DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-16 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 12 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “9” refers to separate elements including electrolyte medium [0080], [0083] and unit cell [0101].
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “8” refers to both cathodic structure [0080] and cathodic device [0083].
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “50” describes regulating unit, unit and electronic unit [0083].
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “figure” [0122], lines 2-3 should be identified.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number 13 is referred to as “conductive metal threads” and “conductors” [0162].
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in reference to Figure 3 the specification states “the figure on the left showing, with hatching, the area of the unit cell, and the figure on the right showing, with hatching, the area of influence of said unit cell” [0064] and “in the left-hand part of figure 3, the hatched area is equal to the area of influence of the unit cell. In the right-hand part of figure 3, the hatched area is equal to the area of the unit cell” [0105]. These statements appear to contradict each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “determined” may more appropriately be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the non-conductive threads" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “or containing no conductive threads in this region” is indefinite because it is unclear what region is being referred to.
Regarding claim 10, the phrasing including “and only non-conductive threads forming the filter there” is indefinite. Claim 10 depends on claim 8. Claim 8 states that the conductive threads and non-conductive threads form the filter. Claim 10 appears to indicate that the conductive threads are not part of the filter. Therefore it is unclear what the filter of claim 10 comprises in regards to the threads.
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) 1, 4, 6, 12-13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861).
Regarding claim 1, France discloses a device used in an electrolytic environment ([0005], 1st paragraph) (e.g. seawater, 7, Figure 1) to produce calcomagnesian deposits ([0005], 5th paragraph) (= a device for forming concretions in an electrolytic medium by electrolysis), the device comprising an anode (2) and a cathode (1, 10, etc.) both connected to a DC generator (3) ([0005], 8th - 10th paragraphs) (= the device comprising an anode and a cathodic device that are connected to each other), the cathode (e.g. 210) comprises 2D network of conductive rods (211, 212) defining a grid that can be flat or corrugated ([0005], 12th paragraph, Figure 4) (= the cathodic device comprising an arrangement of metal conductors forming a mesh developable on a plane P),
PNG
media_image1.png
308
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
164
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claimed “the cathodic device having an area coefficient α comprised between 20 % and 150%...” the claim language appears to define the chemical area and area of influence as is related to the total metal-conductor area intended to make contact with the electrolytic medium (= chemical area) and the mesh dimensions. The specification indicates that the coefficient may be calculated by α = πd((a+b)/(a*b)) [0112] where d is the diameter of the conductive rod or thread, and a and b are the length and width of the unit cell, respectively. Using this formula an estimated coefficient is determined from the teachings of France. France discloses that Y1 is equal to 6.5 mm (Figure 13). The conductive cathode (51) therefore has an estimated diameter of 3 mm. Using the conductive rods depicted in Figure 4 it is estimated that the length and width of the cathode (210) is 50 mm based on a 3 mm diameter rod. An estimated coefficient of France is therefore equated to 38 % which falls within the claimed range. Beyond this estimation from the figures of France, France discloses the following regarding the sizing considerations for the cathode; France discloses that the conductive fibers have a length and diameter adapted to the particle size of the mineral elements present in the electrolytic medium in order to prevent the sedimentation of said fibers and to ensure electrical conduction throughout the volume containing the mixture of random entanglements of conductive and mineral elements. France similarly teaches that the percentage of volume of conductive elements relative to the random entanglement of mineral elements is determined according to the geometry and dimensions of these conductive elements in such a way that the conduction of electric current is ensured throughout the volume containing the mixture of random entanglements of conductive elements and mineral elements ([0005], 5-6th paragraphs). Moreover, France appears to disclose the same or similar device as claimed. The adjustment of the sizing of the conductor fibers/rods in relation to the mineral elements present would have been an obvious engineering design choice to accelerate the formation of calcomagnesian deposit as described by France ([0005], 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, France discloses a DC generator (3 = electric generator) that is interposed between the cathode (1, 10) and anode (2) and that is configured to apply a current to the cathode (Figure 1, [0005], 10th paragraph). France discloses the cathode comprising steel ([0005], 11th paragraph). The estimated α coefficient as stated above is 38%.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim appears to be a mere duplication of parts which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Moreover, France discloses multiple arrangements of the cathode materials that form a cathode and are connected to the anode (Figures 4-12).
Regarding claim 12, France discloses the cathode comprising a main wire (511) connected to cables (512) (Figure 7). The wires are arranged at a higher density than the main wire.
Regarding claim 13, France discloses the main wire (511) having a larger cross-section than the cables (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, France discloses wherein the metal is formed of expanded metal ([0005], 4th paragraph). The main wire of France does not include an aperture. The phrase “obtained by producing slits at regular intervals in a metal sheet” and “obtained by locally increasing the interval between the slits” are directed towards product by process claim language and does not further limit the metal conductors.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim appears to be a mere duplication of parts which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Moreover, France discloses multiple arrangements of the cathode materials (Figures 4-12).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861) in view of Joi et al. (US 2018/0266001).
Regarding claim 2, France discloses a DC generator (3 = electric generator) that is interposed between the cathode (1, 10) and anode (2) and that is configured to apply a voltage to the cathode (Figure 1). France discloses the cathode comprising steel ([0005], 11th paragraph) and wherein a voltage is applied [0006]. The estimated α coefficient as stated above is 38%. Although this value is outside the claimed range it is close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable results.
France discloses applying a voltage, however, does not disclose the potential being measured with respect to a reference electrode.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Joi discloses the use of a reference electrode which is typically employed when a controlled potential is desired. Joi discloses that the use of a reference electrode provides a more accurate potential measurement [0095].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a reference electrode because Joi discloses that using a reference electrode provides an accurate potential measurement.
Regarding claim 3, France discloses the use of metal conductors ([0005], 1st paragraph), however is silent in regards to which metals are used. Well known metals used in a similar field include copper and tin as taught by Joi [0010].
Regarding claims 18-19, the instant claim appears to be a mere duplication of parts which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Moreover, France discloses multiple arrangements of the cathode materials (Figures 4-12).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861) in view of Kenney et al. (WO 2019/160701).
Regarding claim 5, France discloses a DC generator (3 = electric generator) that is interposed between the cathode (1, 10) and anode (2) and that is configured to apply a voltage or current to the cathode (Figure 1, [0005] 10th paragraph). France discloses the cathode comprising metal ([0005], 1st paragraph) and wherein a voltage is applied [0006]. The estimated α coefficient as stated above is 38%.
France is silent in regards to the metal used therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art and arrive at a reference such as Kenney. Kenney discloses the use of a nickel mesh cathode in an electrochemical environment [0035]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the nickel mesh electrode of Kenney as a cathode material for the metal conductor grid of France.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0319870).
Regarding claim 7, France discloses the cathode comprising conductive fibers. France does not explicitly state that the conductive fibers form a fabric structure.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Chen discloses wherein a cathode may be present in any one of web, film, fabric, mat, aggregate shape formed of fibers [0034], [0036].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a fabric structure because Chen discloses that any shape or form of cathode may be present with fibers such as a fabric arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, the stacking of the conductive fibers of France reads on the claimed layering for example (Figure 5).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861), in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0319870) and in view of Thomas Jr. (US 2017/0362727).
Regarding claim 8, France in view of Chen discloses the cathode comprising conductive fibers ([0005], 11th paragraph). A filter is present based on the arrangement of fibers of France. Additionally, France discloses that the arrangement of the conductive elements accelerates the formation of calcomagnesian deposit as described above. France in view of Chen fails to disclose the threads comprising non-conductive threads.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Thomas Jr. discloses metal matrix composites that comprise nonconductive fibers (abstract). Thomas Jr. discloses that a metal matrix composite structures have several advantages over metal products such as improved high temperature properties and damping properties [0008]. Thomas Jr. discloses that the metal matrix composite has application in several fields due to the presence of the non-conductive fibers [0008]-[0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fabric structure of France with non-conductive fibers because Thomas Jr. discloses that composite devices have several advantages over simple metal devices such as capable of withstanding high temperatures. Thomas Jr. additionally teaches that the metal matrix composites provide superior characteristics such as better conductivity, strength, ductility and fracture toughness [0021].
Regarding claim 9, Thomas Jr. discloses the non-conductive fibers comprising wax, sand, plaster [0034] or ceramic [0027].
Regarding claim 10, France discloses that the volume percentage of the conducting elements relative to the random entanglement of mineral elements is determined as a function of the geometry and dimensions of the conducting elements ([0005], 7th paragraph). France further discloses that the conductive wiring of the cathode can take on any number of arrangements ([0005], 13th paragraph, Figures 4-9). Therefore selecting a variation of density of conductive threads compared to other regions would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to control the amount of calcomagnesian deposit.
Regarding claim 16, France discloses the anode (2) connected to the DC generator (3) via cable (4) (= fastening structure, the connections securing the elements together) connected to the cathode and therefore fabric structure of the cathode (Figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (FR 2762861) in view of Lewellen, III (US 4,781,812).
Regarding claim 14, France discloses the conductive fibers and current collectors (e.g. main wire) as described above. France fails to disclose an insulating coating or inhibiting coating.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Lewellen discloses a device comprising a cathode member (24) with cable that is covered with an insulating sheath (29) that provides a protecting layer (abstract, Figures 3-5, Col. 3 lines 48-49).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising an insulating coating or inhibiting coating because Lewellen discloses that a cathode and its connections may be covered with an insulating sheath to provide protection during an electrochemical process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795