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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Galinstan™”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In the instant case, the disclosure is objected to, as the term “Galinstan™” is used throughout the specification, but is neither capitalized nor includes a proper symbol indicating use in commerce.
Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 172 recites “membrane 606”, but should recite “membrane 604” to correct the typo in the reference character;
Para. 199 recites “method 100”, but should recite “method 1000” to correct the typo in the reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phraseology “The presently disclosed concepts relate to” (MPEP § 608.01(b)(I)(C)). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode”. It is unclear, in light of the specification, whether this limitation is intended to positively require an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane, or if this limitation is intended to be an optional limitation that only limits how the system operates if an ion-selective solid electrolyte is present.
Specifically, the recitation “migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode” is a functional recitation i.e., it limits how the system functions, but it does not explicitly limit the system to any particular structure, which makes it unclear whether the “ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane” is required by the claim.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “an ion-selective membrane” as a discrete component.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, claims 2 and 3 recite “the at least one active material includes a hydroxyl group for the anode” and “the at least one active material includes lithium metal for the cathode”, respectively. It is unclear, in light of the specification, what is meant by “for the anode” and “for the cathode”. Specifically, it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to limit:
a) the anode/cathode, such that the anode/cathode comprises hydroxyl groups or lithium metal, respectively;
b) the anolyte/catholyte, such that the anolyte/catholyte comprises hydroxyl groups or lithium metal, respectively;
c) at least one of a or b; or
d) some other meaning.
Furthermore, claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 4-7 and 10-12, claims 4-7 depend from claim 1, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 1. Claims 4-7 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, claims 8 and 9 recite the limitations “the at least one active material for the anode includes at least one of: H2, OH-, Cl-, Br-, or I-” and “the at least one active material for the cathode includes a liquid metal”, respectively.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Specifically, claim 1, from which claims 8 and 9 depend, does not recite “at least one active material for the anode” or “at least one active material for the cathode”. It is therefore unclear to what these limitations refer.
Furthermore, it is unclear, in light of the specification, what is meant by “for the anode” and “for the cathode”. Specifically, it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to limit:
a) the anode/cathode, such that the anode/cathode comprises at least one of: H2, OH-, Cl-, Br-, or I- or a liquid metal, respectively;
b) the anolyte/catholyte, such that the anolyte/catholyte comprises at least one of: H2, OH-, Cl-, Br-, or I- or a liquid metal, respectively;
c) at least one of a or b; or
d) some other meaning.
Furthermore, claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 10-12, claims 10-12 depend from claims 1 and 9, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of those claims. Claims 10-12 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 contains the trademark/trade name “Galinstan”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a Ga-In-Sn alloy and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 13 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 13 to recite e.g., “a Ga-In-Sn alloy”.
Regarding claims 14-19 and 21-22, claims 14-22 depend from claim 13, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 13. Claims 14-22 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 contains the trademark/trade name “Galinstan”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see rejection of claim 13, above).
Furthermore, claim 20 depends from claim 13, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 20. Claim 20 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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(s) 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0183546 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Joshi teaches an alkali metal production system (see e.g., para. 22), comprising:
an anode (“anode electrode 218” Fig. 2 and para. 37);
a cathode (“cathode electrode 220” Id.), wherein
the anode is configured for oxidation and the cathode is configured for reduction (by definition, an anode is an electrode configured for oxidation and a cathode is an electrode configured for reduction), and
wherein migration of a predetermined metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode (“as current passes between the electrodes, alkali metal ions (M+) pass through the composite electrolyte membrane 215” para. 47 and Fig. 2), wherein the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is selectively permeable to the predetermined metal ion (“alkali ion-conductive electrolyte material 216 …” para. 39, Fig. 2 shows “216” is a component of “215”);
at least one active material (“electrochemical cells may be operated using catholyte and/or anolyte solutions (e.g., basic solutions; solutions containing organic compounds, oxidizing chemicals, energetic materials, and/or organic salts; neutral solutions comprising membrane-inhibiting chemicals, such as potassium; proton evolving compounds; etc.) that are chemically reactive” para. 36, see also e.g., paras. 52-56);
a first solution comprising an aqueous electrolyte, wherein the aqueous electrolyte includes the predetermined metal ion (“the anolyte comprises an alkali-salt solution, including, but not limited to, an aqueous alkali-salt solution” para. 52); and
a second solution comprising a metal atom based on the migrated predetermined (see below) metal ion, wherein the second solution is at least partially disposed in a liquid state of the metal atom (“the catholyte solution comprises, but is not limited to … a molten salt … and alkali metal (molten or solid)” para. 53).
Regarding the limitation “a metal atom based on the migrated predetermined metal ion”, Joshi teaches the alkali metal ion transfers from the anolyte to the catholyte (e.g., para. 47 and Fig. 2). The second solution i.e., the catholyte, thus necessarily comprises a metal atom based on the migrated predetermined ion.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been interpreted as “wherein the anolyte or anode comprises hydroxyl groups”.
