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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection.
On pages 5-6 of the Remarks section, Applicant discusses the previous Specification objection and 112b rejections, and the amendments made to address them. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn the objection and the rejections.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 24 involving the previous prior art references of Albrecht et al., (“Albrecht”, US 2012/0292196), Nakanishi et al., (“Nakanishi”, US 2005/0173262), and Schwartzel et al., (“Schwartzel”, US 2011/0024361). Applicant argues that these references do not disclose a motivation to combine these references to reverse the polarity of the anode and cathode responsive to the parameter being outside of a range sufficient to prevent generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber as presently amended in independent Claim 24. The Examiner notes that newly found secondary reference Wikey, (US 3,891,535), demonstrates reversing the polarity of the anode and cathode to maintain the generation of gas, and maximize electrolysis, in which it defines the action of electrolysis as the generation of hydrogen gas as a byproduct. This reference is in combination with Nakanishi which monitors the concentration of the hydrogen gas during electrolysis. The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Schwartzel and Nakanishi moot since they are directed towards their combination, which is no longer present.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please also insert the patent number and date of the divisional application and the WIPO patent number and date to which this application claims priority.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al., (“Albrecht”, US 2012/0292196), in view of Nakanishi et al., (“Nakanishi”, US 2005/0173262), in further view of Wikey, (US 3,891,535).
Regarding Claims 24-26, Albrecht discloses a method of operating an electrochemical cell, the method comprising steps of: introducing a first saline aqueous solution into a first chamber of an electrochemical cell comprising an anode, (Anode, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0443]); introducing a second saline aqueous solution into a second chamber of the electrochemical cell comprising a cathode, (Cathode, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0443]); and applying a current across the anode and the cathode at a voltage sufficient to generate a first product compound from the first saline aqueous solution, generate a second product compound from the second saline aqueous solution, (Voltage, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0393]), and selectively transfer monovalent ions across an ionic connection between the first chamber and the second chamber, (IEM, See Figure 1A, See paragraph [0225], [0442]), the ionic connection being constructed and arranged to prevent the first saline aqueous solution from mixing with the second saline aqueous solution, (See paragraph [0227], [0228]).
Albrecht does not disclose further comprising monitoring at least one parameter selected from a voltage applied across the anode and the cathode and a concentration of dissolved hydrogen in the second chamber, or further comprising reversing polarity of the anode and the cathode, responsive to the parameter being outside of a range sufficient to prevent generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber.
Nakanishi discloses further comprising monitoring at least one parameter selected from a voltage applied across the anode and the cathode and a concentration of dissolved hydrogen in the second chamber, (See paragraph [0199], [0200], [0208], Nakanishi), responsive to the parameter being outside of a range sufficient to prevent generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber, (See paragraph [0199], [0200], [0208], Nakanishi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrochemical system of modified Albrecht by incorporating further comprising monitoring at least one parameter selected from a voltage applied across the anode and the cathode and a concentration of dissolved hydrogen in the second chamber responsive to the parameter being outside of a range sufficient to prevent generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber as in Nakanishi so that “it makes it possible to prevent unnecessary implementation of the electrochemical reaction and associated wasteful costs” or “the reaction is continued or started” if “the reduction [process] is not completed”, (See paragraph [0012], Nakanishi).
Modified Albrecht does not explicitly disclose further comprising reversing polarity of the anode and the cathode, responsive to generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber.
Wikey discloses further comprising reversing polarity of the anode and the cathode, responsive to generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber, (See column 1, lines 34-36, column 2, lines 26-7, lines 34-57, Wikey).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrochemical system of modified Albrecht by incorporating further comprising reversing polarity of the anode and the cathode, responsive to generation of hydrogen gas within the second chamber as in Wikey in order to “retain the plates in a clean condition so that they maximize the action of electrolysis obtained between the plates”, (See column 2, lines 54-57, Wikey), and “maintain the gaseous discharge at said electrodes”, (See Claim 1, Wikey).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 25: The method of claim 24, comprising introducing the second saline aqueous solution having a different composition than the first saline aqueous solution, (See paragraph [0440], [0437], Albrecht; anolyte selected as seawater, catholyte selected as brine, which have different salinities/compositions).
Claim 26: The method of claim 25, comprising introducing the first saline aqueous solution comprising seawater and introducing the second saline aqueous solution comprising brine, (See paragraph [0440], [0437], Albrecht; anolyte selected as seawater, catholyte selected as brine).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights