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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 and 10-29 in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a separation distance between the at least one carbonaceous cathode and the at least one metal-containing anode being about 1 to about 5,000 micrometers (see claim 1 at lines 4-5); and, as claimed in claim 18, the electrochemical device further comprising a separator arranged between the carbonaceous cathode and the metal-containing anode (see claim 18), does not reasonably provide enablement for both the separation distance being as claimed and the presence of a membrane on one or more of the at least one of a metal-containing anode. Specifically, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Specifically, it is noted that the Specification discloses the electrochemical device comprising a separator arranged between the anode and the cathode wherein the separator has a thickness of about 1 to about 5,000 micrometers so as to provide the separation distance (see Specification at ¶34 and ¶35). Additionally, it is noted that the Specification discloses two differing embodiments – one without a membrane (see Fig. 1A in which only a separator 110 is positioned between the anode 108 and the cathode 112), and the other the elected embodiment in which the membrane of claim 2 is present (see Fig. 1B depicting separator 110 and membrane 119 filling the space between the anode 108 and the cathode 112). As such, while the separator thickness would be equal to the separation distance for the embodiment of Fig. 1A and so enabled, for the embodiment of Fig. 1B in which the separation distance would be determined by both the thickness of the separator and the membrane, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and/or use the invention as claimed in which the separation distance would have to be larger than merely the thickness of the separator.
Furthermore, while the above discussion highlights the disclosure of the specification, it is additionally noted that the specification fails to give any examples of the electrochemical device having the separator and a membrane but with the same separation distance as claimed. Moreover, the specification is silent as to the actual thickness of the membranes. So, while the specification defines the separation distance by the thickness of the separator (see Specification at ¶35, first sentence), the relationship of the embodiments coupled with the membrane is failed to be explained and would appear to be impossible to provide both a separator that provides the separation distance as defined and described coupled with the membrane of claims 2-5.
One way of potentially overcoming the above rejection would be to incorporate the limitations of claim 18 into independent claim 1 and setting forth the thickness of the separator as providing for a separation distance so that the separation distance provided by the separator between the at least one carbonaceous cathode and the at least one metal-containing anode is as set forth.
Independent claim 25 is additionally rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to dependent claim 2. It is further noted that claims 3-5 and 26-29 are included as a result of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5 and 10-29 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 1 recites the limitation “the carbonaceous cathode” and “the metal-containing anode” in lines 4-5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, it is noted that independent claim 1 sets forth both “at least one of a carbonaceous cathode” and also “at least one of a metal-containing anode” (see claim 1 at lines 2 and 3); however, the later references to “the carbonaceous cathode” and “the metal-containing anode” are unclear as to whether only a single cathode and anode are now required or if the “at least one of a carbonaceous cathode” and the “at least one of a metal-containing anode” are being further limited.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “a metal-containing anode” in line 2 and also “the plurality of a metal-containing anode” in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the carbonaceous cathode” in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim should refer to “the at least one of a carbonaceous cathode” so as to clearly refer back to the element as previously set forth.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the metal-containing anode” in line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim should refer to “the at least one of a metal-containing anode” so as to clearly refer back to the element as previously set forth.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the carbonaceous cathode” in line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the plurality of carbonaceous cathodes” (see claim 23 at lines 1-2) and Claim 24 recites the limitation “the plurality of carbonaceous cathode” (see claim 24 at lines 1-2). However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the respective claims.
With respect to claim 25, the claim sets forth “a plurality of a cathode” and “a plurality of an anode” (see claim 25 at lines 2 and 3). However, while it would appear that what is intended is “a plurality of cathodes” and “a plurality of anodes” the present phrasing is unclear as to whether a plurality is actually required or if actually a plurality of parts of a cathode and anode are being referred to.
Claim 25 additionally refers to “the anode” in line 5 and also at line 8 of the claim and also refers to “the cathode” in line 7. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the respective claim.
Claim 25 also in lines 8-9 refers to “the platinum mesh core coated with the ruthenium oxide and iridium oxide” but these elements were never previously set forth.
As such, there is also insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as well.
Claims 28 and 29 each recite the limitation "the plurality of cathode" in lines 1-2 of the respective claims. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, it is noted that independent claim 25 sets forth “the plurality of a cathode” as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP2204233A1 to Nakanishi et al., (hereinafter referred to as “NAKANISHI”).
Regarding claim 1, NAKANISHI teaches an electrochemical device (see generally NAKANISHI at Abstract and Fig. 1; see also NAKANISHI at ¶25), comprising:
at least one carbonaceous cathode (see NAKANISHI at Fig. 1 depicting carbon electrode 4a and ¶11-¶12 and ¶14 teaching the formation of the carbon electrode; see also NAKANISHI at ¶27 teaching the electrode capable of having either polarity applied); and
at least one of a metal-containing anode comprising a metal (see NAKANISHI at Fig. 1 depicting opposing electrode 4b and ¶15 teaching the electrode opposed to the carbon electrode being a metal electrode; see also NAKANISHI at ¶27 teaching the electrode capable of having either polarity applied);
wherein a separation distance between the at least one carbonaceous cathode and the at least one metal-containing anode is about 1 to about 5,000 micrometers (see NAKANISHI at ¶13 teaching the spacing being 500 micrometers or less).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, NAKANISHI teaches the electrochemical device further comprising a membrane on one or more of the at least one metal-containing anode wherein the membrane is in a form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (see NAKANISHI at Fig. 1 depicting substrate 2a which is in the form of a sheet/layer as claimed; see also NAKANISHI at ¶33 teaching the substrate being made of a resin material).
Regarding claim 22, NAKANISHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the at least one carbonaceous cathode is a carbon felt, a woven carbon cloth, a carbon film, or a non-woven (see NAKANISHI at ¶12 teaching the formation of the carbon film from sintering of a carbon paste material)
Regarding claim 23, NAKANISHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein each carbonaceous cathode of the at least one carbonaceous cathode is the same (see NAKANISHI at Fig. 1 as depicted and see also Fig. 4C in which multiple carbon electrode strips 24a are provided which are all the same).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 15-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,302,270 to Yamauchi et al., (hereinafter referred to as “YAMAUCHI”).
Regarding claim 1, YAMAUCHI teaches an electrochemical device (see generally YAMAUCHI at Abstract and Fig. 4), comprising:
at least one carbonaceous cathode (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting cathode catalyst layer 2b; see also YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 19-29); and
at least one of a metal-containing anode comprising a metal (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting anode catalyst layer 1bl see also YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 26-28);
wherein a separation distance between the at least one carbonaceous cathode and the at least one metal-containing anode is about 1 to about 5,000 micrometers (see YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 35-41 and col. 6 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 2, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device further comprising a membrane on one or more of the at least one of a metal-containing anode (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting solid polymer electrolyte film 3 on both electrodes).
Regarding claim 4, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the membrane is in the form of a film, a layer, a sheet, a coating, or a combination thereof (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting solid polymer electrolyte film 3 as a film or layer).
Regarding claim 10, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device further comprises a cathode current collector in contact with the at least one carbonaceous cathode (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting cathode base material 2a; see also YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 27-29 and also YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 12, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the cathode current collector is in the form of a film, a layer, a metal sheet, a foil sheet, a mesh sheet, or a combination thereof (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting cathode base material 2a being a layer as claimed).
Regarding claim 15, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device further comprises an anode current collector in contact with the at least one metal-containing anode (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting anode base material 1a).
Regarding claim 16, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the anode current collector comprises a graphite, titanium, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, nickel, or a combination thereof (see YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 26-28 teaching the anode base material 1a being titanium).
Regarding claim 17, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the anode current collector is in the form of a film, a layer, a metal sheet, a foil sheet, a mesh sheet, or a combination thereof (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting anode base material 1a being a layer as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the electrochemical device further comprises a separator arranged between the at least one carbonaceous cathode and the at least one metal-containing anode (see YAMAUCHI at Fig. 4 depicting solid polymer electrolyte film 3 between the cathode and anode as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the separator comprises a dielectric material (see YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 38-41 teaching film 3 being made of Nafion-115 which is a dielectric material).
Regarding claim 20, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the dielectric material comprises a polymeric material, a cellulosic material, a silica containing material, or a combination thereof (see YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 38-41 teaching film 3 being made of Nafion-115 which is a dielectric material made of a polymeric material as claimed).
Regarding claim 22, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein the at least one carbonaceous cathode is a carbon felt, a woven carbon cloth, a carbon film, or a non-woven (see YAMAUCHI at col. 5 lines 26-29 teaching the cathode base material 2a being made of carbon fibers which as taught in col. 5 lines 30-34 on the surface with the catalyst layer acts to make up the cathode).
Regarding claim 23, YAMAUCHI teaches the electrochemical device wherein each carbonaceous cathode of the at least one carbonaceous cathode is the same (see rejection of claim 1 above which in the case of single cathode has all the cathodes being the same as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Electroreduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) on Reticulated Vitreous Carbon Electrodes in a Parallel-Plate Reactor with Recirculation” by Rodriguez et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(6), pages 1875-1879 (2005)
US Pub. No. 2020/0024158 to Boehme et al., teaching a faradaic porosity cell
DE 4328242 A1 to Janietz et al., teaching an electrolysis body and process for treating waters and waste waters
FR 2784979 A1 to Bernard et al., teaching a long-term electrochemical disinfection of water or waste water treated by anodic oxidation combined with cathodic peroxidation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights