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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case, the following claim limitations will be afforded interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Instant claim 5: grasping means cooperating with the metal sheet or elements thereof to allow extraction of an assembly of the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal.
Instant claim 7: locking means configured to hold the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal in position when opening the cell and for subsequent extraction of an assembly of the plate and metal sheet by the grasping means, the locking means coinciding with the grasping means.
Instant claim 8: mechanical extraction means configured to carry out extraction of an assembly of the metal sheet and electrolytically deposited metal along a translational movement parallel to the electrodes
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The grasping means in claim 6
Clamping means in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-14 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 “non-adherent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-adherent” 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. In the instant case, the phrase describes a generic “coating” and how it relates to an electrolytically deposited metal. It is indefinite as to what materials for the coating are suitable or how the type of electrolytically deposited metal affects the adherence. In other words, it is indefinite because while the phrase describes a generic property, non-adherence, the property differs in scope based on an electrolytically deposited metal. For example, one type of coating may non-adhere to zinc while adhere to copper and another may non-adhere to copper and adhere to zinc. Thus, the scope is unclear as encompassing any coating such that is may non-adhere in someway to any generic electrolytically deposited metal.
The term “low” in claim 10 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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. In the instant case, it is indefinite what is deemed to be “low” carbon steel sheet.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill (US 6,245,209 B1) in view of Elkin (US 3,523,873) and Paterson (US 2023/0077321 A1).
As to claim 1, Bill discloses A device for producing a pure metal or an alloy of the pure metal via electrolytic reduction of an ore of the pure metal or of a substance containing an oxidized form of the pure metal, the device comprising:
a cell (“Tank” used throughout” )equipped with an anode (shown explicitly Fig. 10 #101A/101B), a cathode (Fig. 10 #s 90), an electrolytic area comprising an electrolyte (#91 Fig. 10 col. 7 line 23),;
an electrically conductive metal sheet for extraction of a plate of the electrolytically deposited metal on the cathode (#70a/b Fig. 9), the metal sheet being arranged in the cell in a continuation of the cathode or partially overlapping the cathode, with mechanical and electrical contact at one end with the cathode and extending at least partly beyond the electrolytic area of the cell so as to allow simultaneous depositing of the pure metal on the cathode and on a portion of the metal sheet in contact with the electrolytic area (See Fig. 9 #70 overlapping cathode 90 and partially into slurry 91 ad indicated by the line at the top col. 6 lines 52-60),
wherein an adherence between the cathode and the electrolytically deposited metal being less than an adherence between the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal such that the electrolytically deposited metal is separated from the cathode and is drawn out by the metal sheet during a subsequent extraction of the metal sheet via a mechanical means applied on a portion of the metal sheet, which extends beyond the electrolytic area by a translational movement (col. 5 line 63-col. 6 line 9).
Bill discloses generic tank features throughout but fails to explicitly disclose a removable cell closing system and coating non-adherent for an electrolytically deposited metal.
Elkin discloses applying a coating of aliphatic organic compounds to cathodes for the preparation of stripping the metal deposited thereon (col. 1 lines 9-29) for use in electrorefining (col. 1 lines 54-60).
Paterson explicitly disclose a removable cell closing system (covers 110 [0100]) over the electrowinning cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a coating as taught by Elkin with the cathodes in Bill because it prevents the adherence of the plated metal in order to facilitate the stripping of the deposited metal during an electrorefining process. (Elkin col. 3 lines 18-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a removable cell closing system as taught in Patterson with the tank of Bill because the closure system prevents damage to the cell or injury to operators (Paterson [0047]), keep the housing substantially enclosed to prevent exposure of the corrosive environment (Patterson [0049]), allow access to the cathodes to retrieve product (Patterson [0175]).
As to claims 2 and 12, Bill discloses the wherein a length of the metal sheet is less than 50% of a length of the cathode, or less than 10% (see Fig. 7, 8, 9A/9D relative size of the hook to the cathode sizes).
As to claims 3,10, and 11, Bill discloses wherein the cathode comprises pure metals or coated alloys thereof, such as stainless steel which necessarily comprises nickel (col. 2 lines 42-43).
As to claim 4, Bill, as modified by Elkin and Patterson, discloses wherein one portion of the metal sheet, in continuation of the cathode and projecting beyond the electrolytic area, (See Fig. 9A/9B) but fails to explicitly disclose where the metal sheet is received in the removable closing system, which is closed in operation to hold the electrolyte within the cell.
However, such a modification amount to an obvious integration of the closing unit with the metal sheet unit together when in the closed condition in order to hold the metal sheet in the appropriate location when the closing system is closed in place absent further structural distinction as to how the metal sheet is received therein. See MPEP 2144.04 V B.
As to claims 5, 6, and 13, Bill further discloses grasping means cooperating with the metal sheet or elements thereof to allow extraction of an assembly of the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal. (claim 1 step c “grasping said bracket with a hoist”) where the hoist is deemed to be “added geometric elements cooperating together to ensure a pulling action” as required by instant claim 6 and a traction hook as required by instant claim 13.
As to claim 9, the recitation “wherein the device provides that, after extraction, the metal sheet is either separated from the electrolytically deposited pure metal or alloy of the electrolytically deposited metal to prevent pollution, or subsequently melted with the electrolytically deposited metal” does not further limit the device as claimed because it is drawn to the processing of the metal sheet once removed from the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill, as modified by Elkin and Patterson, as applied to claim 5, in further view of Deng et al (CN107779914 A).
As to claim 7, Bill, as modified by Elkin and Patterson, fails to explicitly disclose locking means configured to hold the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal in position when opening the cell and for subsequent extraction of an assembly of the plate and metal sheet by the grasping means, the locking means coinciding with the grasping means.
Deng discloses a self-locking block as part of a grasping means ([0011]) to secure a starting cathode ([0009]) configured to hold the metal sheet and the electrolytically deposited metal in position when opening the cell and for subsequent extraction of an assembly of the plate and metal sheet by the grasping means, the locking means coinciding with the grasping means ([0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the grasping and locking means as taught by Deng in as the grasping means in Bill, as modified by Elkin and Patterson, because it allows for a more secure fix to the cathode (Deng [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 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 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