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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: it is formed of more than 150 words; and the first and last sentences begin with the implied phrase “The present disclosure”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The use of the terms “Aludirome”, “Monel” and “Inconel”, which are each a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraph 0032). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, “particles or a” should read “particles,
In claim 4, line 2, “an thermal” should read “a thermal”.
In claim 8, line 3, “rectangle” should read “rectangular”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 "the cathodes are suspended above the electrolytic cell shell" in lines 20-21. The limitation of the cathodes being “mounted in the mounting slot [of the graphite base at the bottom of the cell]” is previously introduced in lines 16-17 of the claim. It is therefore unclear how the cathodes can be both suspended above the cell and mounted at the bottom of the cell. For examination purposes, based on paragraph 0025 and Fig. 1 of the instant specification, this limitation has been interpreted to be intended to refer to the anodes being suspended above the electrolytic cell shell.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coke particles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of “coke particles” in the dependency of the claim. For examination purposes, this claim has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 2.
Claim 5 contains the trademarks/trade names “Aludirome”, “Monel”, and “Inconel”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademarks/trade names are used to identify/describe different metal alloys, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cathode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “cathodes” is previously introduced in line 16 of claim 1 in plural form. It is therefore unclear which individual “cathode” is being referred to in claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a steel cell shell" in lines 3-5. The limitation of “an electrolytic cell shell” is previously introduced in line 3 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation of claim 9 is introducing a new element or referring to the previous element. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted to refer to the previously introduced electrolytic cell shell now limited to comprise steel.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a graphite base" in lines 2-3. The limitation of “a graphite base” is previously introduced in line 11 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation of claim 10 is introducing a new element or referring to the previous element. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted to refer to the previous limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a steel cell shell" in lines 3-5. The limitation of “an electrolytic cell shell” is previously introduced in line 3 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation of claim 10 is introducing a new element or referring to the previous element. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted to refer to the previously introduced electrolytic cell shell now limited to comprise steel.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosser et al. (U.S. 2017/0283968) in view of Moles et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,904,491), and further in view of Duruz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,258,246), Dudley et al. (U.S. 2013/0299341) and Feng (U.S. 2013/0112549).
Regarding claim 1, Mosser teaches an inert anode aluminum electrolytic cell with a vertical structure (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolytic cell 100 with vertical electrode assemblies including inert anode; Paragraph 0002 and Paragraph 0103, lines 1-4), comprising
an electrolytic cell shell, provided with three insulating layers therein, wherein the three insulating layers comprise a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer and a third insulating layer (see e.g. Fig. 1, steel shell 118 lined with insulating material 120 and thermal insulation packaging of sidewall material 124, i.e. first layer, refractory material 122, i.e. second layer, and inner wall of sidewall material 124, i.e. third layer; Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 14-17);
a graphite base, disposed at a bottom of an inner cavity of the electrolytic cell shell, and opening with a mounting slot at a bottom thereof (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, cathode blocks 114/200 comprising a carbonaceous material such as graphite fixed to bottom of electrolytic cell with cathode supports 112 comprising grooves 214, i.e. mounting slots, at their upper surface 212 which forms a bottom of the cell interior; Paragraph 0003, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0105, lines 11-17, Paragraph 0107, lines 6-13, and Paragraph 0138, lines 1-2; the grooves being on the surface of the cathode block forming the bottom being equivalent to the mounting slots in the bottom shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraph 0025 of the instant specification), wherein sidewalls of the second insulation layer and the bottom of the graphite base each are attached to the third insulating layer to form a furnace of the electrolytic cell (see e.g. Fig. 1, cell reservoir 110 formed by the attachment of cathode blocks 114 forming a bottom to sides of refractory 120 and inner wall of sidewall material 124 defining cell bath volume; Paragraph 0104, lines 14-17, and Paragraph 0094), and the furnace of the electrolytic cell is configured to contain an electrolyte melt and an aluminum liquid (see e.g. Fig. 1, cell reservoir 110 retaining molten electrolyte 126 and a molten aluminum metal pad; Paragraph 0104, lines 17-19); and
cathodes, being in a shape of a vertical plate, vertically mounted in the mounting slot (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-5, cathodes 108/404 as vertical plates supported in cathode support 112; Paragraph 0011, Paragraph 0104, lines 7-8, and Paragraph 0108, lines 1-6), and connected to the graphite base through bolts (see e.g. Paragraphs 0003 and 0139-0140, and Paragraph 0105, lines 16-17, cathode supports supporting cathode plates attached to cell bottom formed by cathode block via fasteners such bolts), wherein one side of the cathodes is provided with anodes, and the anodes and cathodes are staggered (see e.g. Fig. 1, anodes 104 at sides of and alternating with cathodes 108; Paragraph 0002 and Paragraph 0104, lines 1-10); the anodes are suspended above the electrolytic cell shell by connecting to a guide rod (see e.g. Fig. 1, anode modules containing anodes 104 suspended via anode rods 130 above shell 118; Paragraph 0104, lines 1-7 and 22-27); a current of the anodes passes through the guide rod and enters an interior of the electrolytic cell shell from a top of the electrolytic cell; and a current of the cathodes passes through the graphite base and is led out of the electrolytic cell shell through an electric rod connected to the graphite base (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrical current from power source 136 passed though anode rods 130 at the top of cell 100 into electrolyte 126 to the cathodes 108 through the cathode support 112, cathode blocks 114 and cathode current connector bars 116 out to other pole of power source 136; Paragraph 0104, lines 27-34).
Mosser does not teach the first insulating layer being opened with a groove thereon, an opening of the groove being upward, and a heating device being disposed in the groove on the first insulating layer and configured to adjust a temperature of the electrolytic cell. Mosser does however teach the first insulating layer comprising thermal insulation forming part of the sidewall of the cell that extends upward (see e.g. Fig. 1, upwardly extending sidewall material 124 comprising thermal insulation package; Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 14-17), as well as the electrolytic bath being heated to a certain temperature range to be in molten form (see e.g. Paragraph 0092).
Moles teaches an electrolytic cell for producing a metal (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 1-15, comprising insulating brick lining the sides of an electrolyte retaining chamber (see e.g. Fig. 1, insulating brick 14 around electrolyte retaining chamber 15; Col. 2, lines 37-43), and heating electrodes being set into grooves of the insulating lining from the top of the cell extending down (see e.g. Figs. 2-3, heating electrodes 17 shown in grooves formed in insulating brick 14; Col. 2, lines 58-64), these heating electrodes serving to maintain the electrolyte in molten condition at a predetermined temperature during the metal production (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 54-57).
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 electrolytic cell of Mosser to comprise a heating device such as heating electrodes set within grooves open from the top of the sidewall thermal insulation forming part of the first insulating layer as taught by Moles to assist in maintaining the electrolyte in molten condition at a predetermined temperature during operation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the first and second insulating layers having both fixed structures and the third insulating layer having a replaceable and movable structure. Mosser does however teach the third insulating layer being an inner wall of the side wall in contact with the electrolyte (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0094, lines 6-10).
Duruz teaches a cell for electrowinning of aluminum (see e.g. Abstract) comprising thermic insulating/refractory sidewalls which are lined with a molten electrolyte resistant sidewall lining (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, insulating sidewalls 40 with sidewall lining 50 exposed to electrolyte 60; Col. 2, lines 55-57, and Col. 7, lines 20-24), plates forming the lining being installed atop the fixed insulating lining and then removed first when dismantling the cell, contributing to simple and labor saving assembly/lining of the cell and simple dismantling of the cell and disposal of toxic wastes (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, installable and removable sidewall lining plates 50; Col. 8, lines 31-44).
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 inner sidewall forming the third insulating layer of modified Mosser to be a separately installable and removable component in comparison to the fixed remaining underlying insulating/refractory layers, i.e. first and second insulating layers, as taught by Duruz to facilitate simple and labor saving assembly/lining of the cell and simple dismantling of the cell and disposal of toxic wastes.
Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the electric rod connected to the graphite base being metal, but does teach it serving to collect current from the cathode and transfer the current out of the system (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0090).
Duruz further teaches conductor/collector bars being provided to connect the cathode of the cell to external buswork for supplying current (see e.g. Duruz Figs. 1-2, conductor bars 41 and current collector bars 42; Col. 7, lines 41-56), these conductor/collector bars being made of metal (see e.g. Duruz Col. 7, lines 41-42 and 51-56, and Col. 8, lines 22-30, conductor/collectors bars being welded to metallic shell and therefore being metal themselves).
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 electric rod of modified Mosser to be made of metal as taught by Duruz as a suitable material for providing a current connection between the cathode of an aluminum electrolytic cell and external buswork. MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the bolts being graphite bolts and the connection they form being threaded, but does teach current flowing between the connected components (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0104, lines 27-34, and Paragraph 0139).
Dudley teaches an electrode module for an electrolysis chamber for forming reduced metal Products (see e.g. Abstract and Paragraph 0002) wherein studs, i.e. bolts, which may be threaded and made from graphite, are used to couple different electrode components to be in electrical connection (see e.g. Figs. 4 and 12, graphite studs 23/24 used to couple terminal anode 20 to graphite risers 21/22 in electrical connection, and threaded studs 1226 used to join sections of graphite risers 1221/1222 for terminal anode 1220; Paragraph 0071, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0108, lines 14-19).
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 bolts of modified Mosser to be threaded and made from graphite as taught by Dudley as suitable features for a fastener for coupling electrically connected components of an electrode module for metal-producing electrolysis. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Modified Mosser does not teach contact surfaces among the graphite base, the graphite bolts and the cathodes being all covered with a cathode paste, but does teach current being passed through these contact surfaces (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0104, lines 27-34, and Paragraph 0139).
Feng teaches an aluminum electrolytic cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a cathode carbon block provided with protrusions embedded in holes on its upper surface (see e.g. Fig. 2, protrusions 4 embedded in cathode carbon block substrate 3; Paragraph 0044, lines 10-15), wherein a graphite paste, i.e. cathode paste, is filled between the carbon block and protrusions in order to provide a closer connection therebetween (see e.g. Fig. 2, graphite paste 9; Paragraph 0023, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0024, and Paragraph 0045, lines 4-7).
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 cell of modified Mosser to comprise a graphite paste, i.e. cathode paste, covering the current passing contact surfaces among the graphite base, the graphite bolts and the cathodes as taught by Feng to provide a closer connection therebetween.
Regarding claim 8, modified Mosser teaches a shape of an interior of the furnace of electrolytic cell being rectangular (see e.g. Mosser Fig. 1, cell reservoir 110 shown as rectangular).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosser, Moles, Duruz, Dudley and Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 110079829 B, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Mosser teaches all the elements of the electrolytic cell of claim 1 as stated above. Mosser as modified by Moles further teaches the heating device adopting a direct current for heating, and being provided with a heat generation element therein (see e.g. Moles Col. 2, lines 59-61 and 65-67, heating electrodes to which current is delivered from a connected power source, i.e. as direct current).
Modified Mosser does not teach the heat generation element being coke particles or a first metal heating plate or a second metal heating plate, instead teaching it only comprising graphite bars as electrodes (see e.g. Moles Col. 2, lines 59-61).
Yang teaches an aluminum electrolysis cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0007, lines 1-2), wherein encapsulated coke particles are used as a main heat generation element along with a carbon/graphite anode to be supplied with DC power, i.e. direct current (see e.g. Fig. 1a, encapsulated coke particles including bottom layer 10 with carbon anode 7; Paragraphs 0011, 0013-0014, 0018 and 0044).
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 heat generation element of modified Mosser to further comprise encapsulated coke particles with the graphite bar electrodes as taught by Yang as an additional suitable component of a heat generating element for an aluminum electrolytic cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Mosser as modified by Yang and Moles teaches the coke particles comprising graphite powder (see e.g. Yang Paragraph 0017); the coke particles being inserted with a negative graphite rod and a positive graphite rod therein (see e.g. Moles Col. 2, lines 59-61, graphite bars, i.e. rods, as heating electrodes; see e.g. Yang Fig. 1b, carbon anode 7 inserted with encapsulated coke particles 10, Paragraphs 0011 and 0044-0045); the negative electrode graphite rod being configured to export the direct current, and the positive electrode graphite rod being configured to import direct current (see e.g. Moles Col. 2, lines 59-67, suitable electrical connections for delivering current to opposing heating electrodes, i.e. including negative/exporting connection and positive/importing connection; see e.g. Yang Paragraphs 0013-0014, positive connection to carbon anode and negative connection to cathodic metal box of the heating element).
Regarding claim 4, Mosser as modified by Moles and Yang teaches a thermal insulation cover being disposed at the groove of the first insulating layer, and configured to reduce an oxidation and burning loss of the coke particles (see Moles Fig. 2, covering material shown over groove in insulating brick 24 containing heating electrodes 17; see e.g. Yang Fig. 1b, thermal insulation 8 encapsulating coke particles, thereby reducing oxidation and burning loss as described in paragraph 0030 of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are further limiting alternative limitations of claim 2, namely the “first metal heating plate” and “second metal heating plate” of the list consisting of “coke particles or a first metal heating plate or a second metal heating plate”. As Mosser as modified by Yang teaches the coke particles as the selected heat generation element, as stated above, it is not required to teach the limitations of the other alternative first and second metal heating plates. MPEP § 2143.03 states “when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosser, Moles, Duruz, Dudley and Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,526,669).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mosser teaches all the elements of the electrolytic cell of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Mosser further teaches the cathodes adopting a TiB2-C composite ceramic (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0103, lines 14-20, and Paragraph 0138, lines 7-18, cathode plates comprising combination of ceramic such as TiB2 and carbonaceous materials). Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the composite being hot-pressed and a content of mass percentage of TiB2 being ≥60%.
Joo teaches a cathodic element for an aluminum reduction cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a composite of a refractory hard metal such as TiB2 in an amount of 70 to 98 percent by weight with particulate carbonaceous matter (see e.g. Col. 3, lines 54-62, and Col. 5, lines 24-28, TiB2/pitch 70/30 to 98/2 by wt.), wherein the element may be formed by pressing the materials into a preform and sintering them (see e.g. Col. 3, lines 63-66, and Col. 5, lines 28-31), i.e. hot pressed.
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 cathodes of modified Mosser to comprise a sintered and pressed, i.e. hot pressed, composite of 70 to 98 percent by weight TiB2 with particulate carbonaceous matter as taught by Joo as a suitable TiB2-C form and composition for a cathode of an aluminum reduction cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosser, Moles, Duruz, Dudley and Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jorge et al. (U.S. 2015/0299880).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mosser teaches all the elements of the electrolytic cell of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the second insulating layer being made of a material that is resistant to oxidation and electrolyte corrosion; the material of the second insulating layer being one of a NiFe2O4 ceramic, a NiFe2O4-NiO ceramic, a dense corundum, a boron nitride ceramic, an aluminum nitride ceramic, a silicone nitride ceramic, a silicon carbide ceramic, and a ceramic formed by combining a silicon carbide with a silicon nitride; and the third insulating layer being made of a dense corundum material. Mosser does however teach the second and third insulating layers being exposed to contact with the electrolyte, with the second insulating layer comprising a refractory material (see e.g. Mosser Fig. 1, refractory material 122 and inner wall of sidewall material 124 in contact with molten electrolyte bath 126; Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 14-19).
Jorge teaches an electrolytic cell for production of aluminum (see e.g. Abstract) comprising thermally insulating refractory blocks that are perfectly well suited when in contact with the electrolyte bath, withstanding corrosion by the very acidic electrolyte bath very well (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002, 0022, 0024 and 0047-0048), the blocks comprising an aluminous material such as corundum with an open porosity of less than 10%, i.e. dense corundum (see e.g. Paragraphs 0029 and 0035).
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 cell of modified Mosser to have the electrolyte-contacting second and third insulating layers composed of blocks of a low porosity, i.e. dense, aluminous refractory material such as corundum as taught by Jorge to enable them to withstand corrosion by the acidic electrolyte bath of the cell very well.
Modified Mosser does not explicitly teach the first insulating layer being integrally formed by pouring a corundum castable. Mosser does however teach the first insulating layer being an outer insulation/thermal insulation package adjacent to the cell shell (see e.g. Fig. 1, insulating material 120 and thermal insulation package of sidewall material 124 in contact with steel shell; Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 14-16).
Jorge further teaches a refractory cement, i.e. castable, joined between the electrolyte-contacting side blocks and the metal shell of the cell (see e.g. Jorge Paragraph 0005, lines 1-3), and further teaches corundum being an exemplary thermally insulating refractory material suitable for use in the cell (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002, 0022 and 0035).
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 first insulating layer of modified Mosser to be integrally formed from a cement, i.e. castable, of a refractory material such as corundum joined between the interior insulating layer and the cell shell as taught by Jorge as a suitable form and material for a thermally insulating refractory to be placed between interior insulating side blocks and a shell of an aluminum electrolytic cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosser, Moles, Duruz, Dudley and Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (CN 107541755 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mosser teaches all the elements of the electrolytic cell of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Mosser further teaches a steel cell shell provided outside the three insulating layers (see e.g. Mosser Fig. 1, outer steel shell 118; Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 14-17). Modified Mosser does not teach a first anti-seepage thermal-insulation layer being provided outside the three insulating layers within the electrolytic cell shell, and the first anti-seepage thermal-insulation layer comprising from an inside to an outside in sequence: a dry barrier material layer, a ceramic fiber plate, and the steel cell shell. Mosser does however teach the cell utilizing a molten electrolyte (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0092).
Bao teaches a molten salt electrolytic cell for producing a metal such as aluminum (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004 and 0015), wherein layers comprising an inner dry anti-seepage, i.e. barrier, material layer and an outer heat insulating layer composed of fiberboard made of a material such as calcium silicate ceramic, i.e. ceramic fiber plate, are provided between an inner alumina, i.e. insulating, layer surrounding a graphite crucible of the cell and an outer steel tank shell (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, anti-seepage layer 2 and heat insulation layer 1 between alumina layer 3 around graphite crucible 4 and steel shell 7; Paragraph 0037, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0038).
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 electrolytic cell of modified Mosser to comprise layers formed of an inner dry anti-seepage, i.e. barrier, material layer and an outer heat insulating layer composed of a calcium silicate ceramic fiberboard, i.e. ceramic fiber plate, between the three insulating layers and the steel cell shell as taught by Bao as suitable intervening layers for placement between the interior crucible insulation and the exterior steel shell of an molten salt electrolytic cell for producing aluminum. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, modified Mosser teaches all the elements of the electrolytic cell of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Mosser further teaches an insulation layer being provided under a graphite base at a bottom of an interior of the electrolytic cell shell, with a steel cell shell provided at the outside of the insulation layer (see e.g. Mosser Fig. 1, insulating material 120 under cathode blocks 114 made from carbonaceous material such as graphite with steel shell 118 on the outside; Paragraph 0003, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0104, lines 14-17, Paragraph 0105, lines 8-10). Modified Mosser does not teach insulation layer being a second anti-seepage thermal-insulation layer including from an inside to an outside in sequence: a corundum castable, a dry barrier material layer, a ceramic fiber plate, and the steel cell shell. Mosser does however teach the cell utilizing a molten electrolyte (see e.g. Mosser Paragraph 0092).
Bao teaches a molten salt electrolytic cell for producing a metal such as aluminum (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004 and 0015), wherein layers comprising a corundum castable, a dry anti-seepage, i.e. barrier, material layer and a heat insulating insulating layer composed of fiberboard made of a material such as calcium silicate ceramic, i.e. ceramic fiber plate, are provided between a graphite crucible of the cell and an outer steel tank shell (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, corundum castable/alumina layer 3, anti-seepage layer 2 and heat insulation layer 1 between graphite crucible 4 and steel shell 7; Paragraph 0037, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0038).
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 electrolytic cell of modified Mosser to comprise layers formed of a corundum castable, a dry anti-seepage, i.e. barrier, material layer and heat insulating layer composed of a calcium silicate ceramic fiberboard, i.e. ceramic fiber plate, from an inside to an outside between the graphite base and the steel cell shell as taught by Bao as suitable intervening layers for placement between the interior graphite crucible and the exterior steel shell of an molten salt electrolytic cell for producing aluminum. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. 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, Luan 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights