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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the term “clogging suppression mechanism” is interpreted as any means to limit clogging of apparatus by mist, particles, debris, etc., generated during fluorine production. It is noted the instant specification describes a “clogging suppression mechanism” to include a pipe having a large diameter, an inclined pipe, a rotary screw, and an airflow generator, and these members in combination in [0020].
The term “clogging suppression mechanism” was not deemed to warrant an interpretation under 112(f). While “mechanism” can be considered a generic placeholder for the term “means”, and clogging suppression is the function of the mechanism, the presence of mist provides sufficient structure to the mechanism to arrive at the broad interpretation above and not limit the claims according to an interpretation under 112(f).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application. Claim 5 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0020]-[0023] of the instant specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Claim Objection previously set forth in the office action mailed 05/30/2025. Applicant’s amendment has introduced a new 112(b) rejection that is outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yao ‘092 requires the fluid is passed through a mist trap whereas the instant invention directs fluid to a second flow path that sends the fluid to a second outside area without passing through a mist removal unit if the water concentration in the fluid generated in the cathode chamber exceeds a predetermined threshold. Applicant argues Yao ‘092 passing the fluid through a mist removal unit is a modification that contradicts the teaching of the instant invention.
However, the prior art Yao ‘092 was applied to teach the “clogging suppression mechanism” required in claim 1. The rejection of 05/30/25 states “Yao ‘092 teaches in addition to a first flow path (15) comprising a mist trap (50a), a second main passage (30) can be provided that comprises a mist trap (50b) (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0035]). Yao ‘092 teaches the mist trap comprises a tubular housing with a diffusion section (57) that is an open space for roughly removing mist and microparticles prior to further treatment with a filler (56) comprising an adsorbent ([0040]-[0043]). Yao ‘092 teaching a second flow path that comprises a tubular arrangement with an enlarged open space (relative to the rest of the tubes, see Fig. 2) for removing mist and microparticles, meets the limitations required by the claim where the second flow path has a “clogging suppression mechanism.” As described above in the Claim Interpretation section, a pipe having a large diameter is considered to meet the limitation a “clogging suppression mechanism,” and the second flow path of Yao ‘092 comprising a tubular path with an open space is interpreted as a pipe (i.e. tube) with a large diameter (i.e. opening larger than inlet tube).”
It is noted Yao ‘092 describes second main passage comprising a mist trap and that the instant claims as of 11/26/2025 require the second flow path “send the flid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside but not through the mist removal unit”. However, as described in the previous action, the description in Yao ‘092 of the “mist trap” as a tubular arrangement with an enlarged open space relative to the rest of the tubes is consistent with the instantly claimed “clogging suppression mechanism” being at least “a pipe having a large diameter than a pipe of the first flow path.” Accordingly, Yao ‘092 meets the limitation of the “clogging suppression mechanism”. Additionally, Yao ‘092 does not teach additional mist filters, clogging suppression mechanisms, etc. outside of the enlarged pipe open space mist trap in the second flow path and as such does not contradict the method as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the final paragraph states “wherein the clogging suppression mechanism includes a pipe having a larger diameter than a pipe of the first flow path, an inclined pipe, a rotary screw, and an airflow generator, or combination thereof”. It is unclear if the clogging suppression mechanism is required to be selected from the group consisting of “a pipe having a larger diameter than a pipe of the first flow path, an inclined pipe, a rotary screw, and an airflow generator,” or if the clogging suppression mechanism can be any single one of those options as the phrase “or combination thereof” suggests. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the phrase was interpreted according to the latter, where the clogging suppression mechanism could be any one or a combination of “a pipe having a larger diameter than a pipe of the first flow path, an inclined pipe, a rotary screw, and an airflow generator.” See at least [0020] for support of this interpretation.
Claims 2-8 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘471 et al. (US20130032471A1; included in IDS dated 1 February 2022) in view of Yao ‘092 et al. (US20150292092A1; included in IDS dated 1 February 2022). Hereafter, Yao ‘471 et al. (US20130032471A1) is referred to as Yao ‘471 and Yao ‘092 et al. (US20150292092A1) is referred to as Yao ‘092.
Regarding claim 1, Yao ‘471 teaches a process for generating fluorine gas by electrolysis of a molten salt containing hydrogen fluoride and potassium fluoride in an electrolytic cell which includes an anode and a cathode ([0019]-[0020]), where the generated fluorine gas is separated from the cell ([0018]). Yao ‘471 teaches the moisture concentration is measured, where when measuring the moisture concentration a reference concentration is used to determine if the process continues and/or if the moisture should be redirected ([0062]-[0068]). Yao ‘471 further teaches the moisture, which is brought into the supply from the raw material supply (40) through supply line (41) and which is present in the molten salt in the electrolytic cell (1), is monitored in a controller (59) via supply line (58) which exists outside of the electrolytic cell (Fig. 1; [0052]-[0053]). Yao ‘471 teaches the reference concentration is 500 wt. ppm, which is equivalent to 0.0500 % by volume, since the density of water is 1.0 g/mL, making mass and volume percentages equivalent. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yao ‘471 (reference concentration is 500 wt. ppm (i.e. 0.0500% by volume)) overlaps with the claimed range (predetermined reference value is a numerical value of 0.01 % by volume or more and 0.09% by volume or less). Therefore, the range in Yao ‘471 renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires sending a fluid through a “first flow path having a mist removal unit that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell through the mist removal unit,” to which Yao ‘471 is silent.
Yao ‘092 teaches a method of producing fluorine gas that includes a mist trap that removes mist and microparticles that are produced following electrolysis of hydrogen fluoride in an electrolytic bath formed of a molten salt (Abstract; [0006]-[0012]). Advantageously, including a mist trap following the electrolysis of hydrogen fluoride in a molten bath allows for capturing mist and microparticles in an efficient space while alleviating the need to performing washing down of pipes that become clogged by molten salt particles exiting the reactor ([0011]-[0014; [0018]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a mist trap following the electrolysis of hydrogen fluoride in a molten bath in the method of Yao ‘471 in order to remove mist and microparticles generated during the process to prevent clogging of the apparatus for performing the method, as taught by Yao ‘092.
The claim further requires the second flow path “has a clogging suppression mechanism that suppresses the clogging of the second flow path with mist,” to which Yao ‘471 is silent.
Yao ‘092 teaches in addition to a first flow path (15) comprising a mist trap (50a), a second main passage (30) can be provided that comprises a mist trap (50b) (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0035]). Yao ‘092 teaches the mist trap comprises a tubular housing with a diffusion section (57) that is an open space for roughly removing mist and microparticles prior to further treatment with a filler (56) comprising an adsorbent ([0040]-[0043]). Yao ‘092 teaching a second flow path that comprises a tubular arrangement with an enlarged open space (relative to the rest of the tubes, see Fig. 2) for removing mist and microparticles, meets the limitations required by the claim where the second flow path has a “clogging suppression mechanism.” As described above in the Claim Interpretation section, a pipe having a large diameter is considered to meet the limitation a “clogging suppression mechanism,” and the second flow path of Yao ‘092 comprising a tubular path with an open space is interpreted as a pipe (i.e. tube) with a large diameter (i.e. opening larger than inlet tube). Additionally, Yao ‘092 does not teach additional mist filters, clogging suppression mechanisms, etc. outside of the enlarged pipe open space mist trap in the second flow path (30) and as such does not path the fluid through a mist removal unit and meets the claim limitation “the fluid is sent to a second flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside but not through the mist removal unit when the water concentration is more than the predetermined reference value.”
Advantageously, providing a second flow path with a mist trap that comprises a tubular housing allows for the removal of mist and microparticles from molten salts used in fluorine production without requiring large-scale devises such as temperature-regulating mechanisms of piping, additional waste liquid tanks, and the like ([0018]; [0051]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second flow path that comprises a tubular path with an open space in the method of Yao ‘471 in order to further removing mist and microparticles from the flow in order to avoid larger-scale means such as temperature-regulating mechanisms of piping, additional waste liquid tanks, and the like, as taught by Yao ‘092.
Regarding claim 2, Yao ‘471 teaches the metal of the metal fluoride is potassium ([0019]).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Yao ‘471 teaches the electrolytic cell (1) is divided by a partition wall (6) immersed in the molten salt to an anode chamber (11) and a cathode chamber (12). Yao ‘471 teaches a product gas mainly containing fluorine gas is generated at the anode (7), where above the liquid level of the molten salt in the electrolytic cell is a first chamber (11a) into which the fluorine gas is introduced ([0019]-[0020]; Fig. 1). The fluorine gas release space (11a) located directly above the molten salt liquid level (dashed line) in Yao ‘471 Fig. 1, annotated below, meets the limitation “the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or the cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte.”
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘471 et al. (US20130032471A1; included in IDS dated 1 February 2022) in view of Yao et al. (US20150292092A1; included in IDS dated 1 February 2022) and further in view of Tao et al. (US20100252425A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Yao ‘471 teaches the anode used in the electrolytic cell is a carbon electrode ([0020]).
The claims further require the carbon electrode is formed from “at least one carbon material selected from the group consisting of diamond, diamond-like carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, and glassy carbon,” to which Yao ‘471 is silent.
Tao teaches a carbonaceous electrode for fluorine-producing electrolysis that takes place on conductive diamond having a diamond structure which advantageously provides stable operation of the electrolytic cell for a long time ([0008]; Abstract; [0023]; [0013]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon-based electrode with a diamond structure in the process of Yao ‘471 in order to provide stable operation of the electrolytic cell for a long time as taught by Tao.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yao ‘471 teaches the method for producing fluorine of claim 1 and 3 and Yao ‘471 further teaches the electrolytic cell (1) is divided by a partition wall (6) immersed in the molten salt to an anode chamber (11) and a cathode chamber (12). Yao ‘471 teaches a product gas mainly containing fluorine gas is generated at the anode (7), where above the liquid level of the molten salt in the electrolytic cell is a first chamber (11a) into which the fluorine gas is introduced ([0019]-[0020]; Fig. 1). The fluorine gas release space (11a) located directly above the molten salt liquid level (dashed line) in Yao ‘471 Fig. 1, see annotated for claims 4 and 7 rejection, meets the limitation “the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or the cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738