DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 August 2025 has been entered.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,414,089 to McMonigle et al. (McMonigle).
As to claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18 and 19, McMonigle teaches an electrolyzer comprising a solid non-melting horizontal cathode (cathode (138) and cathode top side of bipolar intermediate electrode (140)) comprising a reservoir onto which an electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, may be emplaced for electrolysis, the reservoir formed by vertical containing surfaces (perimeter walls), a horizontal anode (anode (142) and bottom side of bipolar intermediate electrode (140)) suspended above the horizontal cathode for physically engaging the electrolytic slurry for electrolysis; and a removing mechanism (overflow configuration) for removing from the horizontal cathode reservoir the end product resulting from electrolysis (Column 4, Lines 63-68; Column 5, Line 59 to Column 6, Line 12; Column 6, Line 60 to Column 7, Line 25; Figures 2 and 3).
As to claims 14 and 20, McMonigle teaches the apparatus of claims 10 and 18. McMonigle further teaches that the horizontal anode surface (anode (142) and bottom side of bipolar intermediate electrode (140)) comprises a plurality of vents (gas channels (176)) for passing gaseous compounds resulting from electrolysis (Column 7, Lines 26-48; Figure 3).
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,554,893 to Varda (Varda).
As to claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18 and 19, Varda teaches an electrolyzer comprising a solid non-melting horizontal cathode (top of bipolar tray (8)) comprising a reservoir onto which an electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, may be emplaced for electrolysis, the reservoir formed by vertical containing surfaces (turned up borders), a horizontal anode (bottom of bipolar tray (7)) suspended above the horizontal cathode for physically engaging the electrolytic slurry for electrolysis; and a removing mechanism (overflow over turned up borders through holes (22 and 23) to tapping chamber (IV)) for removing from the horizontal cathode reservoir the end product resulting from electrolysis (Column 2, Lines 22-33; Column 5, Lines 6-12; Column 6, Line 75 to Column 7, Line 20; Figure 1).
As to claims 9 and 17, Varda teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 10. Varda further teaches that the apparatus comprises a slurry line (through holes (21)) for, indirectly, placing the electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, onto the horizontal cathode (Column 6, Lines 48 to 74; Figure 6).
As to claim 15, Varda teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Varda further teaches that the horizontal anode surface (bottom of bipolar tray (7)) is parallel to the horizontal cathode surface (top of adjacent bipolar tray (8)) and 50 mm above (Column 5, Lines 6-12; Column 8, Lines 16-18; Figure 1).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMonigle as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 4,416,746 to Kerby et al (Kerby).
As to claim 16, McMonigle teaches the apparatus of claim 10. McMonigle teaches that the apparatus comprises a power supply (Column 5, Lines 20-25). However, McMonigle fails to teach the specific power source or that the apparatus further comprises a power controller for controlling the current during electrolysis at one or more levels at one or more time periods. However, Kerby also discusses the electrolytic bipolar refining of lead (as in McMonigle) and teaches that the an effective power supply is a direct current supply that further comprises a power controller (programmer) for controlling the current during electrolysis at a variety of levels for time periods throughout the electrolysis in order to ensure stability and keep impurity content low (Column 5, Lines 3-25 and Line 55 to 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a DC power source in communication with a power controller in the apparatus of McMonigle in order to control the current and ensure stability while keeping impurity content low as taught by Kerby.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the gate forming part of the removing mechanism, in the electrolyzer as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794