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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 and 03/07/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “provided as bath” lacks the article “a” before “bath”. Claim 12 should recite “provided as a bath”. Appropriate correction is required in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites” the bath”, which lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of claim 13 is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (Ryosuke O. Suzuki et al., Calciothermic Reduction of Titanium Oxide and in-situ Electrolysis in Molten CaCl2, June 2003, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, Volume 34, pages 287–295)
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a reactor device (an experimental setup for reduction and in-situ electrolysis, as shown in Fig. 5 [p.290]) for converting powdered metal oxides contained in regolith, to metal powder and molecular oxygen (Suzuki's device explicitly discloses converting TiO2 powder into metallic titanium and identifies the obtained product as powder (p. 287, Abstract; p. 290, col.2, para. 3. Therefore, the device of Suzuki would be capable of performing the recited function) the reactor device comprising
a cathode reactor vessel (a basket-type cathode, see Fig. 5 [p.290, col.2, para.1]) providing a receiving space for the powdered metal oxides (a basket-type cathode filled with TiO2 powder, see Fig. 5 [p.290, col.1, part III, para.2; col.2, para.1]) adapted to be connected to an electron source (the basket -type cathode was connected by a lead to a power supply, see Fig.5 [p.290, col.2, para.1] such that the powdered electrode oxides can be converted to the metal powder and oxygen ions by the application of an electrical potential (Suzuki teaches reduction of TiO2 to Ti in basket type cathode connected to power supply and operated an applied voltage. p. 290, col. 2, para. 2); and
an anode reactor vessel (a graphite crucible used as the anode, see Fig. 5 [p, 290, col.1; Part III, para. 1]) adapted to be connected to an electron sink (the graphite crucible connected by a lead to a direct-current power supply, see Fig. 5 [p, 290, col.1; Part III, para. 1] to attract the oxygen ions travelling through an electrolyte from the cathode reactor vessel to the anode reactor vessel during operation of the reactor device (Suzuki illustrates oxygen ions traveling through the molten electrolyte toward the carbon anode during operation of the device, see Fig 11(b) [p. 294]);
wherein the anode reactor vessel at least partially surrounds the cathode reactor vessel (a graphite crucible used as the anode, with the Ti-basket type cathode positioned within the graphite crucible, see Fig. 5 [p. 290]).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the reactor device according to claim 1, wherein the cathode reactor vessel is at least partially received in the anode reactor vessel (the Ti basket-type cathode is positioned within the graphite crucible anode as shown in Fig.5 [p. 290]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the reactor device according to claim 1, wherein the anode reactor vessel circumferentially encompasses the cathode reactor vessel (that the graphite crucible anode surrounds the Ti basket-type cathode as shown in Fig.5 [p. 290]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the reactor device according to claim 1, wherein the anode reactor vessel at least partially holds the electrolyte (that the CaCl2 and CaO electrolyte was filled in the graphite crucible, [p. 290, part III, para. 1; P. 291, Table II]).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the reactor device according to claim 1, wherein the anode reactor vessel contains the electrolyte (the graphite crucible contains the molten electrolyte and is used as the anode, as shown in Fig.5 [p. 290]).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a conversion system (an experimental setup for reduction and in-situ electrolysis, as shown in Fig. 5 [p.290]) for converting powdered metal oxides contained in regolith, to metal powder and molecular oxygen (Suzuki discloses all the positively recited structure contained in the claim body. Additionally, Suzuki's device explicitly discloses converting TiO2 powder into metallic titanium and identifies the obtained product as powder [p. 287, Abstract; p. 290, col.2, para. 3]. Therefore, the device of Suzuki would be capable of performing the recited function) the conversion system comprising at least one reactor device (an experimental setup for reduction and in-situ electrolysis, as shown in Fig. 5 [p.290]), comprising:
a cathode reactor vessel (a basket-type cathode, see Fig. 5 [p.290, col.2, para.1]), providing a receiving space for the powdered metal oxides (a basket-type cathode filled with TiO2 powder, see Fig. 5 [p.290, col.1, part III, para.2; col.2, para.1]); and adapted to be connected to an electron (the basket -type cathode was connected by a lead to a power supply, see Fig.5 [p.290, col.2, para.1]) such that the powdered electrode oxides can be converted to the metal powder and oxygen ions by the application of an electrical potential (Suzuki teaches reduction of TiO2 to Ti in basket type cathode connected to power supply and operated an applied voltage. (p. 290, col. 2, para. 2)), and
an anode reactor vessel (a graphite crucible used as the anode, see Fig. 5 [p, 290, col.1; Part III, para. 1]) adapted to be connected to an electron sink (the graphite crucible connected by a lead to a direct-current power supply, see Fig. 5 [p, 290, col.1; Part III, para. 1] to attract the oxygen ions travelling through an electrolyte from the cathode reactor vessel to the anode reactor vessel during operation of the reactor device (Suzuki illustrates oxygen ions traveling through the molten electrolyte toward the carbon anode during operation of the device, see Fig 11(b) [p. 294]);
wherein the anode reactor vessel at least partially surrounds the cathode reactor vessel (a graphite crucible used as the anode, with the Ti-basket type cathode positioned within the graphite crucible, see Fig. 5 [p. 290]).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 6-12 and 15 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Ryosuke O. Suzuki et al., (Calciothermic Reduction of Titanium Oxide and in-situ Electrolysis in Molten CaCl2, June 2003, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, Volume 34, pages 287–295) is considered the closet prior art of record to the instant invention. Suzuki discloses a graphite crucible anode containing a molten electrolyte and a basket type cathode containing TiO2powder, see Fig. 5 [p. 290]).Suzuki does not explicitly disclose or reasonably suggest an anode reactor wall that is at least partially permeable to allow a diffusion of oxygen ions thought the anode reactor wall (claim 6), or an node reactor vessel that is at least partially formed of an oxygen ion conducting ceramic material to allow for a transfer of the oxygen ions towards an oxygen collecting reactor container located outside of the anode reactor vessel (p. 8, claim 7). Suzuki further does not explicitly disclose or reasonably suggest a powder cartridge configured to be inserted into the cathode reactor vessel and hold the powdered metal oxides during conversion (p. 9, claim 15).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. George Z. Chen, Interactions of molten salts with cathode products in the FFC Cambridge Process, December 2020, Volume 27, Number 12, Page 1572 -1587 is considered pertinent for teaching an oxygen ion conducting ceramic membrane having a wet side in contact with molten salt and a dry side coated with a porous platinum paste or provided with a platinum mesh or wire as a current collector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZITA NOURI whose telephone number is (571)270-7432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8 am to 4:30 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 V 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.
/A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights