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 .
Claims 23-44 are pending
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 23-30 and 35-44, drawn to an electrolysis system.
Group II, claim(s) 31-34, drawn to a method for controlling an electrolysis system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an electrolysis system comprising a stack of electrolysis cells, wherein a cell of the stack of electrolysis cells includes a plate, a first stack casing located on a first end of the stack of electrolysis cells, and at least one locking mechanism to move, under a degree of compression, the plate and the first stack casing away from a second end of the electrolysis cells, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hicks (U.S. Patent No. 4,756,817).
Hicks discloses an electrolysis system (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, filter-press type electrolyzer; Col. 6, lines 60-62) comprising: a stack of electrolysis cells, wherein a cell of the stack of electrolysis cells includes a plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, compressed flat plate-type structures 120 which form membrane-type cells with an anode 150, cathode 160 and separator 130 therebetween; see e.g. Col. 6, lines 65-68, and Col. 7, lines 21-25 and 36-51); a first stack casing located on a first end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, mobile platen 50 at one end of plate-type structures 120; Col. 7, lines 4-12); and at least one locking mechanism to move, under a degree of compression, the plate and the first stack casing away from a second end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, second clamping means 100 clamping, i.e. under compression, a portion of the plate-type structures 120 with mobile platen 60 such that they move together when retracted/shifted and split apart from the remaining plate-type structures, i.e. at a second end of the stack; Col. 5, lines 24-36).
During a telephone conversation with Eric Scheuerlein on 08/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 23-30 and 35-44. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 31-34 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 23-30 and 35-44 are under consideration in this Office action.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “800” in Fig. 8; “702a”, “702b” and “702c” in Figs. 7 and 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe the claimed invention, having no mention of, e.g., the locking mechanism. 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 Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 36, line 2, “move under” should read “move, under”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 37 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 36 upon which it depends. The recited limitation of claim 37 of “at least one locking mechanism to move” is previously introduced in line 2 of claim 36. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hicks (U.S. Patent No. 4,756,817).
Regarding claim 23, Hicks discloses an electrolysis system (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, filter-press type electrolyzer; Col. 6, lines 60-62) comprising:
a stack of electrolysis cells, wherein a cell of the stack of electrolysis cells includes a plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, compressed flat plate-type structures 120 which form membrane-type cells with an anode 150, cathode 160 and separator 130 therebetween; see e.g. Col. 6, lines 65-68, and Col. 7, lines 21-25 and 36-51);
a first stack casing located on a first end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, mobile platen 50 at one end of plate-type structures 120; Col. 7, lines 4-12); and
at least one locking mechanism to move, under a degree of compression, the plate and the first stack casing away from a second end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, second clamping means 100 clamping, i.e. under compression, a portion of the plate-type structures 120 with mobile platen 60 such that they move together when retracted/shifted and split apart from the remaining plate-type structures, i.e. at a second end of the stack; Col. 5, lines 24-36).
Regarding claim 24, Hicks discloses the plate being a first plate of the cell and the electrolysis system further comprising: a second plate of the cell (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, first of plate-type structures 120 clamped by second clamping means 100, i.e. first plate, and first of remaining plate-type structures 120 clamped by first clamping means 90, i.e. second plate, which form a membrane-type cell when joined; Col. 5, lines 18-26 and Col. 7, lines 21-25 and 36-51); and
a second locking mechanism to fix the second plate relative to the second end of the stack of electrolysis cells under the degree of compression when the first plate moves away from the second end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, first clamping means 90 clamping, i.e. under compression, and fixing the remaining plate type structures 120 to stationary platen 20 while those clamped by second clamping means 100 are retracted; Col. 5, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 25, Hicks discloses the first stack casing being an endplate of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, mobile platen 50 at one end of plate-type structures 120; Col. 7, lines 4-12).
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 26-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Burgess et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,541,911).
Regarding claim 26, Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 23 as stated above. Hicks further teaches a laterally accessible interface on the plate (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 15, lugs 122 on the outer periphery of plate-type structures 120; Col. 2, lines 63-66); a removable connector, of the at least one locking mechanism, configured to mate with the laterally accessible interface (see e.g. Fig. 15, clamping means 100 with U-shaped support plates 101 removably mounted through lugs 122; Col. 6, lines 18-21).
Hicks does not explicitly an actuator, of the at least one locking mechanism, connected to the removable connector to impart the degree of compression, but does teach the degree of compression being applied using threaded tie-rods with nuts (see e.g. Fig. 15, clamping means 100 comprising tie-rod 103 with threaded ends and nuts 104; Col. 6, lines 18-27) and proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Col. 6, lines 4-7).
Burgess teaches a method of assembling an electrolytic cell of the filter press type (see e.g. Abstract), wherein assembled components of the cell may be compressed on tie rods, and compression may be effected for example by means of turning capstans, i.e. actuators, positioned on screw-threaded ends of the tie rods until the desired degree of compression is achieved (see e.g. Figs. 7-9, capstans 42-48 on ends of tie rods 23-26 turned to compress assembled components; Col. 5, line 53- Col. 6, line 1, Col. 10, lines 31-40, and Col. 11, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hicks to comprise capstans, i.e. actuators, connected to the tie-rods of locking mechanism, and thereby to the removable connector, to impart the degree of compression as taught by Burgess as a suitable means of compressing cell components of a pressed electrolytic cell to a desired degree of compression. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, modified Hicks teaches the laterally accessible interface being a socket in the plate (see e.g. Hicks Fig. 15, lugs 122 with holes therethrough, i.e. forming socket; Col. 6, lines 20-21); and the removable connector being a paddle (see e.g. Hicks Fig. 15, U-shaped support plates 101, i.e. paddles, mounted through lugs 122 via pin members 105/106; Col. 6, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 28, modified Hicks teaches the first stack casing including a first indentation and a second indentation; and the removable connector being configured to be inserted into both the first indentation and the second indentation when being mated to the laterally accessible interface (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1, 11-12 and 15, clamping means 100 removably attached to mobile platen 60 in the same manner as clamping means 90 is to stationary platen 20, with bolts 92 provided in indentations of the platen 60/20, while the U-shaped support plates 101 of the clamping means 100 are mounted through lugs 122; Col. 5, lines 59-66, and Col. 6, lines 11-14 and 18-21).
Regarding claim 30, Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 23 as stated above. Hicks further teaches the at least one locking mechanism further comprising a threaded post that extends through the first stack casing (see e.g. Figs. 1, 11-12 and 15, clamping means 100 removably attached to mobile platen 60 in the same manner as clamping means 90 is to stationary platen 20, with threaded tie-rod 103/93 extending through a support plate 91 on the platen 60/20; Col. 5, lines 59-66, and Col. 6, lines 11-14 and 22-24). Hicks does not explicitly teach the at least one locking mechanism further comprising an actuator, wherein the actuator rotates the threaded post to impart the degree of compression, but does teach proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Col. 6, lines 4-7).
Burgess teaches a method of assembling an electrolytic cell of the filter press type (see e.g. Abstract), wherein assembled components of the cell may be compressed on tie rods, and compression may be effected for example by means of turning capstans, i.e. actuators, positioned on screw-threaded ends of the tie rods until the desired degree of compression is achieved (see e.g. Figs. 7-9, capstans 42-48 on ends of tie rods 23-26 turned to compress assembled components; Col. 5, line 53- Col. 6, line 1, Col. 10, lines 31-40, and Col. 11, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hicks to comprise capstans, i.e. actuators, that turn/rotate the threaded posts/tie rods of the locking mechanism to impart the degree of compression as taught by Burgess as a suitable means of compressing cell components of a pressed electrolytic cell to a desired degree of compression. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Gardner (U.S. Patent No. 4,846,951).
Regarding claim 29, Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 23 as stated above. Hicks does not teach a pressure sensor connected to the stack of electrolysis cells; and a control loop for the at least one locking mechanism which uses data from the pressure sensor as at least part of a feedback signal of the control loop. Hicks does however teach proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary for the locking mechanism to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Col. 6, lines 4-7), with gaskets being provided for providing fluid tight sealing between membranes and plate structures of the electrolysis system (see e.g. Col. 7, lines 51-54).
Gardner teaches an apparatus for controlling the pressure load on gaskets of an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a squeezer unit for pressing cell frame members together (see e.g. Fig., squeezer unit 10 squeezing cell frame members 10; Col. 2, lines 32-34), a pressure sensing means, i.e. sensor, for measuring pressure inside the electrolysis cell (see e.g. Fig. pressure transmitter 37; Col. 3, lines 10-13), and a control system that controls the squeeze pressure, i.e. degree of compression, applied by the squeezer unit to the frame members based at least in part on the data from the cell pressure sensor (see e.g. Fig., control system 30 including controller means 40; Col. 2, lines 6-12 and 50-53, and Col. 3, lines 16-47), thus allowing automatic balancing of pressure in the cell to prevent gasket failure and minimize membrane damage (see e.g. Col. 1, line 50-Col. 2, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hicks to comprise a pressure sensor measuring a pressure inside the stack of electrolysis cells and a control system which controls the compression imparted by the locking mechanism based at least in part on the data from the pressure sensor as taught by Gardner to allow automatic balancing of pressure in the cell stack to prevent gasket failure and minimize membrane damage.
