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 with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-19, in the reply filed on July 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims share technical features that are not disclosed by, or obvious in view of the prior art. This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on April 23, 2026, the claims share the technical features of “a purifier assembly comprising a purification tank located upstream of an electrolytic cell, at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes and vertically oriented anodes configured size to be inserted into the purification tank and connected to a power supply, wherein the purifier assembly is configured to maintain an anode to cathode distance between each of said electrodes”. These special technical features do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Ogasawara et al., as discussed in more detail below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogasawara et al. (US Patent no. 5,089,094).
Regarding claim 1, Ogasawara discloses a purifier assembly for removing impurities from an electrolytic bath before using the same in an electrolytic cell for the making of a metal (purification of a molten salt for use as an electrolytic bath in the electrolytic production of magnesium is carried out by introducing the molten salt through a line 29 into the preliminary cell 20b and the purified salt is then transferred to the main electrolytic cell 20a; col. 10, lines 14-22 and 28-43), the purifier assembly comprising:
a purification tank (20b) located upstream of the electrolytic cell (20a; figure 3) and configured to contain at least a portion of the electrolytic bath col. 10, lines 14-43); and
at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes (12; 26 – figures 3-5) and vertically oriented anodes (13, 27) configured to be operatively connected to a power supply for providing an electric current to the vertically oriented anodes (13, 27) and the vertically oriented cathodes (12, 26) of the at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes (12, 26) and vertically oriented anodes (13, 27; col. 10, lines 14-43), wherein the at least one row of the vertically oriented cathodes (12, 26) and the vertically oriented anodes (13, 27) is configured in size to be inserted into the purification tank (20b; figures 3-5 – the cathode on which impurity metals have been deposited is replaced by a new one periodically; col. 10, lines 28-36); and
wherein the purifier assembly is configured to provide and maintain an anode-to-cathode distance between each of said vertically oriented cathodes (12, 26) or said vertically oriented anodes (13, 27; as shown in figures 3-5, the vertical anodes and cathodes are maintained at a desired distance; col. 9, line 57 to col. 10, line 27).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neti et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0008243).
Regarding claim 2, Ogasawara teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose wherein the at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes and vertically oriented anodes comprises at least two parallel rows of alternating vertically oriented cathodes and vertically oriented anodes, each of the vertically oriented anodes or the vertically oriented cathodes of one row being adjacent respectively to another of the vertically oriented anodes or the vertically oriented cathodes of adjacent parallel rows, forming as such an array of alternating columns of the vertically oriented cathodes and the vertically oriented anodes.
Neti discloses an electrolyser for treatment and purification of liquid effluents comprising at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes and vertically oriented anodes comprises at least two parallel rows of electrodes forming as such an array of alternating columns of the vertically oriented cathodes and the vertically oriented anodes in order to force the liquid to flow in a single channel path to get greater volumetric rate of treatment when included in any functional treatment scheme of effluents to afford higher treatment efficiency through a functional biological treatment plant (paragraphs 25, 54, 67; figures 1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form an array of alternating columns of the vertically oriented cathodes and anodes in the purifier assembly of Ogasawara, as taught by Neti, in order to force the liquid to flow in a single channel path to get greater volumetric rate of treatment when included in any functional treatment scheme of effluents to afford higher treatment efficiency thereby.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ogasawara teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose wherein the at least one row of alternating vertically oriented cathodes and vertically oriented anodes forms a compact array with an ACD ranging from about 1 cm to about 5 cm.
Neti further discloses wherein the applied current vary as the electric power consumption is adjusted depending upon the electrode surface area and the cathode-anode separation distance (paragraph 57). Shorter distance is preferred because it reduces internal resistance and thereby voltage requirement (paragraph 86). It has been held by the courts that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have conducted routine experimentation to determine a workable or optimum inter electrode spacing between the electrodes of Ogasawara, that would effectively reduce internal resistance and voltage requirement, as taught by Neti.
Regarding claim 18, the power supply of Neti comprises a DC rectifier (paragraphs 25, 42, 54).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US Patent no. 7,846,309).
Regarding claim 19, Ogasawara teaches all the features discussed above wherein purification of a molten salt for use as an electrolytic bath is carried out in an electrolytic cell 20b to remove impurities, i.e. iron and chromium (col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 4; col. 10, lines 28-31), and the purified salt is then transferred to the main electrolytic cell (20a; col. 10, lines 14-22 and 28-43). Ogasawara fails to teach wherein the metal to produce by the electrolytic cell is aluminum, the electrolytic bath then comprising cryolite.
It is important to note that the electrolyte is the material worked upon by this apparatus, and as such, its composition does not serve to structurally define the apparatus, beyond imparting the limitation that the device should be capable of containing an electrolyte in contact with the electrodes for electrowinning the desired metal.
Nguyen discloses a metal electrowinning cell, in particular aluminum from cryolite, comprising an electrolyte purifier (col. 6, line 41 to col. 7, line 2; col. 9, lines 47-60; col. 11, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use cryolite in the electrowinning cell of Ogasawara because as taught by Nguyen, this is a well-known electrolyte to be effective for electrowinning of aluminum, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art made of record fails to teach at least one anode connection rail configured to be operatively connected to the power supply, each of the anode connection rail being configured to support one row of vertically oriented anodes and to electrically connect the vertically oriented anodes one to each other in a parallel arrangement; and at least one a cathode connection rail configured to be operatively connected to the power supply, each cathode connection rail being configured to support one row of vertically oriented cathodes and to electrically connect the cathodes one to each other in a parallel arrangement (claim 3). Claims 4-15 are dependent upon claim 3.
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