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 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.
Claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redey et al. (US Patent no. 7,632,384).
Regarding claim 17, Redey discloses a molten salt system (col. 1, lines 20-24) comprising:
a molten salt enclosure (32; figure 4; col. 7, lines 46-55),
a molten salt (25) disposed within the molten salt enclosure (32; col. 4, lines 41-48; col. 7, lines 46-55),
a working electrode (10) disposed at least partially within the molten salt (25; figure 4; col. 8, lines 28-33),
a counter electrode (11) disposed at least partially within the molten salt (25; col. 8, lines 28-33),
a separator barrier (outer tube 1; figures 2-4) disposed at least partially within the molten salt (25 – reference electrodes 7, 7’ are disposed within an outer tube/separator barrier 1; col. 3, lines 11-22),
a reference salt (6) disposed within the separator barrier (1; figure 2 - the reference electrodes are based on a molten salt system, where the electrode potential response depends on the concentration of dissolved lithium oxide in the molten salt; col. 2, lines 60-65),
wherein the separator barrier (1) separates the reference salt (6) and the molten salt (25; figures 2, 4, 9; col. 3, lines 20-28); and
a reference wire (7, 7’) disposed within the reference salt (col. 3, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 18, the molten salt of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes (col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 7, lines 1-7). 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 apparatus should be capable of containing an electrolyte which can be in contact with the electrodes. The system of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes in contact with the electrodes and thus, it meets the claims.
Regarding claim 19, the molten salt of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes (col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 7, lines 1-7). 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 apparatus should be capable of containing an electrolyte which can be in contact with the electrodes. The system of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes in contact with the electrodes and thus, it meets the claims.
Regarding claim 20, the molten salt of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes (col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 7, lines 1-7). 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 apparatus should be capable of containing an electrolyte which can be in contact with the electrodes. The system of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes in contact with the electrodes and thus, it meets the claims.
Regarding claim 21, the molten salt of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes (col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 7, lines 1-7). 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 apparatus should be capable of containing an electrolyte which can be in contact with the electrodes. The system of Redey comprises molten fluoride electrolytes in contact with the electrodes and thus, it meets the claims.
Regarding claim 22, the reference phase of Redey comprises ions, i.e. Li2O or CaO (col. 4, lines 32-40), more reactive than metals in the reference wire, i.e. NiO (col. 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 23, Redey further teaches wherein the reference wire comprises a metal, i.e. NiO (col. 4, lines 1-4), that is less reactive than ions in the reference phase, i.e. Li2O or CaO (col. 4, lines 32-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following:
Redey does not disclose a reference salt separate from the bulk molten salt.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Redey discloses wherein the lower portion of the enclosure/separator barrier (1) is filled (i.e. plugged) with a dense diffusion barrier (2) in ion communication with the bulk cell molten electrolyte (25; figures 4, 9) that prevents leakage of the phase (6) from the reference electrode into the bulk electrolyte (25; col. 3, lines 20-28). The separator barrier (outer tube 1; figures 2-4) is disposed at least partially within the molten salt (25 – reference electrodes 7, 7’ are disposed within an outer tube/separator barrier 1; col. 3, lines 11-22). The reference electrodes are based on a molten salt system, where the electrode potential response depends on the concentration of dissolved lithium oxide in the molten salt (col. 2, lines 60-65). As shown in figures 2, 4 and 9, the separator barrier (1) separates the reference salt (6) and the molten salt (25; figures 2, 4, 9; col. 3, lines 20-28). The thermocouple wire (7) acts as part of the Ni/NiO reference electrode and a voltage lead (col. 4, lines 1-4).
Redey does not disclose a separator barrier.
In response, the outer tube (1) and diffusion barrier (2) of Redey correlate to the claimed separator barrier. As discussed above, the lower portion of the enclosure/separator barrier (1) is filled (i.e. plugged) with a dense diffusion barrier (2) in ion communication with the bulk cell molten electrolyte (25; figures 4, 9) that prevents leakage of the phase (6) from the reference electrode into the bulk electrolyte (25; col. 3, lines 20-28).
Redey does not disclose a reference salt.
In response, Redey teaches a reference salt (6) disposed within the separator barrier (1). Reference electrodes are based on a molten salt system, where the electrode potential response depends on the concentration of dissolved lithium oxide in the molten salt (col. 2, lines 60-65).
Redey does not disclose uranium tetrafluoride or uranium trifluoride in the reference salt.
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. The applicant further argues that the Office fails to show the relationships in the context of the claimed reference phase and the reference wire, as required in claims 22-23, i.e. wherein the reference wire (7) comprises a material that is less reactive than ions in the reference phase (6).
In response, Redey discloses wherein the reference wire comprises NiO (col. 4, lines 1-4). This material is well-known to be less reactive than ions in the reference phase (6), i.e. Li2O or CaO (col. 4, lines 32-40).
For these reasons, the rejections in view of Redey are still deemed proper and are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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