Claims 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Berriah et al. (U.S. 2009/0014326).
Regarding claim 35, Hicks teaches an electrolysis system (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, filter-press type electrolyzer; Col. 6, lines 60-62) comprising:
a stack of electrolysis cells, wherein a cell of the stack of electrolysis cells includes a plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, compressed flat plate-type structures 120 which form membrane-type cells with an anode 150, cathode 160 and separator 130 therebetween; see e.g. Col. 6, lines 65-68, and Col. 7, lines 21-25 and 36-51);
a first stack casing located on a first end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, mobile platen 50 at one end of plate-type structures 120; Col. 7, lines 4-12);
a degrading cell in the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Col. 7, line 68-Col. 8, line 6, cell frame structure having a problem, particularly a faulty/damaged membrane between two cell frame structures of the electrolyzer); and
a mechanism to maintain at least one other cell in the stack of electrolysis cells while replacing the degrading cell (see e.g. Col. 8, lines 6-23, clamping means and movement means allowing access to faulty cell structure and membrane for removal/replacement with little or no disturbance to, i.e. maintaining of, the other cell frame structures).
Hicks does not explicitly teach a sensor to detect the degrading cell.
Berriah teaches a method and system for evaluating damage of a plurality of cells in an electrolyser (see e.g. Abstract), wherein sensors are provided to acquire data such as voltages for each one of the cells such that severely damaged cells can be identified, and appropriate maintenance actions such as deactivation or replacement of damaged cells can be performed (see e.g. Paragraphs 0009, 0039-0040 and 0049-0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis system of Hicks to comprise sensors such as voltage sensors to detect the degrading cell as taught by Berriah as a suitable means of identifying damaged cells such that appropriate maintenance actions, e.g. deactivation or replacement, can be performed. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claims 36-37, modified Hicks teaches the mechanism being at least one locking mechanism to move, under a degree of compression, the plate and the first stack casing away from a second end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1-3, second clamping means 100 clamping, i.e. under compression, a portion of the plate-type structures 120 with mobile platen 60 such that they move together when retracted/shifted and split apart from the remaining plate-type structures, i.e. at a second end of the stack; Col. 5, lines 24-36).
Regarding claim 38, modified Hicks teaches the plate being a first plate of the cell and the electrolysis system further comprising: a second plate of the cell (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1-3, first of plate-type structures 120 clamped by second clamping means 100, i.e. first plate, and first of remaining plate-type structures 120 clamped by first clamping means 90, i.e. second plate, which form a membrane-type cell when joined; Col. 5, lines 18-26 and Col. 7, lines 21-25 and 36-51); and
a second locking mechanism to fix the second plate relative to the second end of the stack of electrolysis cells under the degree of compression when the first plate moves away from the second end of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1-3, first clamping means 90 clamping, i.e. under compression, and fixing the remaining plate type structures 120 to stationary platen 20 while those clamped by second clamping means 100 are retracted; Col. 5, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 39, modified Hicks teaches the first stack casing being an endplate of the stack of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1-3, mobile platen 50 at one end of plate-type structures 120; Col. 7, lines 4-12).
Claims 40-42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Berriah, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Burgess.
Regarding claim 40, modified Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 36 as stated above. Modified Hicks further teaches a laterally accessible interface on the plate (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1 and 15, lugs 122 on the outer periphery of plate-type structures 120; Col. 2, lines 63-66); a removable connector, of the at least one locking mechanism, configured to mate with the laterally accessible interface (see e.g. Hicks Fig. 15, clamping means 100 with U-shaped support plates 101 removably mounted through lugs 122; Col. 6, lines 18-21).
Modified Hicks does not explicitly an actuator, of the at least one locking mechanism, connected to the removable connector to impart the degree of compression, but does teach the degree of compression being applied using threaded tie-rods with nuts (see e.g. Fig. 15, clamping means 100 comprising tie-rod 103 with threaded ends and nuts 104; Col. 6, lines 18-27) and proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Col. 6, lines 4-7).
Burgess teaches a method of assembling an electrolytic cell of the filter press type (see e.g. Abstract), wherein assembled components of the cell may be compressed on tie rods, and compression may be effected for example by means of turning capstans, i.e. actuators, positioned on screw-threaded ends of the tie rods until the desired degree of compression is achieved (see e.g. Figs. 7-9, capstans 42-48 on ends of tie rods 23-26 turned to compress assembled components; Col. 5, line 53- Col. 6, line 1, Col. 10, lines 31-40, and Col. 11, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hicks to comprise capstans, i.e. actuators, connected to the tie-rods of locking mechanism, and thereby to the removable connector, to impart the degree of compression as taught by Burgess as a suitable means of compressing cell components of a pressed electrolytic cell to a desired degree of compression. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 41, modified Hicks teaches the laterally accessible interface being a socket in the plate (see e.g. Hicks Fig. 15, lugs 122 with holes therethrough, i.e. forming socket; Col. 6, lines 20-21); and the removable connector being a paddle (see e.g. Hicks Fig. 15, U-shaped support plates 101, i.e. paddles, mounted through lugs 122 via pin members 105/106; Col. 6, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 42, modified Hicks teaches the first stack casing including a first indentation and a second indentation; and the removable connector being configured to be inserted into both the first indentation and the second indentation when being mated to the laterally accessible interface (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1, 11-12 and 15, clamping means 100 removably attached to mobile platen 60 in the same manner as clamping means 90 is to stationary platen 20, with bolts 92 provided in indentations of the platen 60/20, while the U-shaped support plates 101 of the clamping means 100 are mounted through lugs 122; Col. 5, lines 59-66, and Col. 6, lines 11-14 and 18-21).
Regarding claim 44, modified Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 36 as stated above. Modified Hicks further teaches the at least one locking mechanism further comprising a threaded post that extends through the first stack casing (see e.g. Hicks Figs. 1, 11-12 and 15, clamping means 100 removably attached to mobile platen 60 in the same manner as clamping means 90 is to stationary platen 20, with threaded tie-rod 103/93 extending through a support plate 91 on the platen 60/20; Col. 5, lines 59-66, and Col. 6, lines 11-14 and 22-24). Modified Hicks does not explicitly teach the at least one locking mechanism further comprising an actuator, wherein the actuator rotates the threaded post to impart the degree of compression, but does teach proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Hicks Col. 6, lines 4-7).
Burgess teaches a method of assembling an electrolytic cell of the filter press type (see e.g. Abstract), wherein assembled components of the cell may be compressed on tie rods, and compression may be effected for example by means of turning capstans, i.e. actuators, positioned on screw-threaded ends of the tie rods until the desired degree of compression is achieved (see e.g. Figs. 7-9, capstans 42-48 on ends of tie rods 23-26 turned to compress assembled components; Col. 5, line 53- Col. 6, line 1, Col. 10, lines 31-40, and Col. 11, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hicks to comprise capstans, i.e. actuators, that turn/rotate the threaded posts/tie rods of the locking mechanism to impart the degree of compression as taught by Burgess as a suitable means of compressing cell components of a pressed electrolytic cell to a desired degree of compression. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Berriah, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Gardner.
Regarding claim 43, modified Hicks teaches all the elements of the system of claim 36 as stated above. Modified Hicks does not teach a pressure sensor connected to the stack of electrolysis cells; and a control loop for the at least one locking mechanism which uses data from the pressure sensor as at least part of a feedback signal of the control loop. Hicks does however teach proper placement and torquing of the compression means being necessary for the locking mechanism to prevent liquid leakage from the compressed plate structures and structure-to-structure movement (see e.g. Hicks Col. 6, lines 4-7).
Gardner teaches an apparatus for controlling the pressure load on gaskets of an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a squeezer unit for pressing cell frame members together (see e.g. Fig., squeezer unit 10 squeezing cell frame members 10; Col. 2, lines 32-34), a pressure sensing means, i.e. sensor, for measuring pressure inside the electrolysis cell (see e.g. Fig. pressure transmitter 37; Col. 3, lines 10-13), and a control system that controls the squeeze pressure, i.e. degree of compression, applied by the squeezer unit to the frame members based at least in part on the data from the cell pressure sensor (see e.g. Fig., control system 30 including controller means 40; Col. 2, lines 6-12 and 50-53, and Col. 3, lines 16-47), thus allowing automatic balancing of pressure in the cell to prevent gasket failure and minimize membrane damage (see e.g. Col. 1, line 50-Col. 2, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hicks to comprise a pressure sensor measuring a pressure inside the stack of electrolysis cells and a control system which controls the compression imparted by the locking mechanism based at least in part on the data from the pressure sensor as taught by Gardner to allow automatic balancing of pressure in the cell stack to prevent gasket failure and minimize membrane damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights