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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: supply ducts 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 24, line 6, there is an extra space after “comprising”
in claim 24, line 7, there is an extra space after “cavity”
in claim 24, line 8, the word “and” appears to have been misspelled as “nd”
in claim 24, line 13, there is an extra space after “wherein”
in claim 24, line 17, there is a space missing between the “,” and the word “in”
in claim 25, line 41, there is a space missing between the “,” and the word “the”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-43 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.
Regarding claim 24, line 2, the phrase "in particular" 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 24, line 3, the phrase “preferably including at least 4 lateral faces and 2 flat faces” 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).
Additionally, claim 24 also contains the following phrases each of which are unclear as to what exactly is being required. Specifically, claim 24, line 16 states “each inflow duct or extends respectively” and states “the said at least one intake duct is able of conducting a material” at line 23 and also states “said at least one supply duct is able of conducting a material” at line 33. However, each of these phrases appear to be grammatically incorrect to such an extent that it is unclear what is being required.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner will be treating the limitations as requiring the following: (1) “each inflow duct or extends respectively” will be treated as requiring each of the inflow ducts to extend respectively as stated in the claim, and (2) “the said at least one intake duct is able of conducting a material” will be treated as requiring the capability of conducting a material from outside the solid body to the at least one secondary cavity, and (3) “said at least one supply duct is able of conducting a material” will be treated as requiring the capability of conducting a material from the at least one secondary cavity to either of the housings containing the anode or the cathode.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "each inflow duct" in line 16. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the claim has previously set forth “two inflow ducts” in line 11. The claim should be amended to the/said two inflow ducts.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "at least one secondary cavity" in each of lines 19 and 21. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, the claim previously set forth “at least one secondary cavity” in line 9. As such, it is unclear whether a new secondary cavity is being set forth by these limitations or if the previously set forth secondary cavity is being further limited.
Claim 25 is rejected for being indefinite because even though the claim is a dependent claim (see claim 25, line 1), the claim is written as an independent claim and so contains numerous instances of lack of antecedent basis since it sets forth many of the element of the electrolysis cell again. As such, it is unclear how the claim is further limiting independent claim 24, i.e. the claim from which it depends.
The following claims each contain the phrase "in particular" (see claim 25 at line 11, claim 26 at line 2, claim 26 at line 4, claim 27 at line 2, claim 27 at lines 3-4, claim 27 at line 5, claim 29 at line 2, claim 30 at line 13, claim 31 contains two instances in line 2, claim 32 at line 2, claim 34 at lines 1-2, claim 36 at line 2, claim 38 at lines 5-6, claim 38 at line 7, claim 39 at line 3, claim 39 contains two instances in line 4, claim 39 at line 7, claim 40 at lines 5-6, claim 40 at line 9, claim 40 at line 10, claim 41 at line 2, claim 42 at lines 5-6, claim 42 at line 8, claim 43 at line 3, claim 43 at line 6, and claim 43 at line 10). As such, in each of these claims, the phrase “in particular” 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).
Please note, while the examiner has attempted to list all instances of “in particular” above, the examiner requests applicant’s assistance in correcting any other instances within the claims that might have been inadvertently missed.
Claim 25 is additionally rejected for containing the following phrase which is unclear as to what exactly is being required. Specifically, claim 25, line 36 states “each inflow duct or extends respectively …”. However, this phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect such that it is unclear what is being required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "each inflow duct" in line 36. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the claim has previously set forth “two inflow ducts” in line 31. The claim should be amended to the/said two inflow ducts.
Claims 29 and 30 each recite both open and closed transitional phrases in their respective preambles (see claim 29 and line 2 and claim 30 at line 2). This use of both open language, i.e. comprises, in addition to closed language, i.e. consists of, is indefinite since the claims need to set forth what is required using only one type of transitional phrase.
Regarding claim 30 at line 16, the phrase "such as" 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).
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the material" in line 18, i.e. the last line of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is noted that claim 30 sets forth a material of the solid body in lines 1-2, and then additionally refers to “non-conductive composite materials” in line 16 of claim 30. As such, the reference to “the material” in the last line of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the composite material is being further limited or if the material of the solid body is being referred to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-43 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Specifically, it is noted that the prior art of record fails to teach the membraneless 3D electrolysis cell comprising the solid body, porous anode, and porous cathode wherein the solid body comprises a central cavity, two housings, at least one secondary cavity, at least one intake duct, two inflow ducts and at least one supply duct wherein the porous anode and cathode are respectively contained within the housings, each of the two inflow ducts extends from the central cavity through an orifice to an outer face of the solid body, the at least one intake duct extending from the at least one secondary cavity to an outer face of the solid body, the at least one supply duct extending from the at least one secondary cavity to one or both of the housings, the at least one intake duct capable of conducting a material from the outside of the solid body to the at least one secondary cavity, the two inflow ducts being able to conduct an electrolyte from outside the solid body towards the central cavity and to introduce two electrolyte flows through the respective inflow ducts, with said two inflow ducts being positioned so as to allow the two flows to meet in the central cavity and to cause a separation of each of the electrolyte flows into two parts as claimed and said at least one supply duct being capable of conducting a material from the at least one secondary cavity to either of the housings containing the anode and the cathode respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. No. 10,907,262 to Hashemi et al., teaching a membrane-less electrolyzer
US Pub. No. 2004/0072047 to Markoski et al., teaching a fuel cells comprising laminar flow induced dynamic conducting interfaces, electronic devices comprising such cells, and methods employing the same
US Pub. No. 2024/0102185 to Psaltis et al., teaching a membrane-less electrolyzer with porous walls for high throughput and pure hydrogen production
US Pub. No. 2025/0341005 to Borah et al., teaching an electrolysis reactor
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