Joshi further teaches the anolyte comprises hydroxyl groups (“an aqueous alkali-salt solution” para. 52, note aqueous solutions necessarily comprise hydroxyl groups).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been interpreted as “the cathode or the catholyte comprises lithium metal”.
Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the target alkali metal is lithium (see e.g., paras. 19 and 44), the catholyte comprises an alkali metal (“the catholyte solution comprises, but is not limited to … alkali metal (molten or solid)” para. 53), and the target alkali metal is transferred to the catholyte (“as current passes between the electrodes, alkali metal ions (M+) pass through the composite electrolyte membrane 215” para. 47 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, at least the catholyte of Joshi necessarily comprises lithium metal, because the catholyte is an alkali metal into which lithium atoms are transferred.
Regarding claim 4, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the liquid state is a molten solution of the metal atom (“the catholyte solution comprises, but is not limited to … alkali metal (molten or solid)” para. 53).
Regarding claim 5, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the anode is a carbon rod (“suitable anode materials comprise … graphite” para. 50 and Fig. 2 shows the anode is a rod).
Regarding claim 7, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the cathode comprises a carbon or metal rod (“of suitable materials that can be used in the cathode include nickel, stainless steel alloys, graphite, titanium, a nickel-cobalt-ferrous alloy (e.g., a KOVAR® alloy) …” para. 51 and Fig. 2 shows the cathode is a rod).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been interpreted as “wherein the anolyte or anode comprises at least one of H2, OH-, Cl-, Br-, or I-.”
Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the anolyte comprises at least one of OH- or Cl- (“an aqueous alkali-salt solution” para. 52 and “an alkali metal chloride (MCI)” para. 56).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been interpreted as “wherein the catholyte or the cathode includes a liquid metal”.
Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the catholyte or the cathode includes a liquid metal (“the catholyte solution comprises, but is not limited to … alkali metal (molten or solid)” para. 53 and “the cathode may comprise a molten metal” para. 51).
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 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 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0183546 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 5, as described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Joshi does not teach the carbon rod includes a Pt catalyst.
However, Joshi further teaches that the anode preferably comprises a material that enables the oxidation of water or hydroxide (“a material that allows the anode to evolve protons (H+) when the anode contacts an aqueous anolyte solution and as the cell functions” para. 50), and indicates platinized titanium is suitable as the anode (“Some non-limiting examples of suitable anode materials comprise … platinized titanium …” Id.).
As Joshi teaches a system for producing alkali metals via electrodialysis, Joshi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the carbon rod anode of Joshi, by adding a Pt catalyst. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of enhancing the ability of the anode to oxidize water or hydroxide, and because Joshi teaches a platinized anode is suitable for use in the system. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 9, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “the liquid metal is configured to form a molten alloy with lithium”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi teaches the liquid metal is a molten alkali metal, but does not explicitly teach the molten alkali metal is capable of forming a molten alloy with lithium.
However, Joshi further teaches lithium is the target metal that is transported to the catholyte (see e.g., paras. 19 and 44).
As Joshi teaches a system for producing alkali metals via electrodialysis, Joshi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Joshi, such that the liquid metal would be capable of forming a molten alloy with lithium, because Joshi suggests using lithium as the target metal that is transferred to the liquid metal catholyte.
Joshi therefore renders the limitation “the liquid metal is configured to form a molten alloy with lithium” obvious.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0183546 A1) in view of Thompson (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0088719 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 9, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “the liquid metal is within the temperature range of 25 °C to 250 °C”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi does not explicitly teach the system is capable of operating such that the temperature of the liquid metal is within the range of 25 °C – 250 °C.
However, Thompson teaches a method for the electrolytic synthesis of alkali metals (title), wherein the cathode comprises a liquid metal capable of operating at temperatures below 105 °C, a range overlapping the claimed range, (“the cathode can consist of a metal cathode that is a metal alloy having a melting point below the boiling temperature of the aqueous solution … it is preferred that the alloy has (1) a melting temperature below about 105° C., …” para. 26), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing for easy recovery of the produced alkali metal(s) (“Separation of alkali metal from the alkali metal-containing liquid cathode alloy can be done in an operation outside the electrolytic cell thereby facilitating the electrolysis process …” para. 26).
As Joshi teaches a system for producing alkali metals via electrodialysis, Joshi is analogous art to the instant invention. As Thompson teaches a system for the electrolytic production of alkali metals, Thompson is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Joshi, such that the system is capable of operating when the liquid metal is at a temperature below 105 °C, as taught by Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing easy recovery of the produced alkali metals, as taught by Thompson. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., materials capable of serving as liquid cathodes for the electrochemical production of alkali metals at a temperature below 105 °C) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Joshi in view of Thompson therefore renders the limitation “the liquid metal is within the temperature range of 25 °C to 250 °C” obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Joshi anticipates the limitations of claim 9, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Joshi does not teach the liquid metal includes one of: Ga, Ga-In, Na-K alloys, Na-K-Cs alloys, or Ga-In alloys.
However, Thompson teaches a method for the electrolytic synthesis of alkali metals (title), wherein the cathode comprises Ga, Ga-In, or Ga-In alloys (suitable liquid metal cathode alloys can be an alloy derived from two or more metals selected from the group consisting of bismuth (Bi), lead (Pb), tin (Sn), antimony (Sb), cadmium (Cd), gallium (Ga), thallium (Tl), and indium (In)” para. 26), which provide the predictable benefit of allowing the cathode to be liquid at low temperatures, thereby simplifying recovery of the produced alkali metals (para. 26).
As Joshi teaches a system for producing alkali metals via electrodialysis, Joshi is analogous art to the instant invention. As Thompson teaches a system for the electrolytic production of alkali metals, Thompson is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Joshi, such that the liquid metal comprises Ga, Ga-In, or Ga-In alloys, as taught by Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing easy recovery of the produced alkali metals, as taught by Thompson. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., Ga/Ga-In/Ga-In alloys as cathodes for the electrochemical production of alkali metals) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 13-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0183546 A1) in view of Surmann and Zeyat (“Voltammetric analysis using a self-renewable non-mercury electrode” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2005) 383 1009–1013) and Hsieh (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0319876 A1).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has been interpreted as “a Ga-In-Sn alloy”.
Joshi teaches a system for alkali metal production (e.g., para. 22), the system comprising:
a first electrode (“anode electrode 218” Fig. 3 and para. 37);
a first electrolyte comprising an alkali metal salt (“the anolyte comprises an alkali-salt solution, including, but not limited to, an aqueous alkali-salt solution.” Para. 52), wherein the first electrolyte is configured to be in contact with the first electrode (see Fig. 3);
a second electrode (“alkali compound 222 may function as a secondary cathode” para. 60 and Fig. 5, see also Fig. 3 and see below), wherein when a current is passed from the first electrode to the second electrode, the current causes migration of an alkali metal ion of the alkali metal salt (Fig. 3 and see below);
an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane configured to selectively allow the alkali metal ion to migrate (“cation conductor layer 226 … that is conductive to alkali cations” para. 48 and Fig. 3);
a second solution comprising an alkali metal atom based on the alkali metal ion (“alkali compound 222” para. 41, “the alkali compound comprises an alkali metal amalgam or alloy …” para. 44, and Fig. 3);
a third electrode (“cathode 220” Fig. 3 and para. 38), wherein when a second current passed from the second electrode to the third electrode, the second current causes second migration of the alkali metal atom of the second solution (“as current passes between the electrodes, alkali metal ions (M+) pass through the composite electrolyte membrane 215” para. 47 and Fig. 3);
a second ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane configured to selectively allow the alkali metal atom to migrate (“alkali ion-conductive electrolyte material 216 …” para. 39, “alkali metal ion (M+) is selectively transported through the composite alkali ion-conductive electrolyte membrane 215” para. 56, and Fig. 3 shows “216” is a component of “215”); and
a third solution comprising the second migrated alkali metal atom (“catholyte compartment 214, where it can be collected” para. 56 and Fig. 3).
Regarding the limitation “a second electrode”, Joshi teaches that the “alkali compound 222” can be connected to the cathodic power supply (see para. 60 and Fig. 5). Making this connection necessarily requires contacting the “alkali metal compound 222” with a current collector i.e., a second electrode.
Regarding the limitation “wherein when a current is passed from the first electrode to the second electrode, the current causes migration of an alkali metal ion of the alkali metal salt”, Joshi teaches the second electrode is connected to “alkali compound 222”, which is located on the opposite side of “cation conductor layer 226” from “anode 218” (see Fig. 3), therefore, when a current is passed from the first electrode to the second electrode, the alkali metal will migrate through the “cation conductor layer 226”.
Joshi does not teach the second solution comprises a Ga-In-Sn alloy. Joshi instead teaches the second solution comprises mercury (Hg) (“when the alkali metal is lithium the metal may be selected from aluminum, silicon, germanium, phosphorous, bismuth, mercury, lead, and tin.” para. 44 and see Fig. 4).
However, Surmann teaches that Galinstan™, a Ga-In-Sn alloy, is a suitable liquid electrode material for use in place of mercury (abstract), and provides the predictable benefit of being significantly less toxic (abstract and para. 1 of § titled “conclusion and outlook”).
Furthermore, Hsieh teaches that alloys of gallium, indium, tin, and bismuth are suitable substitutes for mercury electrodes in the electrochemical production of alkali metals (abstract and para. 34, see also para. 8-9).
As Joshi teaches a system for producing alkali metals via electrodialysis, Joshi is analogous art to the instant invention. As Surmann teaches a material suitable for use as a liquid electrode, Surmann is analogous art to the instant invention. As Hsieh teaches a system for the production of alkali metals via electrolysis, Hsieh is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second solution of Joshi, such that it comprises a Ga-In-Sn alloy rather than mercury, as taught by Surmann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing the toxicity of the second solution, as taught by Surmann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success making this modification, because Surmann teaches Galinstan™ is suitable as an electrode material, and Hsieh teaches alloys of gallium, indium, and tin are suitable cathode materials for the electrolytic production of alkali metals. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., alloys comprising gallium, indium, and tin as liquid metal cathodes for alkali metal production, as taught by Hsieh) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, Joshi further teaches the second migrated alkali metal atom is in a molten state “the catholyte solution comprises, but is not limited to … alkali metal (molten or solid)” para. 53).
Regarding claim 16, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “wherein a thickness of the second ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is configured to increase a purity of the second migrated alkali metal atom”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi teaches the second ion-selective solid electrolyte selectively transports the alkali metal (paras. 12-13), and the system is configured to separate the alkali metal from a solution containing other metals (para. 22). The thickness of the second ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is therefore capable of increasing a purity of the second migrated metal atom.
Joshi therefore reads on the limitation “wherein a thickness of the second ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is configured to increase a purity of the second migrated alkali metal atom”.
Regarding claim 17, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the migration and the second migration occur concurrently”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi teaches the system comprises three electrodes arranged in series, with an alkali-metal selective membrane disposed between each pair of electrodes (see Fig. 3). The instant specification teaches an electrochemical cell having this configuration can be operated such that the migration and the second migration occur concurrently. It is therefore considered that the system of Joshi is capable of operating such that the migration and the second migration occur concurrently.
The system of Joshi therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the migration and the second migration occur concurrently”.
Regarding claim 18, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the migration and the second migration occur in series or a batch configuration”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi teaches the system comprises three electrodes arranged in series, with an alkali-metal selective membrane disposed between each pair of electrodes (see Fig. 3). The instant specification teaches an electrochemical cell having this configuration can be operated such that the migration and the second migration occur in series or a batch configuration. It is therefore considered that the system of Joshi is capable of operating such that the migration and the second migration occur in series or a batch configuration.
The system of Joshi therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the migration and the second migration occur in series or a batch configuration”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the alkali metal ion is Li+ (“when the alkali metal is lithium…” para. 44).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 has been interpreted as “a lithiated Ga-In-Sn alloy”.
Modified Joshi further teaches the second solution includes a lithiated Ga-In-Sn alloy (see below).
Joshi teaches the alkali metal is lithium (para. 44), and modified Joshi, via Surmann and/or Hsieh, teaches the second solution is a Ga-In-Sn alloy (see e.g., Hsieh para. 34). The second solution in modified Joshi therefore comprises lithium and a Ga-In-Sn alloy i.e., a lithiated Ga-In-Sn alloy.
Regarding claim 21, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
Joshi further teaches the third solution comprises only the second migrated alkali metal atom (“the catholyte solution comprises, … and alkali metal (molten or solid) …” para. 53).
Regarding claim 22, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the migration occurs at ambient conditions”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Joshi teaches the system is designed to operate under “adverse conditions” (e.g., abstract), and does not specify any particular components to adjust the conditions under which the system is operated. It is therefore considered that the system of Joshi is capable of operating under ambient conditions.
Joshi therefore reads on the limitation “the migration occurs at ambient conditions”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi in view of Surmann and Hsieh, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Putter (US Pat. No. 6770187 B1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Joshi renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the second migration occurs at controlled conditions, wherein the controlled conditions include at least one of: an inert environment, or Ar atmosphere”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Joshi does not explicitly teach the system is capable of being operated such that the second migration occurs at controlled conditions, wherein the controlled conditions include at least one of: an inert environment, or Ar atmosphere.
However, Putter teaches a system for the electrochemical production of alkali metals (title and abstract), wherein the system is capable of being operated under an inert atmosphere (col. 5 lines 9-20), which provides the predictable benefit of protecting the produced alkali metal from reaction with atmospheric oxygen or moisture (Id.).
As Putter teaches a system for the electrochemical production of alkali metals, Putter is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Joshi, such that it is capable of operating such that the second migration occurs at controlled conditions, wherein the controlled conditions include at least one of: an inert environment or Ar atmosphere, as taught by Putter. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of protecting the formed alkali metal from reaction with atmospheric oxygen or moisture, as taught by Putter. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Joshi therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the second migration occurs at controlled conditions, wherein the controlled conditions include at least one of: an inert environment, or Ar atmosphere”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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 V. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795