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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are maintained and are updated in response to the Applicant’s amendments.
No new art is cited.
New grounds of rejection are presented for the new amendments and newly added claim 9.
Claims 1-9 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a current efficiency measurement unit configured to measure a current efficiency of fluorine gas production during the electrolysis” in claim 5. The limitation contains a generic placeholder (“current efficiency measurement unit”) modified by functional language (“configured to measure a current efficiency of fluorine gas production during the electrolysis”) without any structural modifications.
“a flow path switching unit configured to switch the flow path in which the fluids flows” in claim 5. The limitation contains a generic placeholder (“flow path switching unit”) modified by functional language (“configured to switch the flow path in which the fluids flows”) without any structural modifications.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “current efficiency measurement unit configured to measure a current efficiency of fluorine gas production during the electrolysis” is described as the following in the instant specification (see [0056]):
The current efficiency measurement unit 38 may have any structure. The current efficiency measurement unit 38, for example, has a structure capable of measuring the current efficiency by the above titration. In other words, the current efficiency measurement unit 38 may include an inert gas supply unit (not illustrated) for supplying an inert gas such as nitrogen gas into the anode chamber 22 of the electrolytic cell 11 at a certain flow rate, a titration unit (not illustrated) in which a mixed gas containing fluorine gas and an inert gas discharged from the anode chamber 22 of the electrolytic cell 11 is sampled, then the sampled mixed gas is allowed to pass through an aqueous potassium iodide solution for a certain period of time to make the aqueous potassium iodide solution absorb the fluorine gas in the mixed gas, and iodine released from the aqueous potassium iodide solution is titrated, and a calculation unit (not illustrated) for calculating the current efficiency of fluorine gas production during electrolysis from the flow rate of an inert gas from the inert gas supply unit, the titration result by the titration unit (the amount of the actually formed fluorine gas), and the current value during the electrolysis
The “flow path switching unit configured to switch the flow path in which the fluids flows” is described as being “a flow path switching unit (for example, a switching valve)” in [0045] of the instant specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation claiming “...during the current efficiency is less than the predetermined reference value...” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-8 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.
Claims 1: The wording of the following limitations makes the claim unclear (underlined portions included to emphasize issues):
…such that the fluid is sent to a first mist removal unit on a first flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a first outside when the electric energy measured in the measuring an current efficiency is not less than a predetermined reference value, after the fluid is not sent to the first unit but sent to a second flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a second outside during the current efficiency is less than the predetermined reference value from the start of electrolysis to stable electrolysis…
It is unclear if the step of “the fluid is not sent to the first unit but sent to a second flow path” is meant to come before or after the step of “the fluid is sent to a first mist removal unit on a first flow path…” Given the language used, it would make logical sense that the fluid would be sent to the first removal unit before the second removal unit. However, in the arguments, it appears that applicant is arguing that the fluid flows to the second removal unit first. The use of “after” in the claim has multiple interpretations making the claim unclear.
Any claim dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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) 1, 2, and 5 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 1: Pernice discloses a method for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of Pernice), the fluorine gas being produced by electrolyzing an electrolyte (see e.g. [0010]) containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride (“KF and HF”, see e.g. [0010]), the method comprising:
electrolyzing the electrolyte in an electrolytic cell (see e.g. [0020] and #2 on Fig 2 and Fig 3);
measuring a current efficiency of fluorine gas production in the electrolyzing (see e.g. [0015] and #5 on Fig 2 and Fig 3); 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 (see e.g. [0066]),
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 (“…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]),
such that the fluid is sent to a first flow path that sends the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to a first outside through a mist removal unit (scrubber #7, see e.g. [0056]) when the current efficiency measured in the measuring a current efficiency is not less than a predetermined reference value (see e.g. [0056] and #9 on Fig 2 and Fig 3),
after, 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 (mist removal unit is #7) when the current efficiency is less than the predetermined reference value (see e.g. [0014], [0056], and #8 on Fig 2 and Fig 3) 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]), 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]).
Pernice does not explicitly teach that the second flow pass includes a clogging suppression mechanism, wherein 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 method of Pernice 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: Pernice in view of Hart discloses the metal fluoride is a fluoride of potassium (see e.g. [0010]).
Claim 5: Pernice discloses a device (“an apparatus”, see e.g. abstract), the device comprising:
an electrolytic cell storing the electrolyte (see e.g. [0020]);
a current efficiency measurement unit configured to measure a current efficiency of fluorine gas production during the electrolysis (see e.g. [0011]); 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 (see e.g. [0022]);
a mist removal unit (scrubber, see e.g. #7 on Fig 2 and 3 and [0056]), 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 (see e.g. [0056] and #9 on Fig 2 and Fig 3) through the mist removal unit (see e.g. #7 on Fig 2 and 3 and [0056]), and
a second flow path configured to send 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 the mist removal unit (see e.g. #7 on Fig 2 and 3 and [0056]), 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,
the flow path switching unit (see e.g. [0035]) is configured to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to the first flow path when the current efficiency measured by the current efficiency measurement unit is not less than a predetermined reference value, or to send the fluid from the inside of the electrolytic cell to the second flow path when the current efficiency is less than the 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]) 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]), 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]).
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 method of Pernice 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.
The limitations of the preamble claiming the device is “for producing fluorine gas, the fluorine gas being produced by electrolysis of an electrolyte containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride” is an intended use for the device. MPEP § 2111.02 II states ‘If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)’. Pernice in view of Hart teaches all of the positively recited structure for the device and thus anticipates the limitations the preamble which are not structurally limiting. Furthermore, Pernice discloses the device produces fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract of Pernice), the fluorine gas being produced by electrolysis of an electrolyte (see e.g. [0010]) containing hydrogen fluoride and a metal fluoride (“KF and HF”, see e.g. [0010]).
The limitation claiming the electrolytic cell is “configured to perform the electrolysis” is an intended use/function for the cell. MPEP § 2114 II states ‘"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)’. Pernice in view of Hart teaches all of the positively recited structure for the electrolytic cell and thus anticipates this limitation. Furthermore, Pernice discloses the electrolytic cell performs electrolysis (see e.g. [0020]).
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]).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernice in view of Hart, and in further view of Tasaka et al (US 20100193371 A1).
Claim 3: Pernice in view of Hart discloses an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode (see e.g. [0021] of Pernice). Pernice does not explicitly teach that 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. As Pernice does not specify a type of carbon material the anode should be made of, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find a suitable specific carbon material for the anode.
Tasaka teaches an anode for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract and [0032]) comprising glassy carbon and diamond (see e.g. [0030]), which prevents the anode effect, electrode wear, and electrode disintegration when electrolyzing HF (see e.g. [0030]). 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 Pernice by selecting the glassy carbon and diamond for the material of the carbon anode because this anode prevents the anode effect, electrode wear, and electrode disintegration when electrolyzing HF.
Claim 6: Pernice in view of Hart discloses an anode used in the electrolyzing is a carbonaceous electrode (see e.g. [0021] of Pernice). Pernice does not explicitly teach that 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. As Pernice does not specify a type of carbon material the anode should be made of, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find a suitable specific carbon material for the anode.
Tasaka teaches an anode for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. abstract and [0032]) comprising glassy carbon and diamond (see e.g. [0030]), which prevents the anode effect, electrode wear, and electrode disintegration when electrolyzing HF (see e.g. [0030]). 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 Pernice by selecting the glassy carbon and diamond for the material of the carbon anode because this anode prevents the anode effect, electrode wear, and electrode disintegration when electrolyzing HF.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernice in view of Hart, and in further view of Maekawa et al (US 20100126875 A1).
Claim 4: Pernice in view of Hart does not explicitly teach that 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. As Pernice does not require the use a specific type of cell, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find a suitable cell configuration. The gas generated in the cell of Pernice is a stream separated from the bulk of the electrolyte (see e.g. [0022]). Maekawa discloses an electrolyzer for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. [0029]) that is separated from the bulk of the electrolyte (see e.g. #2A and #2B on Fig 1), which has a structure where 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 (see e.g. [0078] and #8a and #8b on Fig 1). This configuration results in ”the current density per unit area of the electrode [becoming] uniform over a long period of time and the desired gases can be effectively obtained by electrolysis” (see e.g. [0102]). 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 Pernice to incorporate the structure of Maekawa such that 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 because this configuration has a uniform current density per unit area of the electrode.
Claim 7: Pernice in view of Hart does not explicitly teach that 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. As Pernice does not require the use a specific type of cell, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find a suitable cell configuration. The gas generated in the cell of Pernice is a stream separated from the bulk of the electrolyte (see e.g. [0022]). Maekawa discloses an electrolyzer for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. [0029]) that is separated from the bulk of the electrolyte (see e.g. #2A and #2B on Fig 1), which has a structure where 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 (see e.g. [0078] and #8a and #8b on Fig 1). This configuration results in ”the current density per unit area of the electrode [becoming] uniform over a long period of time and the desired gases can be effectively obtained by electrolysis” (see e.g. [0102]). 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 Pernice to incorporate the structure of Maekawa such that 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 because this configuration has a uniform current density per unit area of the electrode.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernice in view of Hart and Tasaka as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Maekawa.
Claim 8: Pernice in view of Hart and Tasaka does not explicitly teach that 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. As Pernice does not require the use a specific type of cell, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find a suitable cell configuration. The gas generated in the cell of Pernice is a stream separated from the bulk of the electrolyte (see e.g. [0022]). Maekawa discloses an electrolyzer for producing fluorine gas (see e.g. [0029]) that is separated from the bulk of the (see e.g. #2A and #2B on Fig 1), which has a structure where 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 (see e.g. [0078] and #8a and #8b on Fig 1). This configuration results in ”the current density per unit area of the electrode [becoming] uniform over a long period of time and the desired gases can be effectively obtained by electrolysis” (see e.g. [0102]). 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 Pernice to incorporate the structure of Maekawa such that 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 because this configuration has a uniform current density per unit area of the electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 7, the Applicant argues that Pernice does not disclose that “a mist with a relatively large average particle size is generated” “from immediately after the start of electrolysis until stable electrolysis is achieved”. This is not considered persuasive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed above in the 35 USC 112(b) section of the Office Action, there is ambiguity with the order of the steps for the “in the sending” step of the claim. Furthermore, there are no limitations related to particle sizes.
On page(s) 7, the Applicant argues “Pernice neither teaches nor suggests switching of flow paths during the periods from immediately after the start of electrolysis until stable electrolysis is achieved and after stable electrolysis is achieved”. This is not considered persuasive. Pernice discloses that the flow paths are controlled (see e.g. [0019]) from the start of electrolysis (see e.g. [0010]) to stable electrolysis and after stable (stable electrolysis being the condition in which anode burn is not occurring, see e.g. [0012]; [0067]).
On page(s) 7, the Applicant argues “Pernice…teaches that the switching is based on the amount of fluorine gas measured using FTIR and/or UV…[and] does not teach or suggesting switching based on the current efficiency”. This is not considered persuasive. Pernice discloses measuring the current (“As to the current efficiency measurements, it is essential to know the current put into the electrolysis during a time period”, see e.g. [0015]) and that the switching is based on a threshold value of the current efficiency (see e.g. [0015]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights