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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 5, the label "Electrode with sedimentary rock core" overlaps an element of the drawing without sufficient contrast, reducing legibility. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Between the words "wherein" and "metallic" on line 1 of both claims, the word "the" is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney et al. (WO 2019/160701) in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US 2,973,425).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6, 15, and 16, Kenney teaches an electrochemical cell for producing hydrogen gas through electrolysis of a salt water or seawater solution (para. 0043; para. 0051: seawater), the method utilizing first and second metallic electrodes (para. 0045: anode comprising a metal; para. 0050: cathode comprising nickel), a porous second anode (para. 0044: electrolyte in contact with anode; para. 0046, porous anode equivalent to a positive electrode), and producing hydrogen gas by electrolysis of the solution by applying a direct current (para. 0053-0054: batteries produce a direct current). It would be expected that the salt or seawater electrolyte permeates the porous anode taught by Kenney when the cell is assembled. In one embodiment, the electrodes are held in a container (Fig. 25, element 100). Kenney does not directly teach that the second electrode comprises a sedimentary rock portion. However, the electrocatalyst layer of the Kenney anode may be made of a self-passivating material, comprising anions incorporated within the catalyst layer, including carbonates (para. 0049). It may also be in a crystalline phase (para. 0045). Pfeiffer teaches an electrode comprising limestone, dolomite, or another alkaline earth carbonate (Col. 2, lines 5-8). The electrode is suited for use in a salt water environment (Col. 2, lines 48-51). Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a sedimentary rock such as limestone (containing the mineral of the same name) in an electrode of an electrolysis cell, especially wherein the electrolyte is salt or sea water. One would be motivated to use a sedimentary rock as an electrode to reduce the material costs of the electrochemical cell, while also protecting the anode from the more corrosive properties of seawater compared to a typical purified water electrolyte (Kenney paras. 0003, 0054).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kenney teaches an electrolyte with a concentration of sodium chloride between 0.5 and 2.0 M (para. 0051). “About 35 thousand parts per million” as claimed is equivalent to 0.60 M by calculations known to those skilled in the art:
35,000
p
p
m
N
a
C
l
*
1.0
g
w
a
t
e
r
m
L
58.44
g
N
a
C
l
m
o
l
*
1000
m
L
L
=
0.60
m
o
l
N
a
C
l
L
Regarding claim 7, modified Kenney teaches the porosity of the sedimentary rock in a range of about 0.2 to 0.98 (para. 0046).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kenney does not teach the permeability of the rock, but one skilled in the art will appreciate that the permeability of a rock depends on its porosity. The ideal permeability of the rock electrode will depend on the specific requirements of the electrolysis cell in which it is used, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 9, 13, 17, and 20, Pfeiffer teaches that the sedimentary rock electrode is cylindrical and comprises a metallic core coated in limestone, equivalent to a cavity in the rock containing a metallic portion (Col. 3, lines 30-46: diameters of components, 24% limestone by weight in one embodiment).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Pfeiffer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rothschild et al. (US 10,487,408).
Regarding claim 14, Kenney in view of Pfeiffer does not teach the renewable or non-renewable energy source for the electrolysis cell. However, Rothschild teaches that the electrodes may be connected to a power source such as a power plant or photovoltaic cell, equivalent to a “renewable or non-renewable energy source” (Col. 30, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either a renewable or non-renewable energy source to power the electrolysis cell. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to run the cell for much longer than, e.g. a battery would allow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 18, and 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: It is not known in the art to construct an electrode with a metallic band surrounding a sedimentary rock portion, or to utilize multiple cylindrical cores comprising sedimentary rock as claimed to form an electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is 571-272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM EDT.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711