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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 13-24 in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 August 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 13, the amended recitation “the electrode arrangement also including flow diverter members positioned in at least some of the interstitial spaces between the first and second electrode plates, the flow diverter members each having a first dimension that extends transversely across an interstitial space gap defined between two of the first and second electrode plates, a second dimension oriented perpendicular to the first dimension and a third dimension oriented perpendicular to the first and second dimensions, the third dimension being multi-times as large as the second dimension.” Is deemed new matter because the instant specification is silent as to the first, second, and third dimensions and relative sizes with respect to each.
It is noted that with respect to new claims 22, 23, and 24, while the instant specification lacks the literal phrasing of each side, i.e. “first side” “second side” etc, the limitations are deemed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 as the general recitation of each side is commensurate with the instant Figures, particularly Figs. 9, 21, 24, 31, and 32 and thus descriptive of the figures as provided of the locations of explicitly disclosed structures relative one another.
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.
Claims 13-24 are 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.
The term “some” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is indefinite what number constitutes “some”. For examination on the merits, “some” will be considered to be more than 1.
The term “multi-times” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “multi-times” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is indefinite what difference satisfies “multi-times”. For examination on the merits, so long as one dimension is relatively larger than the other, the limitation will be deemed satisfied, regardless of scale and whether the ratio is a whole number, i.e. 2x, or fractural, 1.1x where x is the size of the smaller dimension.
Claim Interpretation
As to the recitation of “flow diverter member” in the claim, the examination on the merits, any structure satisfying the dimensional limitations found within an interstitial space between electrodes will be deemed to read on the instant structural limitation because any structure situated as such necessarily modifies the flow around the electrodes.
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 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClean (US 2015/0274558A1) in view of Garuti et al (US 629,070).
As to claim 13, McClean discloses an electrode arrangement (Fig. 1/2) comprising
a plurality of first electrode plates interleaved (#6 [0063]) with a plurality of second electrode plates ([0063] #7) to form a plate stack (collection in Fig.1/2),
the plurality of first electrode plates having unitary first tabs (#s 8) and
the plurality of second electrode plates having unitary second tabs (#10),
the first tabs being electrically and mechanically connected to a first terminal block (#12) and
the second tabs being electrically and mechanically connected to a second terminal block (#13),
a first terminal post electrically and mechanically connected to the first terminal block (#22) and
a second terminal post electrically and mechanically connected to the second terminal block (#23), the first and second terminal posts projecting from their respective first and second terminal blocks in a direction away from and parallel to the first and second plurality pluralities of electrode plates (See Fig. 1/2),
at least the first plurality of electrode plates being coated with a catalyst ([0066]),
the first electrode plates and the second electrode plates being separated by interstitial spaces (See spaces 6/7),
the electrode arrangement also including flow diverter members positioned in at least some of the interstitial spaces between the first and second electrode plates ([0064] “non-conducting spacers”),
the flow diverter members each having a first dimension that extends transversely across an interstitial space gap defined between two of the first and second electrode plates([0064] the spacers 21).
McClean fails to explicitly disclose a second dimension oriented perpendicular to the first dimension and a third dimension oriented perpendicular to the first and second dimensions, the third dimension being multi-times as large as the second dimension.
Garuti discloses spaces with second and third dimensions longer where the third dimension is multi-times as large as the second dimension (Fig. 7 and Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a dimension of the spacer as taught by Garuti in the apparatus of McClean because it allows the separation of the electrodes via the combs and has a handle which allows for removal (McClean pg. 1 lines 85-99).
As to claim 14, McClean further discloses wherein the first and second pluralities of electrode plates are coupled together by a plurality of fasteners. (#20).
As to claims 15-17, McClean further discloses wherein the plurality of fasteners bolts that are electrical insulators and a dielectric. ([0065] PVC “threaded rods”).
As to claim 18, McClean further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement further includes electrically insulating spacers positioned between each opposing first and second electrode plate of the pluralities of first and second electrode plates such that a desired spacing between each of the opposing first and second electrode plates is maintained. (#21 [0064]).
As to claim 20, McClean further discloses wherein the electrode arrangement is coupled to a removable cover for a housing of an electrolytic device, wherein the first and second terminal posts extend through the removable cover. (#2).
As to claim 21, McClean further disclose wherein the first tabs are positioned at a top of the plate stack and adjacent a first side, wherein the second tabs are positioned at the top of the plate stack and adjacent a second side. (relative positions of tabs to each other are deemed to be first side and second side).
As to claim 22 and 23, McClean further discloses wherein the plate stack includes first and second sides that are opposite from one another and third and fourth sides that are opposite from one another, wherein the third and fourth sides extent between the first and second sides, wherein the first and second terminal posts are located at the first side, and wherein at least some of the first and second electrode plates have ends arranged in a staggered configuration at the third side. (See annotation below where staggered is interpreted to be alternating) and comprising fifth and sixth sides that are opposite from one another, and wherein the first dimensions are oriented to extend between the fifth and sixth sides. (as required by instant claim 23 as annotated provided below)
PNG
media_image1.png
648
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClean, as modified Garuti, as applied to claim 13, in further view of Bostock (US 2010/0116650 A1).
As to claim 19, McClean, as modified by Garuti, discloses insulating spacers between the electrodes ([0064]) but fails to disclose wherein they are positioned about a plurality of the fasteners.
Bostock discloses insulating spacers positioned about fastening bolts (#242 [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have positioned the spacers about the fasteners as taught by Bostock in the apparatus of McClean, as modified by Garuti, because it allows for the positioning of the electrodes in order to secure the spacing member in its position (Bostock [0116]).
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClean, as modified Garuti, as applied to claim 23, in further view of McCallum (US 4,142,959 A1).
As to claim 24, McClean, as modified Garuti, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fifth and sixth sides are not coated with the catalyst.
McCallum discloses only coating a single side of the outermost electrodes (col. 6 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ivnentionw as filed to have only used a catalyst coating on one side as taught by McCallum to not coat the fifth or sixth sides of the electrodes in McClean, as modified by Garuit, in order to secure the electrode with a cement (col. 6 lines 15-18 McCallum).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights