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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant has argued that Iwamoto fails to disclose “the cathode and the anode positioned directly in the ocean such that movement of the system through the ocean imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and the anode” (see p. 7 of Remarks dated 12/22/2025). As an initial comment, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require the cathode and the anode being positioned “directly” in the ocean; rather, claim 1 as worded in the most recent amendments dated 12/22/2025 requires “the cathode and the anode positioned in the ocean such that movement of the system through the ocean imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and the anode”.
Iwamoto meets the limitation of the cathode and the anode being positioned in the ocean, because Iwamoto discloses wherein the treatment container, which comprises the cathode and anode, is positioned in the ocean (“submerged in water to utilize ocean current, and have the seawater 7 flow through the interior of the electrolytic treatment container”, para. 33).
Furthermore, in disclosing that the system “utilize[s] ocean current” to have “the seawater 7 flow through the interior of the electrolytic treatment container” (para. 33), Iwamoto clearly anticipates the functional limitation of imposing forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and the anode. Specifically, Iwamoto discloses that ocean water “flows” through the treatment container when it is submerged in the ocean, past the cathode and anode, such that products of an electrochemical reaction are transported via the flow of the ocean water (para. 32-33, 45-52) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4). Thus, the flow of ocean water through the treatment container is necessarily imposing forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode.
The Examiner acknowledges that Iwamoto does not expressly teach that it is movement of the system through the ocean that imposes these forced convection conditions, as recited in the amendments to claims 1 and 16, respectively. However, Iwamoto clearly anticipates submerging the system within the ocean to utilize ocean current, and furthermore it would have been obvious to modify the system disclosed by Iwamoto to be moveable through the ocean to impose the forced convection conditions, based on the teachings of the prior art, as will be discussed in further detail in the modified grounds of rejection below.
The claim amendments have overcome the previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The claim amendments dated 12/22/2025 have necessitated a modified grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0180400) (already of record) in view of Hasvold (US Patent 5,405,717).
Regarding claim 1, Iwamoto et al. discloses an ocean iron fertilization system for electrochemically controlled release of iron in an ocean to stimulate growth of phytoplankton to increase CO2 sequestration by the ocean (para. 23) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4), comprising:
a cathode (11) (para. 37) submerged in the ocean (para. 33);
an iron anode (9) (para. 39) submerged in the ocean (para. 33) spaced apart from the cathode (Fig. 1); and
a power supply unit connected to the cathode and the anode for driving electric current between the cathode and the anode (para. 37) such that the anode generates oxygen (para. 58) and ferrous iron through electrolysis to be released into the ocean (para. 39) (Fig. 1), and the cathode produces hydrogen (para. 40) and hydroxide (para. 46) species through an electrochemical reaction at the cathode (Fig. 1);
wherein the cathode and the anode are positioned in the ocean (para. 33), and wherein flow of ocean water through the system imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (para. 32-33, 45-52) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4).
Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the system is movable with respect to the ocean (para. 33); however, Iwamoto et al. does not expressly teach that movement of the system through the ocean imposes the forced convection conditions discussed above.
Hasvold discloses a device comprising an anode and a cathode (Abstract), the device configured to be submerged in the sea such that an electrochemical reaction can be conducted using the anode, the cathode, and seawater to produce power (Abstract, col. 1 line 13-col. 2 line 60). Hasvold discloses that increasing a flow the seawater past the cathode is desirable to increase the reaction output (col. 1 line 13-col. 2 line 68). To this end, Hasvold discloses wherein the device is movable with respect to the ocean such that movement of the system imposes flow (forced convection) conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (col. 2 lines 6-60, col. 3 lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. such that movement of the system through the ocean imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (e.g., by configuring the system to be movable with respect to the ocean such that ocean water flows past the anode and cathode due to the movement), as Hasvold discloses that it was known in the art to provide such a functionality to increase an output of an electrochemical reaction conducted by an anode, cathode, and seawater, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance the utility of the system by increasing reaction output.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the OH- is released to the ocean to enhance alkalinity of the ocean via increasing the pH level of the ocean” is a recitation of intended use of the system and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that 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 (see MPEP 2114). Iwamoto et al. in view of Hasvold teaches every positively recited structural feature of the system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and the prior art system is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use, because the system generates OH- in water at the cathode as set forth above and is capable of releasing the water into the ocean (see para. 55 of Iwamoto et al.) (thereby necessarily enhancing the alkalinity of the ocean via increasing the pH level of the ocean as OH- increases pH).
Regarding claim 4, the entire claim is directed to an effect that is achieved by increasing the pH level of the ocean, and the claim does not specify a further structural limitation of the system. Iwamoto et al. in view of Hasvold teaches every positively recited structural feature of the system and is fully capable of achieving the function of increasing the pH level, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, above. Therefore, claim 4 does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the power supply unit comprises a renewable energy device (para. 38).
Regarding claim 6, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the renewable energy device comprises photovoltaic cells (para. 20, 38).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is directed to a further limitation of the mechanical power generator; however, the mechanical power generator was included in a list of alternatives in claim 5, from which claim 7 depends. Iwamoto et al. satisfied claim 5 in disclosing one of the other alternatives (renewable energy device). Therefore, Iwamoto et al. need not disclose a mechanical power generator or any further limitation of a mechanical power generator to satisfy claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of the system being “configured for operation in a free-standing platform, a towable platform, or a boat” represents an intended use of the claimed system and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. ). Iwamoto et al. in view of Hasvold teaches every positively recited structural feature of the system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, and the system is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use, e.g., the system could be towed by a boat during operation (see para. 33 of Iwamoto et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the cathode and anode operate in a horizontal orientation (e.g., the cathode 11 and the anode 9 each define a horizontal axis as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the cathode and anode are layered (the cathode 11 is layered on a container 4 wall surface, see para. 37 and Fig. 1; the anode 9 is layered within a storage container, see para. 39 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a selective membrane proximate to the anode to reduce access of specific species to the anode (para. 11, 34-35) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Iwamoto et al. discloses an ocean iron fertilization method for electrochemically controlled release of iron in an ocean to stimulate growth of phytoplankton to increase CO2 sequestration by the ocean (Abstract, para. 23) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4), comprising:
submerging a cathode (11) (para. 37) in the ocean (para. 33);
submerging an iron anode (9) (para. 39) submerged in the ocean (para. 33) spaced apart from the cathode (Fig. 1);
driving electric current between the cathode and the anode using a power supply unit (para. 37) such that the anode generates oxygen (para. 58) and ferrous iron through electrolysis to be released into the ocean (para. 39) (Fig. 1), and the cathode produces hydrogen (para. 40) and hydroxide (para. 46) species through an electrochemical reaction at the cathode (Fig. 1); and
operating the cathode and anode submerged in the ocean (para. 33) such that a flow of ocean water through the system imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (para. 32-33, 45-52) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4).
Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the cathode and anode are movable with respect to the ocean (para. 33); however, Iwamoto et al. does not expressly teach that movement of the cathode and anode through the ocean imposes the forced convection conditions discussed above.
Hasvold discloses a device comprising an anode and a cathode (Abstract), the device configured to be submerged in the sea such that an electrochemical reaction can be conducted using the anode, the cathode, and seawater to produce power (Abstract, col. 1 line 13-col. 2 line 60). Hasvold discloses that increasing a flow the seawater past the cathode is desirable to increase the reaction output (col. 1 line 13-col. 2 line 68). To this end, Hasvold discloses wherein the device (including the cathode and anode) is movable with respect to the ocean such that movement of the system imposes flow (forced convection) conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (col. 2 lines 6-60, col. 3 lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Iwamoto et al. such that movement of the cathode and the anode through the ocean imposes forced convection conditions on electrochemical transport at the cathode and anode (e.g., by configuring these elements to be movable with respect to the ocean such that ocean water flows past the anode and cathode due to the movement), as Hasvold discloses that it was known in the art to provide such a functionality to increase an output of an electrochemical reaction conducted by an anode, cathode, and seawater, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance the utility of the method by increasing reaction output.
Regarding claim 17, Iwamoto et al. discloses varying the magnitude of the electric current to control iron flux release (para. 60).
Regarding claim 18, Iwamoto et al. discloses causing selective iron release reactions to change the form of the released iron for increasing iron bioavailability (para. 18, 52).
Regarding claim 20, Iwamoto et al. discloses varying the magnitude of the electric current supplied by the power supply unit to control iron flux release (para. 60).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0180400) (already of record) in view of Hasvold (US Patent 5,405,717), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Yu (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0314144) (already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Iwamoto et al. discloses a hydrogen recovery device that recovers the generated H2 (para. 40).
Iwamoto et al. does not expressly teach that the hydrogen recovery device comprises a gas storage tank for collecting and storing the H2.
Yu discloses a system for performing seawater electrolysis to generate H2 (Abstract, para. 4), the system comprising a gas storage tank for collecting and storing the generated H2 (para. 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen recovery device disclosed by Iwamoto et al. to comprise a gas storage tank for collecting and storing the H2, based on the teachings of Yu, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a structural element recognized in the art to be effective for collecting and storing H2.
Regarding claim 19, Iwamoto et al. discloses collecting the H2 in a recovery device (para. 40).
Iwamoto et al. does not expressly teach that the H2 gas is collected in a gas storage tank.
Yu discloses a system for performing seawater electrolysis to generate H2 (Abstract, para. 4), the system comprising a gas storage tank for collecting and storing the generated H2 (para. 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Iwamoto et al. such that the H2 is collected in a gas storage tank, based on the teachings of Yu, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a structural element recognized in the art to be effective for collecting and storing H2.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0180400) (already of record) in view of Hasvold (US Patent 5,405,717), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Dukes et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0388874) (already of record).
Regarding claim 9, Iwamoto et al. discloses controlling the magnitude of the electric current supplied by the power supply unit to control iron flux release (para. 60).
Iwamoto et al. is silent as to the system comprising a control system configured to operate the system continuously, intermittently, or as a function of time.
Dukes et al. discloses a water treatment system (Abstract) comprising an iron anode and a steel cathode (para. 48), and a power supply for driving electric current between the cathode and the anode such that the anode generates ferrous iron and the cathode produces hydrogen through an electrochemical reaction (para. 2-3, 48). Dukes et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a control system configured to vary the magnitude of the electric current to control the electrochemical reaction (para. 11), wherein the control system controls the system continuously (e.g., the control system continuously communicates with sensors so as to vary the current, see para. 47, 56-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. to comprise a control system configured to operate the system continuously, as Dukes et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a water treatment system analogous to that of the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. with such a control system, particularly for the purpose of controlling current supply, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a mechanism for controlling current to achieve the control function envisioned by Iwamoto et al.
Regarding claim 10, Iwamoto et al. discloses controlling the magnitude of the electric current supplied by the power supply unit to control iron flux release (para. 60).
Iwamoto et al. is silent as to the system comprising a control system configured to vary the magnitude of the electric current supplied by the power supply unit to control iron flux release.
Dukes et al. discloses a water treatment system (Abstract) comprising an iron anode and a steel cathode (para. 48), and a power supply for driving electric current between the cathode and the anode such that the anode generates ferrous iron and the cathode produces hydrogen through an electrochemical reaction (para. 2-3, 48). Dukes et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a control system configured to vary the magnitude of the electric current to control the electrochemical reaction (para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. to comprise a control system configured to vary the magnitude of the electric current supplied by the power supply unit to control iron flux release, as Dukes et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a water treatment system analogous to that of the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. with such a control system, particularly for the purpose of controlling current supply, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a mechanism for controlling current to achieve the control function envisioned by Iwamoto et al.
Regarding claim 12, Iwamoto et al. discloses the cathode and the anode, as set forth above. However, Iwamoto et al. is silent as to the particular form of either the cathode or the anode.
Therefore, Iwamoto et al. is silent as to wherein the cathode and the anode comprise cylindrical rods, nets, plates, perforated plates, disks, or spheres.
Dukes et al. discloses a water treatment system (Abstract) comprising an iron anode and a steel cathode (para. 48), and a power supply for driving electric current between the cathode and the anode such that the anode generates ferrous iron and the cathode produces hydrogen through an electrochemical reaction (para. 2-3, 48). Dukes et al. further discloses wherein the cathode and anode comprise plates (para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode and anode disclosed by Iwamoto et al. to comprise plates, as Dukes et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a water treatment system analogous to that of the system disclosed by Iwamoto et al. with plate-form electrodes, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a form recognized in the art to be suitable for performing an electrochemical reaction in water.
Regarding claim 13, Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the iron anode generates ferrous iron and the cathode produces hydrogen and hydroxide species through an electrochemical reaction, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Iwamoto et al. discloses wherein the cathode is made of platinized titanium or the like (para. 40) rather than wherein the cathode comprises aluminum, iron, or steel as claimed.
Dukes et al. discloses a water treatment system (Abstract) comprising an iron anode and a steel cathode (para. 48), and a power supply for driving electric current between the cathode and the anode such that the anode generates ferrous iron and the cathode produces hydrogen and hydroxide through an electrochemical reaction (para. 2-3, 48) (Fig. 1a, sheet 1 of 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode disclosed by Iwamoto et al. to comprise steel rather than platinized titanium, as such a modification represents simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP § 2143), in this case, substituting steel for platinized titanium in order to arrive at a cathode suitable for participating in an electrochemical reaction to produce hydrogen and hydroxide in conjunction with an iron anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799