prevent excessive contact with the coating roll. Jin discloses that the scraper is adjusted consistently with the use of the spring (“Next, in the device…”, “Therefore, when the actuator…”, “therefore, as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make adjustments to the positioning of a scraper such as a tilt angle because Jin discloses adjusting the position of a scraper with the use of a spring.
Claim(s) 206-207 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525) and in view of Acero et al. (US 4,224,131).
Regarding claims 206-207, Naarmann in view of Huba fails to disclose a hood connected to a ventilation outlet.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Acero discloses a ventilated electroplating tank comprising a hood arranged above electrode and a ventilating port for withdrawal of gases developed in the tank (abstract). As to instant claim 207, the hood portions of Acero have a straight surface (18, 20, 22, Figure 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a ventilating port because Acero teaches that a ventilated tank comprises a port for withdrawal of gases. It would have been obvious that the hood of Huba would be equipped with a ventilation outlet for withdrawal of the gases and removing them from the hood.
Claim(s) 208 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525) and in view of Zhang et al. (CN 205815324).
Regarding claim 208, Naarmann in view of Huba fails to disclose wherein the gas removal system further comprises sleeves.
In the same or similar field of air and gas withdrawn/venting, Zhang discloses wherein the gas removal system includes gas pipes and sleeves connected with a hood. The sleeve is positioned to connect the parts of the ventilation system [0012]-[0013], [0024]-[0025].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a sleeve of a gas removal system because Zhang teaches that a hood is connected with gas piping with sleeves. It would have been obvious to equip Huba’s hood with sleeves for withdrawing gases from the device.
Claim(s) 209 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525) and in view of Gang et al. (CN 202030851).
Regarding claim 209, Naarmann in view of Huba fails to disclose wherein the gas removal system is of a material configured for enabling viewing through the material and a side of the vessel that is transparent.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Gang discloses a galvanizing device comprising a transparent cover that is equipped with an exhaust system (1) [0039]. The transparency of the cover allows the operator to known real-time status of any buildup in the galvanic device to then remove any undesirable material [0031].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a transparent gas removal system because Gang discloses that a gas removal system (i.e. exhaust system) is equipped with a transparent cover for observing any building during the galvanic process.
Claim(s) 210 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 4,468,291), in view of Huba et al. (US 4,331,525) and in view of Gang et al. (CN 202030851).
Regarding claim 210, Naarmann in view of Huba fails to disclose wherein the vessel has a side that is transparent.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Gang discloses a galvanizing device comprising a transparent cover that is equipped with an exhaust system (1) [0039]. The transparency of the cover allows the operator to known real-time status of any buildup in the galvanic device to then remove any undesirable material [0031].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a transparent gas removal system because Gang discloses that a gas removal system (i.e. exhaust system) is equipped with a transparent cover for observing any building during the galvanic process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 October 2025 have been fully considered. The remarks on pages 23-27 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection which have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time.
The remarks on pages 29-36 are directed towards the restriction requirement and states that no unity of invention was presented. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. On pages 13-14 for example of the Requirement for Restriction dated 1 August 2023, the Examiner has stated the groups of the invention and a statement regarding a lack of unity of invention.
On page 36, the remarks are directed towards patent prosecution highway (PPH), however, there does not appear to be a request for PPH.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795