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 in the reply filed on 28 May 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMinn et al (US 3,499,831).
McMinn et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1, 5 and 8, and col. 2, line 36 to col. 3, line 33) a pin assembly (24) configured to be inserted into an electrode body (209) of an electrode (22) for providing an electric current to the electrode body, the pin assembly included:
a structural support member (201) configured to mechanically support the electrode body; and,
a protective conductive member (200+203) configured to surround (i.e. embed) the structural support member, the protective conductive member comprising at least one metal or alloy (copper) adapted for conducting the electric current (to the electrode body) while protecting the structural support member against corrosion.
The protective conductive member (200+203) was a tube fitting around the structural support member (201) and was formed as a bimetal tube comprising an upper section (203) formed from a first metal and a lower section (200) formed of a second metal, different from the first metal, wherein both first and second metals were conductive to the electric current.
Regarding claim 2, the structural support member of McMinn et al was made from an iron alloy (steel). Since the pin assembly of McMinn et al was tightly inserted into the electrode body, the structural support member is considered to inherently be configured to mechanically support the refractory component of the electrode body.
Regarding claim 3, the first metal of the upper section (203) was a steel alloy and the second metal of the lower section (200) was copper. Copper possesses a higher thermal conductivity than steel, such that the first and second metals meet the claimed relative thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 4, as noted above, the first metal was an iron alloy (steel) and the second metal was copper.
Regarding claim 11, the protective conductive member of McMinn et al included at least the copper portion 200. This portion was constrained during use inside of a constraining material such as graphite, which can be an inert anode material. The mechanical constraining without breaking or fracturing and the formation of a corrosion product are inherent characteristics of using copper as the outer surface positioned against the constraining material.
Regarding claim 12, the pin assembly of McMinn et al is taught as being disposed in a cathode electrode, not an anode electrode. However, this claim is still limited to the pin assembly, not the combination of the pin assembly with the anode. Therefore, the recitation herein of the anode is considered to be an intended use of the pin assembly and fails to impart additional structural limitations. As such, the pin assembly of McMinn et al was capable of insertion into an anode instead of a cathode.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMinn et al (US 3,499,831 A) in view of Kibby (US 2,761,830 A).
McMinn et al teach (see fig. 1, abstract) an electrode assembly of an electrolytic cell for the production of aluminum (“alumina reduction cell”) comprising a plurality of electrodes (22) each electrode comprising a pin assembly as set forth in claim 1 (see above).
McMinn et al fail to teach a distribution plate configured for operative connection to each of the electrodes via the respective pin assembly for providing an electrical path to the electrodes.
In the same field of endeavor of an electrolytic cell for the production of aluminum, Kibby teaches (see figs. 1 and 2) providing a cathode bus bar (11, having the shape of a plate) connected to several pins (10) that were inserted into the cathode electrode (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a cathode bus bar (a “distribution plate” as claimed) as taught by Kibby to the assembly of McMinn et al for the purpose of routing the electric power to the cathodes of McMinn et al, i.e. the known function of the cathode bus bar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 13 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: -Claim 5 - McMinn et al is considered the closest prior art. The pin head (nut 207 or the unnumbered washer) does not extend radially beyond the external surface of the lower section of the tube. Further, modification of the nut/washer of McMinn et al to extend radially beyond the external surface of the lower section of the tube would have prevented the pin assembly from functioning properly. The external surface of the lower section needed to be in physical contact with the bore hole of the electrode body to conduct electricity to the electrode body. Making the nut/washer to be larger than the lower section of the tube of the protective conductive member would have necessitated making the bore hole to be larger which would have prevented the external surface of the lower section from making physical contact with the bore hole. Therefore, since modification of the device of McMinn et al in the claimed fashion would have destroyed the capability of the device of McMinn et al to perform the primary function, let alone the absence of a teaching in the prior art to make the modification, claim 5 defines a non-obvious invention.
Claim 14 - McMinn et al is considered the closest prior art. The pin assemblies of McMinn et al that correspond to the pins of claim 1 were located within the cathode electrodes. There does not appear to be a teaching or suggestion to use the bimetal tube of McMinn et al protect pin assemblies for the anodes, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have had a reasonable expectation that the pins of McMinn et al would have behaved similarly if connected to the anode instead of the cathode.
Additionally, the Office notes that the claim term “bimetal tube” has no definition set forth in the specification and does not appear to be a conventional term in the prior art. The term has been interpreted to mean a tube shaped structure comprising at least two metals. This interpretation includes the structure taught by McMinn et al. If Applicant were to amend the claims to limit the structure of the bimetal tube to that seen in the figures, such as by reciting “wherein the upper portion and the lower portion of the bimetal tube have the same outer diameter” or “wherein the lower end of the upper portion abuts against the upper end of the lower portion” or similar structural limitations, then those claims would also be found non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights