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 Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 24 June 2025. Claims 33, 36, 40, 42, 49 and 52 are currently under consideration. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29 and 30 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37-39, 41, 43-48, 50 and 51 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 24 June 2025. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 28 March 2025 are withdrawn.
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 33, 36, 42, 49 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent Document No. RU 2 245 398 C1 to Kirko et al. (Kirko) in view of US 4,394,242 to Clark (Clark).
As to claims 33, 36 and 52, Kirko teaches a system comprising an electrolytic cell (Hall-Heroult electrolyzer) for the production of aluminum comprising an anode, a cathode and a molten salt electrolyte having a surface, thus a predetermined thickness (Paragraph 0002). Kirko teaches that, in order to ensure that no surface oscillations are present in the molten salt electrolyte over a period of operation, the system is provided with a device comprising an alternating current source, in electrical communication with the electrolytic cell, in that the AC energy is provided through the electrolyte of the electrolytic cell, the AC comprising an oscillatory current waveform with a predetermined amplitude selected based on the surface disruptions of the cell and a predetermined frequency (Paragraphs 0021, 0022, 00033, 0034, 0036). Kirko further teaches that the alternating current device is in feedback loop communication with the electrolytic cell, i.e. the alternating current amplitude is selected based on a signal received from the cell (Paragraph 0033). While a functional limitation, Kirko further teaches that the predetermined frequency is from about 0.05 to 0.1 Hz (Paragraph 0036).
However, Kirko is silent as to the power source for the actual electrolytic reaction and thus fails to teach a direct current source. However, Clark discusses typical Hall-Heroult aluminum electrolysis cells teaches that the power source is a DC power source (Column 3, Lines 41-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one o ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a DC power source for the electrolytic reaction power source of Kirko with the expectation of effectively producing electrolytic aluminum in the cell as taught by Clark. This DC power source would be capable of performing the functional language of “provide a direct current having a predetermined amplitude”. The AC device and the DC source of the combination would each be capable of being set to any number of predetermined amplitudes to meet the claimed ratio β. It is important to note that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further define apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 42, the combination of Kirko and Clark teaches the apparatus of claim 33. While the limitations of claim 42 refer to a function/result achieved by the apparatus of claim 33, nonetheless, Kirko specifically teaches that the AC feature allows for the reduction of the anode to cathode distance and a proportional increase in efficiency (gain in energy consumption) (Paragraph 0038).
As to claim 49, the combination of Kirko and Clark teaches the apparatus of claim 33. Kirko specifically teaches that a signal is received about the approach of oscillations (tied to the anode effect) to determine the alternating current supply, thus inherently some sort of controller for performing this signal measuring step, the oscillations a function of the DC and AC applied to the cell, the control unit in feedback commination with the device (for applying the AC) and the cell (for determining the AC needed) (Paragraph 0034).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kirko and Clark as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of US No. 2009/0055108 A1 to Molokov et al. (Molokov).
As to claim 40, the combination of Kirko and Clark teaches the apparatus of claim 33. Kirko specifically teach that the anode to cathode distance can be reduced as an advantage of the AC applied (Paragraph 0038); however, Kirko is silent to the electrolyte thickness. Molokov also discusses the application of alternating fields to stabilize waves in aluminum electrolysis cells, specifically teaching magnetic fields, and teaches that by utilizing stabilizing methods the external alternating current can be selected to stabilize cells with a reduced electrolyte thickness (depth) (Paragraphs 0038 and 0079-0083; Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the alternating field of the combination such that a reduced electrolyte thickness can be achieved, requiring less electrolyte material. Molokov teaches a specific example of 4.75 cm for the reduced electrolyte thickness, but merely cites this as an example (Paragraph 0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that based on the application of alternating current to allow for a slightly lower thickness of 4.5 cm or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kirko does not teach the limitation as claimed, particularly that the AC device is in electrical communication with the electrolytic cell, arguing that Kirko specifically teaches busbars that are not in electrical communication with the electrolytic cell. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that Kirko teaches control windings that are specifically laid in contact with the brickwork of the bath, and thus appropriately considered in electrical contact with the electrolytic cell while not electrically directly connected with the operating current of the electrolyzer (Paragraphs 0018 and 0019). Thus absent narrowing limitations, the Examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the limitations as claimed.
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached on 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794