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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
08/17/2026.
Status of Rejections
The rejections of claims 1-8 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-9 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17615485 (referred to as 485 herein. Notice of Allowance for this Application was mailed 08/18/2026 but the patent has not been published yet) in view of Pernice et al (US 20120228144 A1) and of Hart et al (US 20120181182 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1: Claim 1 of 485 claims a method for producing fluorine gas, the fluorine gas being produced by electrolyzing an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride (“A method for producing fluorine gas, the fluorine gas being produced by electrolyzing an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride”), the method comprising:
electrolyzing the electrolyte in an electrolytic cell (“electrolyzing the electrolyte in an electrolytic cell”);
measuring an electrical property of fluorine gas production in the electrolyzing (“measuring an electric energy accumulated after the electrolyte is placed in the electrolytic cell, and the electrolyzing is started”); and
sending a fluid generated in an inside of the electrolytic cell in the electrolyzing the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell through a flow path (“sending a fluid generated in an anode chamber in the electrolytic cell in the electrolyzing the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell through a flow path”), wherein
in the sending, the flow path in which the fluid flows is switched in accordance with the current efficiency measured in the measuring a current efficiency, such that the fluid is sent to a second flow path having a clogging suppression mechanism, during a period from start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis, when the current efficiency measured is less than a predetermined reference value, subsequently the fluid is sent to a first flow path having a mist removal unit after the electrolysis becomes stable and the current efficiency measured is not less than the predetermined reference value (“wherein in the sending, the flow path in which the fluid flows is switched in accordance with the electric energy measured in the measuring an electric energy, such that the fluid is sent to a second flow path having a clogging suppression mechanism, during a period from start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis, when the measured amount of electric enemy supplied is less than the predetermined reference value, and subsequently, the fluid is sent to a first flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a first outside after the electrolysis becomes stable and the electric enemy measured is not less than the predetermined reference value”), and
485 does not explicitly claim that the measured electrical property of the fluorine gas production in the electrolyzing is current efficiency. Pernice discloses a method for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of Pernice), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Pernice teaches that measuring the current efficiency allows the user to detect short circuits (see e.g. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to measure the current efficiency to detect short circuits. Additionally, Pernice teaches that the reference value used for the current efficiency is a value that overlaps with the range a numerical value of 50% or more (“a
decrease of the measured fluorine content being more than 0.1 vol %, [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to use the reference value taught in Pernice when using the current efficiency measurement.
485 does not explicitly claim that the clogging suppression mechanism is a pipe having a larger diameter than the first flow path, a pipe that is inclined relative to a horizontal direction and extends downward from an upstream side to a downstream side, rotary screw, an airflow generator or a combination thereof. Hart teaches an electrolytic apparatus for generating fluorine (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Hart’s apparatus includes a clogging suppression mechanism comprising an airflow generator (“purge gas source”) that is capable of purging the cell, blowout clogged pipes, and improve functionality of pipes (see e.g. [0027]: “A purge gas source 48 (as shown in FIG. 2), such as nitrogen for example, may be connected to the anode chamber 17 and/or the cathode chamber 18 (not shown) of the electrolytic cell to provide for a purge of the electrolytic cell for safety reasons or to provide a blow-out means for clogged pipes or to otherwise provide for the proper functioning of the inlet and outlet tubes and pipes and other instrumentation”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 by including the airflow generator of Hart as a safety means capable of purging the cell, blowout clogged pipes, and improve functionality of pipes. As the airflow generator is designed to prevent all the pipes in the system functioning correctly, it would be considered a part of the second flow pass.
Claim 2: Claim 2 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims the metal fluoride is a fluoride of at least one metal selected from the group consisting of potassium, cesium, rubidium, and lithium (485: “the metal fluoride is a fluoride of at least one metal selected from the group consisting of potassium, cesium, rubidium, and lithium”).
Claim 3: Claim 3 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode formed from at least one carbon material selected from the group consisting of diamond, diamond-like carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, and glassy carbon (485: “an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode formed from at least one carbon material selected from the group consisting of diamond, diamond-like carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, and glassy carbon”).
Claim 4: Claim 4 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte (485: “the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte”).
Claim 5: Claim 5 of 485 claims a device for producing fluorine gas (“A device for producing fluorine gas”), the fluorine gas being produced by electrolysis of an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride (”the fluorine gas being produced by electrolysis of an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride”), the device comprising:
an electrolytic cell storing the electrolyte and configured to perform the electrolysis (“the device comprising: an electrolytic cell storing the electrolyte and configured to perform the electrolysis”);
an electrical property measurement unit configured to measure an electrical property of fluorine gas production during the electrolysis (“an electric energy measurement unit configured to measure an electric energy accumulated after the electrolyte is placed in the electrolytic cell, and the electrolysis is started”); and
a flow path configured to send a fluid generated in an inside of the electrolytic cell during the electrolysis of the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell (“a flow path configured to send a fluid generated in an inside of the electrolytic cell during the electrolysis of the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell”); and
a mist removal unit (“wherein the flow path includes a first flow path having a first mist removal unit”), wherein
the flow path includes a first flow path configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a first outside through the mist removal unit and a second flow path configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside but not through the mist removal unit and includes a flow path switching unit configured to switch the flow path in which the fluid flows, to the first flow path or the second flow path in accordance with the current efficiency measured by the current efficiency measurement unit (“wherein the flow path includes a first flow path having a first mist removal unit, the first flow path is configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a first outside, and a second flow path having a clogging suppression mechanism, the second flow path is configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside, a third flow path having a second mist removal unit configured to remove mist and hydrogen fluoride contained in a fluid gas generated in a cathode chamber in the electrolyte cell to an atmosphere”),
the flow path switching unit is configured to send the fluid to the second flow path having a clogging suppression mechanism, during a period from start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis, when the current efficiency measured by the current efficiency measurement unit is less than a predetermined reference value, and subsequently the fluid sent to first flow path having a mist removal unit after the electrolysis becomes stable when the current efficiency measured by the current efficiency measurement unit is not less than the predetermined reference value (“a flow path switching unit configured to switch the flow path in which the fluid flows, to the first flow path or the second flow path in accordance with the electric energy measured by the electric energy measurement unit, the flow path switching unit is configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to the second flow path when the electric energy is less than the predetermined reference value during a period from start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis, or to send the fluid to the first flow path when the electric energy measured by the electric enemy measurement unit is not less than a predetermined reference value after the electrolysis becomes stable”).
485 does not explicitly claim that the measured electrical property of the fluorine gas production in the electrolyzing is current efficiency. Pernice discloses a method for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of Pernice), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Pernice teaches that measuring the current efficiency allows the user to detect short circuits (see e.g. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to measure the current efficiency to detect short circuits. Additionally, Pernice teaches that the reference value used for the current efficiency is a value that overlaps with the range a numerical value of 50% or more (“a
decrease of the measured fluorine content being more than 0.1 vol %, [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to use the reference value taught in Pernice when using the current efficiency measurement.
485 does not explicitly claim that the clogging suppression mechanism is a pipe having a larger diameter than the first flow path, a pipe that is inclined relative to a horizontal direction and extends downward from an upstream side to a downstream side, rotary screw, an airflow generator or a combination thereof. Hart teaches an electrolytic apparatus for generating fluorine (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Hart’s apparatus includes a clogging suppression mechanism comprising an airflow generator (“purge gas source”) that is capable of purging the cell, blowout clogged pipes, and improve functionality of pipes (see e.g. [0027]: “A purge gas source 48 (as shown in FIG. 2), such as nitrogen for example, may be connected to the anode chamber 17 and/or the cathode chamber 18 (not shown) of the electrolytic cell to provide for a purge of the electrolytic cell for safety reasons or to provide a blow-out means for clogged pipes or to otherwise provide for the proper functioning of the inlet and outlet tubes and pipes and other instrumentation”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 by including the airflow generator of Hart as a safety means capable of purging the cell, blowout clogged pipes, and improve functionality of pipes. As the airflow generator is designed to prevent all the pipes in the system functioning correctly, it would be considered a part of the second flow pass.
Claim 6: Claim 6 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode formed from at least one carbon material selected from the group consisting of diamond, diamond-like carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, and glassy carbon (485: “an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode formed from at least one carbon material selected from the group consisting of diamond, diamond-like carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, and glassy carbon”).
Claim 7: Claim 7 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte (485: “the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte”).
Claim 8: Claim 8 of 485 in view of Pernice and Hart claims the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte (485: “the electrolytic cell has a structure in which bubbles generated on the anode or a cathode used in the electrolyzing are capable of rising vertically in the electrolyte to reach a surface of the electrolyte”).
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 17615485 (referred to as 485 herein. Notice of Allowance for this Application was mailed 08/18/2026 but the patent has not been published yet) in view of Pernice et al (US 20120228144 A1).This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9: Claim 9 of 485 claims a method for producing fluorine gas (“A method for producing fluorine gas”) comprising:
electrolyzing an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride in an electrolytic cell (“electrolyzing an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride in an electrolytic cell”);
measuring an electrical property of fluorine gas production from the start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis (“measuring an electric energy accumulated during electrolysis of the electrolyte in the electrolytic cell”);
sending a fluid generated in an inside of the electrolytic cell in the electrolyzing the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell through a first flow path to a first mist removal unit if the current efficiency is not less than a predetermined reference value (“sending a fluid generated in an anode chamber in the electrolytic cell in the electrolyzing the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell through a second flow path having a clogging suppression mechanism if the electric energy measured is less than the determined reference value during a period from the start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis”); and
switching to sending the fluid to a second flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside but not through a mist removal unit if the current efficiency is less than the predetermined reference value (“switching to sending the fluid a first flow path if the electric energy measured is less than the determined reference value after the electrolysis becomes stable”), and
485 does not explicitly claim that the measured electrical property of the fluorine gas production in the electrolyzing is current efficiency. Pernice discloses a method for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of Pernice), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Pernice teaches that measuring the current efficiency allows the user to detect short circuits (see e.g. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to measure the current efficiency to detect short circuits. Additionally, Pernice teaches that the reference value used for the current efficiency is a value that overlaps with the range a numerical value of 50% or more (“a
decrease of the measured fluorine content being more than 0.1 vol %, [0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the claim of 485 to use the reference value taught in Pernice when using the current efficiency measurement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found
in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Pernice et al (US 20120228144 A1) in view of Hart et al (US 20120181182 A1).
Claim 9: Pernice discloses a method for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of
Pernice) comprising:
electrolyzing an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride in
an electrolytic cell (“KF and HF”, see e.g. [0010]);
measuring a current efficiency of fluorine gas production (see e.g. [0015]) from
the start of electrolysis (see e.g. [0010]) to stable electrolysis (stable electrolysis being
the condition in which anode burn is not occurring, see e.g. [0012]; [0067]);
sending a fluid generated in an inside of the electrolytic cell in the electrolyzing
the electrolyte, from the inside to an outside of the electrolytic cell through a first flow
path to a first mist removal unit (see e.g. [0066]) if the current efficiency is not less than
a predetermined reference value (“…the cell is kept producing fluorine in this manner
(with destruction or purification of the produced impure fluorine)”, “When the current
efficiency decreases in the fluorine generating cell said fluorine generating cell can be separated from the line delivering produced F2. The…cell may be kept operating and
the F2 produced can be discarded until F2 is produced regularly” and “independently
measuring current efficiency of fluorine generating cell 2, a particle filter 4, a system 7
for treating or purifying fluorine produced, a system 8 for treating or purifying impure
fluorine gas and then collecting the same”, see e.g. [0014], [0015] and [0055]); and
switching to sending the fluid to a second flow path that sends the fluid from the
inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside (see e.g. [0014], [0056], and #8 on Fig
2 and Fig 3) but not through a mist removal unit (the mist removal unit is #7) if the
current efficiency is less than the predetermined reference value (see e.g. [0014], [0015]
and [0055]), and
the predetermined reference value is a numerical value of 50% or more (“a
decrease of the measured fluorine content being more than 0.1 vol %, [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/08/2026 with respect to claims 1-8 rejected under 35 USC 104 over Pernice have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
