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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 10/2/25 is acknowledged. Claims 25-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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. Claim s 1 - 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Visco (US 2014/0170465 A1) . Chu (US 6,376,123 B1) is incorporated by reference in Visco. Regarding claims 1 and 6, 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 surrounding the anode (paragraphs 147-152 and Figure 3C). Visco discloses the presence of seawater in the cell (paragraph 154). Regarding claim s 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). Claim s 1 , 11, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Beddoes (US 2018/0030603 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Beddoes discloses a cell comprising: radially extending electrodes with a separator between the anode and cathode, wherein the electrodes have current collectors in the form of rigid metals (paragraph 215). Beddoes discloses the presence of seawater (paragraph 20). Regarding claim 11, Beddoes discloses that the cell’s diameter is 23.8 mm (paragraph 157). Regarding claim 1 4 , Beddoes discloses an apparatus with 3-5 tubes (paragraph 207). Regarding claim 1 6 , Beddoes discloses that they are connected in parallel (paragraph 27). Regarding claim 1 7 , Beddoes discloses that the multi-cell is 450 Amps (see Table 1). Regarding claim 1 8 , Beddoes discloses that the cells are connected with a metallic hub (paragraph 46). Regarding claim 1 9 , Beddoes discloses that that the cells have a staggered arrangement (see Figure 4). Claim s 1, 14, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah (US 4,198,474) . Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Shah discloses a module comprising: a plurality of cells forming a plurality of modules, each cell comprising a tubular anode, cathode, and separator between (column 4, lines 19-44). Shah discloses anode and cathode plates (column 3, lines 8-23) which are considered current collectors. Shah discloses the presence of seawater (column 1, lines 14-34). Regarding claim 22 , Shah discloses that the cells are connected in series (column 3, lines 8-22). 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 s 12 , 15, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beddoes as applied to claim s 1 and 14 above . 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 1 5 , Beddoes discloses th at 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 claims 20, 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3241 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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