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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Visco, Chu, and Beddoes still apply but in modified form as necessitated by amendment. The Shah reference is no longer used. The arguments in view of Visco and Beddoes are moot since neither are used as anticipation rejections. The arguments do not address the modification of Visco to teach the amended limitations.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, 14, 20, 22, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visco (US 2014/0170465 A1). Chu (US 6,376,123 B1) is incorporated by reference in Visco.
Regarding claim 1, Visco discloses a cell comprising: an anode on a porous current collector, cathode on a porous current collector, and a separator between the anode and cathode directly surrounding the anode where the cathode surrounds the separator (paragraphs 147-152 and Figure 3C). Visco discloses the presence of seawater in the cell (paragraph 154). Visco discloses that a conductive layer 108 between the separator and the cathode (paragraph 100), thus precluding direct contact between the cathode and the separator (paragraph 5). However, Visco is explicit in recognizing the batteries without such a conductive layer exist (paragraph 8) and that the conductive layer serves as a protective layer (paragraph 9). According to MPEP 2144.04 II A, omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to not include the conductive layer of Visco where the function attributed to such a layer is not desired or required, such as in situations where the an interface layer will form as recognized by Visco (paragraph 10).
Regarding claims 2-4, Visco discloses that the cell is tubular with cylindrical electrodes (see Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 5, Visco discloses NASICON (paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 7, Visco discloses that the current collector is a nickel screen (paragraph 129). The Office considers a screen a foam.
Regarding claim 8, Visco discloses that the anode is comprised of aluminum (paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 9, Visco discloses that the anode is comprised of hard carbon (paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 10, Chu discloses carbon felt in the positive current collectors (column 18, line 52 to column 19, line 4).
Regarding claim 13, Visco discloses cell potential of 3.2 V (paragraph 156).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Visco discloses a plurality of cells (see Figure 3B).
Regarding claim 22, Chu discloses that the cells are in series (Examples 24).
Regarding claim 36, Visco discloses anode particles in anolyte solution (paragraph 105).
Regarding claim 37, Visco discloses a platinum mesh as the cathode (paragraph 157) and Chu discloses that the current collectors are steel mesh (column 13, lines 60-66).
Claims 11, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beddoes (US 2018/0030603 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Visco fails to disclose the claimed diameter. Beddoes—in an invention for an electrochemical cell utilizing seawater—discloses that the cell’s diameter is 23.8 mm (paragraph 157). Beddoes discloses scaling the cell to this size ranges for marine and offshore applications with seawater as feed, so that the liquid velocity in the gap in the axial direction can be on the order of 2.1 m/s, resulting in highly turbulent flow which reduces the potential for fouling and scaling on the electrode surfaces (paragraph 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to scale the cell of Visco to whatever size most effective as suggested by Beddoes. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 12, Beddoes discloses that the cell’s diameter is in the mm range (paragraph 157) but not its length. Changes in size/proportion and shape are not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A & B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the length of the cells whatever most effective given its functionality and proportions.
Regarding claim 15, Beddoes discloses that multiple cells progressively increase active area per unit volume (paragraph 207) but not specifically utilizing 10-500 cells. Duplication of parts is not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to increase the number of cells in Beddoes to increase the active surface area of the device as suggested in Beddoes.
Regarding claim 16, Beddoes discloses that the cells are connected in parallel (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 17, Beddoes discloses that the multi-cell is 450 Amps (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, Beddoes discloses that the cells are connected with a metallic hub (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 19, Beddoes discloses that that the cells have a staggered arrangement (see Figure 4).
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 24, Beddoes not disclose duplicating the battery. Duplication of parts is not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to increase the number of batteries to increase the overall output to whatever capacity or voltage desired.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights