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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 30 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 have been canceled from the application and claims 21-35 have been added by amendment. No claims were withdrawn. Claims 16-35 are currently pending in the application.
Newly submitted claims 21-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions II and III (claims 21-35) are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process of electrodeposition as claimed can be practiced by .
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 May 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Restriction/Election Requirement on 4 May 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 2015/0191840 A1), in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0140739 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Grant teaches a system for electrodeposition (Abstract: as “electroproduction” and “electrorefining”), including providing a plurality of child voltage signals from a rectifier circuit to a plurality of positions along a surface of an anode of an electrodeposition device ([0093], Fig. 6: converters connected to an anode at multiple points; also [0170] and Fig. 29: anodes (96) driven by power supplies (100)). In such systems, the application of electric current results in deposition of a layer of metal on a surface of a cathode, reading on the limitation of “depositing a layer of metal on a surface of a cathode at least partially disposed within an anode bath of the anode of an electrodeposition device in response to providing the plurality of child voltage signals to the plurality of positions along the surface of the anode” ([0004]-[0005]: electrorefining and electrowinning, both forms of electrodeposition; Figs. 1-4 depict electrolyte (4) in a tank (5), reading on “anode bath”).
Grant does not teach the use of a series-in-parallel-out rectifier circuit which converts a voltage signal to a plurality of child voltage signals in parallel in order to deposit a layer of metal onto the cathode.
However, Liu teaches a series-in-parallel-out rectifier circuit which converts a voltage signal to a plurality of child voltage signals in parallel ([0110], Fig. 1: input terminals (21) of rectifier units (2) are connected in series, output terminals (22) are connected in parallel to power converters (3); entire system referred to as a circuit throughout). The system is able to achieve greater power conversion efficiency than typical power converters due to greater power factor ([0045]). Redundancy is also achieved by the plurality of rectifiers within the circuit ([0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the rectifier circuit of Liu in the system of Grant. One would be motivated to do so as the circuit taught by Liu is capable of providing a plurality of child voltage signals in parallel from a single voltage signal, and achieves improved conversion efficiency and redundancy compared to typical power supplies ([0045]; [0114]).
Regarding claim 17, Liu as applied to Grant further teaches that the supplied voltage signal is alternating current (Liu [0042], Fig. 1: rectifier input terminals are connected to AC power source P, rectifier units produce DC power). A plurality of DC-DC converter circuits, within the series-in-parallel-out rectifier circuit, convert the one or more DC signals to a plurality of child DC signals ([0043], Fig. 1: converters (3) receive DC power at inputs (31), with outputs (32) and (33)).
Regarding claim 18, Grant in view of Liu further teaches that the DC-DC converter circuits providing the plurality of child direct current signals along the anode are in electrical and physical contact with the anode at the plurality of positions (Grant [0093], Fig. 6: 9A, 9C, 9E, 9F, 9H, 9J are power converters).
Regarding claim 19, Grant in view of Liu states that components of the series-in-parallel-out rectifier circuit may provide heat generated into the electrolytic material in the anode bath (Grant [0142]: “In embodiments where the regulators or power supplies are integral parts of the hanger bar and/or electrode plate assembly, heat generated in the regulators or power supplies can be conducted into the plate and thus the electrolyte”). A thermal connection is understood to exist when the mounting structure is an integral part of the power supply, because the physical contact of these parts is expected to result in heat conduction between them.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 2015/0191840 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0140739 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tastekin et al. (US 2016/0241124 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Grant in view of Liu does not teach converting the AC signal to a single DC signal utilizing the AC-to-DC converter circuit; and converting the single DC signal to the plurality of child DC signals utilizing the plurality of DC-to-DC converter circuits arranged in series with parallel outputs.
However, Tastekin teaches that in power conversion systems, DC-to-DC converter modules may be coupled in series on the input side, and in parallel on the output side, producing a plurality of child DC signals in parallel ([0010]-[0011], [0026]-[0027]; Fig. 2: (5a), (5b) input DC signal, outputs from (1) and (2) are in parallel). This arrangement is advantageous as it does not require all of the converters to be designed for the same input voltage, permitting the use of more efficient converters ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the DC-DC converter circuits of Grant and Liu in series with parallel outputs, as taught by Tastekin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the benefits of reduced costs and/or improved efficiency resulting from the series arrangement of DC-DC converter circuits with parallel outputs are demonstrated in the field of power conversion systems, analogous to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0035305 A1 to Arai et al. teaches a power supply for electroplating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights