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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kametani (US Patent no. 3,787,293).
Regarding claim 1, Kametani discloses a spacer plate for an electrowinning cell (col. 1, lines 3-8), comprising:
a body outlining sidewalls of an electrolyte chamber (10; figure 2; col. 9, lines 20-21), said body including an electrolyte inlet (17) and an electrolyte outlet (22; col. 11, lines 17-18); and
a flow restrictor (11) carried on said body, said flow restrictor (11) extending across said electrolyte chamber (10) and dividing said electrolyte chamber into a cathode compartment (12) and an anode compartment (13; col. 9, lines 46-51);
wherein said electrolyte inlet (17) is in communication with said cathode compartment (12) and said electrolyte outlet (22) is in communication with said anode compartment (13 – as shown in figure 2); whereby electrolyte delivered through the electrolyte inlet (17) flows through the cathode compartment (12) and across the flow restrictor (11) to the anode compartment (13) before being discharged through the electrolyte outlet (22; col. 13, lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 3, Kametani further teaches an inlet plenum (17) in said body extending across a first sidewall of the electrolyte chamber (10; figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kametani as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (WO 2017/144912).
Regarding claim 4, Kametani discloses all of the features discussed above, but fails to teach a plurality of inlet ports at the first sidewall of said electrolyte chamber whereby electrolyte flows from said electrolyte inlet through said electrolyte inlet plenum through said plurality of inlet ports into said cathode compartment.
Barker discloses a spacer plate for an electrolytic cell (abstract; description of figure 10 on page 25); the electrolytic cell comprising a plurality of inlet ports at the first sidewall of said electrolyte chamber whereby electrolyte flows from said electrolyte inlet through said electrolyte inlet plenum and then through said plurality of inlet ports into said cathode compartment (as shown in figures 3a-3c, 8; see also the description of figure 8 on pages 32-33. Multiple manifold designs can be used to give optimum electrolyte distribution in the cell. As indicated by the arrows in the figures, the electrolyte is delivered through inlet 101 on the left side of the cell, is distributed through the electrode compartments and the separator fences before being discharged through outlet 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a plurality of inlet ports at the first sidewall of the electrolyte chamber of Kametani because as taught by Barker, this arrangement gives optimum electrolyte distribution in the cell and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 5, Kametani further teaches an outlet plenum (22) in said body extending across a second sidewall of the electrolyte chamber (10; figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, the frame of Barker further includes a plurality of outlet ports (105; figures 3a-3c, 8) at the second sidewall of the electrolyte chamber whereby the electrolyte flows from the anode compartment through the plurality of outlet port and then through the outlet plenum to the electrolyte outlet (as shown in figures 3a-3c, 8; see also the description of figure 8 on pages 32-33. Multiple manifold designs can be used to give optimum electrolyte distribution in the cell. As indicated by the arrows in the figures, the electrolyte is delivered through inlet 101 on the left side of the cell, is distributed through the electrode compartments and the separator fences before being discharged through outlet 105).
Regarding claim 7, the first sidewall of Kametani is opposite the second sidewall (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kametani teaches a flow restrictor support (as shown in figure 2, the diaphragm/flow restrictor 11 is supported by walls 10 and 23) extending across said electrolyte chamber against a face of the flow restrictor (11) oriented toward the anode compartment (13) and supporting the flow restrictor (11) against flow pressure from the cathode compartment (12; col. 13, lines 13-25). Barker also discloses a flow restrictor support (beams 111 and pillars 112) extending across said electrolyte chamber against a face of the flow restrictor/separator fence (132) oriented toward the anode compartment and supporting the flow restrictor/separator fence (132) against flow pressure from the cathode compartment (as shown by arrows in figures 8, 9a-9b, 10a).
Regarding claim 9, the flow restrictor support (beams 111 and pillars 112) of Barker includes a plurality of apertures between a plurality of supports extending across the electrolyte chamber in a first direction between the first sidewall and the second sidewall and in a second direction between a third sidewall and a fourth sidewall opposite the third sidewall (figures 3a-3c; 9a-9b, 10a).
Claims 10-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kametani and Barker as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kirk et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2002/0100681).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kametani teaches all the features discussed above, but fails to disclose a first seal on a first side of said body extending around said electrolyte inlet, said inlet plenum and said cathode compartment.
Kirk discloses a spacer plate/separator frame (14) for an electrolytic cell comprising a body outlining sidewalls of an electrolyte chamber (the frames define anolyte and catholyte circulation chambers 22, 23, respectively; paragraph 81), said body including an electrolyte inlet (24) and an electrolyte outlet (26; paragraphs 81-82); and a first seal/O-ring (64) on a first side of said body extending around said electrolyte inlet (61), said inlet plenum (32) and said cathode compartment (paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide O-rings around the inlets of the modified Kametani, as taught by Kirk, in order to effectively prevent leakage of electrolytes even under small internal pressures (paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 11, Kirk teaches a second seal on a second side of said body extending around said electrolyte outlet (26), said outlet plenum (34) and said anode compartment (paragraphs 83, 86-89 – multiple O-rings are inserted into grooves of the frames and plates to provide electrolyte and gas sealing).
Regarding claim 12, Kirk further discloses a third seal on the first side of the body extending around the electrolyte outlet (paragraphs 83, 86-89 – multiple O-rings are inserted into grooves of the inlets and outlets of the frames and plates to provide electrolyte and gas sealing).
Regarding claim 13, Kirk teaches a fourth seal on the second side of the body extending around the electrolyte inlet (paragraphs 83, 86-89 – multiple O-rings are inserted into grooves of the inlets and outlets of the frames and plates to provide electrolyte and gas sealing).
Regarding claim 15, Kirk teaches wherein said body further includes a channel outlining said cathode compartment (the porous membrane 20 separates the anolyte circulation chamber 20 and the catholyte circulation chamber 23 to prevent intermixing of the gases formed on opposite sides; paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 16, Kirk further discloses a deformable band/O-ring pressed against the flow restrictor down into the channel in order to hold the flow restrictor in place (paragraphs 29, 87-90).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kametani, Barker and Kirk as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Benavides (US Patent no. 7,309,408).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kametani discloses all the features discussed above, but fails to teach a first support lug projecting from a first edge of the body and a second support lug projecting from a second edge of said body.
Benavides discloses an electrolysis cell stack comprising a first support lug (34; 35; figures 13-15) projecting from a first edge of the body of the electrodes and a second support lug (34; 35) projecting from a second edge of said body of the electrodes in order to lift them in a single operation (col. 10, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate support lugs to the body of the modified Kametani, as taught by Benavides, in order to lift the body in a single operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach “a flow restrictor extending across an electrolyte chamber and dividing said electrolyte chamber into a cathode compartment and an anode compartment and said electrolyte outlet is in communication with said anode compartment whereby electrolyte delivered through the electrolyte inlet flows through the cathode compartment and across the flow restrictor to the anode compartment before being discharged through the electrolyte outlet”, as claimed.
Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Kametani.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights