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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 13 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the horizontal anode surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,414,089 to McMonigle et al. (McMonigle).
As to claims 1, 13 and 19, McMonigle teaches an electrolyzer comprising a first bipolar electrolyzer (lowermost bipolar intermediate electrode (140) comprising a first horizontal cathode (top surface) comprising a reservoir onto which an electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, may be emplaced for electrolysis, the reservoir formed by vertical containing surfaces (perimeter walls), a second bipolar electrolyzer (second lowermost bipolar intermediate electrode (140) comprising a second horizontal bipolar cathode (top surface), the second bipolar electrolyzer oriented vertically above the first bipolar electrolyzer such that a bottom surface of the second horizontal bipolar cathode is capable of electrically engaging an upper surface of the electrolytic slurry, said second horizontal cathode operating as an active anode for electrolysis of the electrolytic slurry with regard to the first horizontal bipolar cathode during electrolysis (Column 4, Lines 63-68; Column 5, Line 59 to Column 6, Line 12; Column 6, Line 60 to Column 7, Line 25; Figures 2 and 3).
As to claims 17 and 20, McMonigle teaches the apparatus of claims 13 and 19. McMonigle further teaches that the active anode is a horizontal anode surface forming the bottom surface of the second bipolar electrolyzer, and that it comprises a plurality of vents (gas channels (176)) for passing gaseous compounds resulting from electrolysis (Column 7, Lines 26-48; Figure 3).
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,554,893 to Varda (Varda).
As to claim 1, 2, 13, 14 and 19, Varda teaches an electrolyzer comprising a first bipolar electrolyzer (8) comprising a first horizontal bipolar cathode (top surface) comprising a reservoir onto which an electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, may be emplaced for electrolysis, the reservoir formed by sloped containing surfaces (turned up borders), and a second bipolar electrolyzer (7) comprising a second horizontal bipolar cathode (top surface), the second bipolar electrolyzer (7) located above the first bipolar electrolyzer (8) such that a bottom surface of the second horizontal bipolar cathode forms an active anode for electrolysis of the electrolytic slurry and electrically engages with an upper surface of the electrolytic slurry (Column 2, Lines 22-33; Column 5, Lines 6-12; Figure 1).
As to claims 11 and 12, Varda teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Varda further teaches that the apparatus comprises a slurry line (through holes (21)) for, indirectly, placing the electrolytic slurry, electrolyte, onto the first horizontal cathode (Column 6, Lines 48 to 74; Figure 6).
As to claim 18, Varda teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Varda further teaches that the second horizontal bipolar cathode is 50 mm above the first horizontal bipolar cathode during electrolysis (Column 5, Lines 6-12; Column 8, Lines 16-18; Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 15 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794