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 Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said anode” and said “cathode” in line 7. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is noted that the claim sets forth earlier “one or more than one anode” and “at least one cathode” (see claim 1 at lines 5-6). As such, it is unclear whether the later reference to “said anode” and “said cathode” is meant to no set forth a single anode and cathode or refer back to the one or more than one anode or the at least one cathode.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably is +7" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the claim purports to further limit the A1:A2 ratio and is explicitly stated as being directly dependent upon claim 1; however, the meaning of A1 and A2 are set forth in dependent claim 14. As such, it would seem that the intended dependency would be claim 14, but this is not as explicitly set forth.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the claim as though it depends from dependent claim 14 since this would appear to be most in keeping with Applicant’s likely intent.
Please note, all additional claims not explicitly addressed above are included as also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as a result of their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN101545113A to Cao et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “CAO”).
Regarding claim 1, CAO teaches a method for oxidizing manganese species in a treatment device (see generally CAO at Abstract and ¶4-¶5 teaching an anode treatment process for use in the oxidation of manganese sulfate to manganese dioxide; see also ¶47-¶50 teaching the treatment process and ¶58-¶61 teaching the processing of manganese sulfate to make manganese dioxide and the results of the process), the method comprising the steps:
providing in the treatment device a manganese species having a first oxidation number (see CAO at ¶10 and ¶58 teaching the production of manganese dioxide from manganese sulfate),
providing in the treatment device one or more than one anode and at least one cathode (see CAO at ¶58 teaching the use of the treated anode and at least one cathode as claimed),
applying a current to said anode and said cathode such that at least a portion of the manganese species having the first oxidation number is anodically oxidized to a manganese species having a second oxidation number which is higher than the first oxidation number (see CAO at ¶58 and ¶61 teaching manganese sulfate, having Mn2+, being oxidizing to produce manganese dioxide, having Mn4+),
characterized in that at least one of said one or more than one anode has a surface density of 6 m²/L or more, based on the total volume of said at least one anode (see CAO at ¶48 teaching the anode being a plate with an anode area of 2.71 m2 and having a length of 1.2 m, a width of 0.06 m, and a thickness of 0.0015 m so as to give a volume of 0.108 L and so a surface density of 2.71 m2/0.108 L = 25.1 m2/L).
Regarding claim 2, CAO teaches the method wherein the first oxidation number is +4 or below (see CAO at ¶58 teaching manganese initially as manganese sulfate, i.e. at the 2+ oxidation number).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, CAO teaches the method wherein the surface density is 8 m2/L or more; and, also in the range of from 6 m2/L to 100 m2/L (see rejection of claim 1 based on the teachings of CAO above teaching the surface density being approximately 25 m2/L which is more than 8 and between 6 and 100 as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, CAO teaches the method wherein the at least one anode having a surface density of 6 m²/L or more comprises a material selected from the group consisting of platinum, titanium, niobium, lead, gold, alloys comprising at least one thereof, oxides thereof, and mixtures thereof (see CAO at ¶48 teaching the anode plates being made of titanium).
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,859,300 to Sullivan et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SULLIVAN”) in view of US Pat. No. 4,006,067 to Gussack (hereinafter referred to as “GUSSACK”).
Regarding claim 1, SULLIVAN teaches a method for oxidizing manganese species in a treatment device (see generally SULLIVAN at Abstract and col. 2 under “Summary of the Invention” section teaching an electrolytic process for the oxidation of manganate ions to permanganate ions), the method comprising the steps:
providing in the treatment device a manganese species having a first oxidation number (see SULLIVAN at col. 1 lines 45-52 teaching the problem with used permanganate baths is that they become depleted forming manganate ions and manganese dioxide which needs to be regenerated; see also SULLIVAN at “Summary of the Invention” section teaching an electrolytic process for the oxidation of manganate ions),
providing in the treatment device one or more than one anode and at least one cathode (see SULLIVAN at “Summary of the Invention” section and col. 3 lines 1-22 teaching an electrolytic treatment device having an anode and cathode as claimed),
applying a current to said anode and said cathode such that at least a portion of the manganese species having the first oxidation number is anodically oxidized to a manganese species having a second oxidation number which is higher than the first oxidation number (see SULLIVAN at col. 3 lines 52-68 teaching the application of a voltage which would generate a current as claimed; see also SULLIVAN at “Summary of the Invention” section teaching the manganate, having Mn6+, as being oxidizing to produce permanganate, having Mn7+),
While SULLIVAN teaches the desirability of having the electrolysis process conducted under conditions in which the anode surface area is significantly larger than the cathode surface area (see SULLIVAN at col. 3 lines 32-37), SULLIVAN fails to explicitly teach at least one anode having a surface density of 6 m²/L or more, based on the total volume of said at least one anode as claimed.
However, GUSSACK teaches an electrolysis treatment device for oxidizing a dissolved chemical species (see GUSSACK at Abstract and col. 1 lines 5-18). Moreover, GUSSACK teaches the treatment device as particularly useful for oxidizing positively charges ions (see GUSSACK at col. 1 lines 5-18 and col. 2 lines 45-66). GUSSACK further teaches the desirability of having the anode with a large surface area while minimizing its physical dimensions (see GUSSACK at col 2 lines 2-5).
GUSSACK achieves the high surface area by using a larger porous anode that surrounds a central cathode (see Figure depicting porous anode 12 and cathode 10). GUSSACK also teaches the porous anode not just being made of perforated metal but also “expanded metal; metal cloth, screen or net, e.g. mat, woven wire mesh, double crimp, dutch weave, twilled dutch weave, twilled, stranded, or sieve cloth, and metallic filter cloth …; sintered metal, e.g. having pore sizes ranging from 0.1 to 200 microns; etc.” (see GUSSACK at col. 3 lines 39-45). The disclosed woven wire, metal cloth, and porous sintered metal would read on the woven fabric and foam embodiments of the claimed anode. As such, since GUSSACK teaches the anodes made of similar materials, it would be reasonably expected for the anode formed of the same materials to have similar surface area to volume amounts.
Furthermore, as taught by GUSSACK and SULLIVAN, it was recognized in the art that the surface area of the anode needed to be maximized while at the same time minimizing volume. Additionally, GUSSACK teaches the anode surface area and anode pore size being variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to adjust and design for in order to operate the electrochemical cell (see GUSSACK at col. 5 lines 54-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of SULLIVAN so as to use the electrolytic cell of GUSSACK having the woven wire, metal cloth, or porous sintered metal anode with a large surface area and minimized volume so as to provide for surface density values within the range as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the second oxidation number is above +4 (see rejection of claim 1 above as to the teachings of SULLIVAN such that the method would regenerate the permanganate ion having an oxidation number of 7+).
Regarding claim 4, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the one or more than one anode and the at least one cathode have a distance to each other ranging from 1 mm to 100 mm (see GUSSACK at Example 1 on col. 8 teaching the anode having a diameter of 5 inches and the cathode having a diameter of 1/2 inch such that the approximate distance between the anode and cathode would be 2.25 inches or 57.15 mm).
Regarding claim 5, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the one or more than one anode and the at least one cathode are separated from each other by a permeable barrier (see GUSSACK at col. 5 lines 62-68).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the surface density values would be as claimed (see rejection of claim 1 above as to the combination of SULLIVAN in view of GUSSACK as applied to the surface density limitation).
Regarding claim 8, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the at least one anode having a surface density of 6 m2/L or more is selected from the group consisting of 3D-printed anodes, woven fabric anodes, foam anodes, stacked single-layer anodes, and packed bed anodes (see GUSSACK at col. 3 lines 39-45 teaching the anode being a woven wire anode, metal cloth anode, and porous sintered metal anode which would read on the woven fabric anode and foam anode embodiments).
Regarding claims 9-12, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the anode is a foam anode (see rejection of claim 8 above which since the alternatives are optionally recited would be met by the foam anode). Additionally, as to the woven fabric anode embodiment of GUSSACK, the metal woven wire and metal cloth of GUSSACK would read on the further limitation of claims 9 and 10 (see teachings of GUSSACK cited above with respect to the rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 13, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the at least one anode comprises a material selected from the group consisting of platinum, titanium, niobium, lead, gold, alloys comprising at least one thereof, oxides thereof, and mixtures thereof (see GUSSACK at col. 3 lines 21-30 teaching the porous electrode, i.e. the anode, being made of lead as an alloy or oxide).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, SULLIVAN as modified by GUSSACK teaches the method wherein the one or more than one anode provides a total effective anode surface area A1 and the at least one cathode a total effective cathode surface area A2 wherein A1 is larger than A2 and A1:A2 is ranging from 5:1 to 100:1 (see GUSSACK at col. 2 lines 2-5 teaching the anode having a larger surface area than the cathode; see also SULLIVAN at col. 3 lines 32-37 also teaching the anode having a larger surface area than the cathode and the ratio being from 3:1 to 100:1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. No. 3,850,697 to Brown et al., teaching a process for making electrochemical electrodes
US Pat. No. 3,062,734 to Carus teaching an electrolytic cell and electrode therefor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/PRIMARY PATENT EXAMINER, ART UNIT 1794
Prosecution Insights