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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 7-9 (filed on 11/24/2025) are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 12-13 currently states:
“wherein the first electrode, or the second electrode, or both are in the form of a sponge; and”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the first electrode, or the second electrode, or both are [[are]] in the form of a sponge; and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laukien US 5249990 in view of Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of WO 2018/004164, dated 12/16/2025 in the file wrapper, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1: Laukien US 5249990 does disclose the limitations: An magnetohydrodynamic pump (pump of Fig 1 | pump of Fig 3-4; it is noted that in the REM (Page 4 Line 25) filed on 11/24/2025 applicant recognizes that Laukien discloses a magnetohydrodynamic pump) comprising:
a flow cell (10 | 30) having a first port (i.e. left opening of pipe 13 where element 14 is located in Fig 1 | i.e. left opening of cylindrical pipe 31 in Fig 4) and a second port (i.e. right opening of pipe 13 on the opposite axial end from element 14 in Fig 1 | (i.e. right opening of cylindrical pipe 31 on the opposite axial end from the first opening) allowing for flow of an aqueous salt solution (i.e. allowing sea water to flow through the pipe, Column 7 Line 54-59 | Column 11 Line 13-33) in a flow direction from the first port to the second port or from the second port to the first port (the structure of the pipe 13 in Fig 1 allows for either a left to right flow direction – i.e. flow from the first port to the second port – or a right to left flow direction – i.e. flow from the second port to the first port; in both cases the flow direction extends along axis 18 of the pipe 13, Fig 1, Column 8 Line 2-4 | the structure of cylindrical pipe 31 in Fig 4 allows for flow in both axial directions, in each case the flow direction 38 extends along axis 33 in Fig 4);
a first electrode (i.e. a first one of electrodes 15 in Fig 1, Column 7 Line 60-64 | i.e. electrode 34a, Fig 4, Column 9 Line 34-47) positioned to be in contact with the aqueous salt solution (Column 7 Line 55-64 | Column 9 Line 38-47, also see Fig 4);
a second electrode (i.e. a second one of electrodes 15 in Fig 1 | i.e. electrode 34b, Fig 4, Column 9 Line 34-47) positioned to be in contact with the aqueous salt solution (Column 7 Line 55-64 | Column 9 Line 38-47, also see Fig 4) and in an electrode direction from the first electrode (i.e. the second electrode is spaced from the first electrode along axis 17 in Fig 1; the claimed “electrode direction” extends along axis 17 in Fig 1 | i.e. the second electrode 34b is radially spaced from the first electrode 34a along the radial axis in Fig 4, also electrical field lines 37 extend radially between the two electrodes – Column 9 Line 44-47; the claimed “electrode direction” extends along the radial direction 37) that is orthogonal to the flow direction (as seen in Fig 1 and Fig 2 axis 17 (i.e. the electrode direction) is orthogonal to axis 18 (i.e. the flow direction), Column 7 Line 65-Column 8 Line 4 | as seen in Fig 4 the radial direction 37 (i.e. the electrode direction 37) is orthogonal to the axial flow direction 38 which extends parallel to the direction of axis 33); and
a magnetic field generator (= saddle coils 12 in Fig 1, Column 7 Line 54-Column 8 Line 4 | = toroidal coil 24 created by windings 29, see Fig 3a and Column 8 Line 49-Column 9 Line 5) that generates a magnetic field (Fig 1, Column 7 Line 65-67 | Fig 3, Column 8 Line 55-60) in a magnetic direction (magnetic direction = direction along axis 16 in Fig 1, Column 7 Line 65-Column 8 Line 4 | magnetic direction = circumferential direction indicated by element 41 in Fig 4, and indicated by element B in Fig 3, Column 9 Line 35-53, Column 8 Line 49-60) that is orthogonal to the flow direction and orthogonal to the electrode direction (Fig 1, Column 7 Line 65-Column 8 Line 4 | as seen in Fig 4 the magnetic field lines 41 are defined in the circumferential direction, and the circumferential direction – 41 – is orthogonal to both the electrode/radial direction – 37 – and the flow/axial direction – 33 – illustrated in Fig 4). Laukien US 5249990 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are both in the form of a sponge and comprise silver.
However Yan US 2015/0180049, in a disclosure directed to electrodes used in bodies of water (title, abstract) does disclose the limitations: a first electrode positioned to be in contact with the aqueous salt solution (abstract, first electrode positioned in saltwater; the aqueous salt solution = saltwater); a second electrode positioned to be in contact with the aqueous salt solution (abstract, second electrode positioned in the saltwater); wherein the first electrode comprises silver (¶0036-¶0037, ¶0044, ¶0050 – the first electrode comprises silver); wherein the second electrode comprises silver (¶0036-¶0037, ¶0044, ¶0050 – the second electrode comprises silver); wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are both in the form of a sponge (¶0044, the electrodes are made from metal foam/mesh material and include silver and silver alloys).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the first electrode (i.e. a first one of electrodes 15 in Fig 1, Column 7 Line 60-64 | i.e. electrode 34a in Fig 4, Column 9 Line 34-47) and the second electrode (i.e. a second one of electrodes 15 in Fig 1 | i.e. electrode 34b in Fig 4, Column 9 Line 34-47) of Laukien US 5249990 with porous sponge electrodes (70, Fig 7, Fig 7B, ¶0043-¶0044, ¶0008) as taught by Yan US 2015/0180049 in order to provide electrodes which have a very large surface area in contact with the body of water (¶0044), and/or provide electrodes which are able to generate a continuous and constant current flow (¶0008).
Additionally, while Yan US 2015/0180049 discloses that the electrodes may be formed from any suitable material (virtually any metal or metal alloy) that will react with the salts and minerals in sea water including silver and silver alloys (¶0037), Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 is silent regarding the limitations: the electrodes comprise silver chloride.
However, WO 2018/004164 discloses the limitations: using the electrochemically reactive material of silver/silver chloride for both the first and second electrodes (Page 6 Line 211-224, Page 6 Line 240-Page 7 Line 258, Page 7 Line 284-294).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the silver electrodes in the device of Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 out of silver/silver chloride material as taught by WO 2018/004164 in order to be able to recover the electrodes by alternating the supply voltage polarity (Page 7 Line 284-294).
Regarding Claim 7: Laukien US 5249990 does disclose the limitations: wherein the magnetic field generator comprises one or more electromagnets (the saddle coils 12 are electromagnets, as they provide a magnetic field when excited, Column 7 Line 65-67, Column 8 Line 45-48 | the toroidal coil 24 is an electromagnet as it creates a magnetic field when current is flowing through it, Fig 3-4, Column 8 Line 49-60).
Regarding Claim 8: Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 does disclose the limitations:
providing the magnetohydrodynamic pump of claim 1 (i.e. providing the pump of Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 in the hull (Laukien – 66) of the ship (Laukien – see Fig 10, Column 11 Line 13-16));
providing a supply of the aqueous salt solution (Laukien - providing ionization unit 67, Column 11 Line 13-33, ionization unit 67 can be a salt solution tank) coupled to the first port or the second port (Laukien – as understood from what is shown in Fig 10 conduit 68 which connects the tank 67 to flow cell 30 – would be coupled to both the first and second ports via the structure of the cylindrical pipe 31 in Fig 4);
filling the flow cell from the supply of the aqueous salt solution (Laukien – filling the flow cell with the salt solution via conduit 68 – Column 11 Line 22-33); and
applying a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode sufficient to cause the aqueous salt solution to flow from the supply and through the flow cell at a flow rate while the magnetic field is applied (Laukien – in order to create the propulsion force both the magnetic field and the overlapping electric field are produced – Column 1 Line 5-15, thus when flow is generated the magnetic field needs to be applied, and thus a sufficient voltage between the first and second electrode would inherently be provided while the magnetic field is supplied, in order to generate the thrust/flow rate with the flow cell 30 in Fig 4/Fig 10 of Laukien).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laukien US 5249990 in view of Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of WO 2009/076134. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of WO 2009/076134, dated 12/16/2025 in the file wrapper, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 9: Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 8. Laukien US 5249990 does not disclose the limitations: reversing a polarity of the voltage when the flow rate reduces to less than a threshold rate.
However WO 2009/076134 in a disclosure directed to an electrokinetic pump does disclose: a method that includes the step applying a forward voltage to a pair of electrodes to move a fluid; measuring the accumulated charge of the pair of electrodes; and applying a reverse voltage (i.e. reversing a polarity of the voltage across the electrodes) to the pair of electrodes when the accumulated charge exceeds a threshold value (page 2-3 ¶0011, also see page 6 ¶0031 which discloses a relationship between voltage and flow rate; also given that Laukien states: at Column 1 Line 5-15 that the electric field which overlaps the magnetic field creates the force that moves the saltwater through the pump, and at Column 7 Line 60-Column 8 Line 15 that the electric field E is generated by the electrodes is what creates the force on the ions of the saltwater to move the saltwater through the pump and the velocity of the fluid/charge carriers 22 (i.e. the flow rate of the saltwater) corresponds to the electric field strength; thus since the prior art teaches a relationship between voltage and flow rate & the accumulated charge on the electrodes would inherently reduce the strength of the electric field and thus the flow rate of the salt water – the combined teachings of the prior art would in practice correlate to reversing a polarity of the voltage when the flow rate is less than a threshold – since the accumulated charge threshold would correlate to a reduced flow rate of the salt water).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 with the method of measuring the accumulated charge of the pair of electrodes and applying a reverse voltage to the pair of electrodes when the accumulated charge exceeds a threshold value (page 2 ¶0011) as taught by WO 2009/076134 in order to discharge the accumulated build up on the electrodes (¶0011, ¶0037).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 2 ¶2-Page 3 ¶2: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1, by arguing that because neither Laukien or Yan teach any need to recover the electrodes, there is no rational to support the rejection of claim 1 with the art of Laukien in view of Yan and WO 2018/004164 as articulated in the last office action.
--Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s assertion that because: “none of the references suggest that Ag or Ag/ AgCl electrodes are suitable for use in a magnetohydrodynamic pump. An electrode that is suitable for one use is not necessarily suitable for other uses … [t]here is nothing in the record to teach or suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that an electrode that is suitable for use in a current generator or an electroosmotic pump would also be suitable in a magnetohydrodynamic pump.” This is not found persuasive since, applicant is basically arguing that they have discovered a new use for silver/silver chloride electrodes, as electrodes in a magnetohydrodynamic pump. However, it has been held that [T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2112 I. Additionally, as seen in the cited art by Iddan US 2003/0214580 it is well known to use silver and/or silver alloys for electrodes in MHD pumps ¶0027 –contrary to Applicants assertion that Ag or Ag/AgCl electrodes are not known as being suitable for use in a magnetohydrodynamic pump.
Furthermore, in response to Applicants argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the rational for making the silver electrodes in the device of Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 out of silver/silver chloride material is suggested by the art of WO 2018/004164 – since WO ‘164 states at Page 7 Line 284-294 – when the electrodes are made out of silver/silver chloride material the electrodes can be recovered when the polarity is reversed. Additionally, WO ‘164 goes on to state that because the electrodes are recovered during operation it is possible for the pump to operate continuously.
Accordingly, the prior art of WO 2018/004164 provides motivation at (Page 7 Line 284-294) for making the silver electrodes in the device of Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 out of silver/silver chloride material. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 3 ¶3-Page 3 end: Applicant argues that since there is no teaching in the references that any charge accumulates in a magnetohydrodynamic pump, and because of this there is no motivation to combine Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049 and WO 2018/004164 with the method taught by WO 2009/076134 to reject the language of claim 9.
--Arguments not persuasive, in response to Applicants argument that: there is no teaching in the references that any charge accumulates in a magnetohydrodynamic pump – the examiner notes that the feature being argued (that charge accumulates in a magnetohydrodynamic pump) is not recited in the language of the claim 9.
To be clear, the language of claim 9 states:
“9. The method of claim 8, further comprising:
reversing a polarity of the voltage when the flow rate reduces to less than a threshold rate.”
Additionally, in the rejection, the examiner explained how the accumulated charge would inherently reduce the strength of the electric field created by the electrodes given the teachings of the prior art. And since the art of Laukien teaches that the velocity of the fluid/charge carriers 22 (i.e. the flow rate of the saltwater) corresponds to the electric field strength at (at Column 7 Line 60-Column 8 Line 15). Thus the flow rate of the fluid is inherently related to the electric field strength generated by the electrodes.
Therefore, the accumulated charge threshold taught by WO 2009/076134 would correlate to a reduced flow rate of the salt water in the combination of prior art. From the remarks filed on 03/16/2026 – there is no indication that Applicant disagrees with this.
Additionally, the examiner notes that in the context of the SPEC (¶0004, ¶0012-¶0013) of the instant application the reversable Ag/AgCl electrodes disclosed are charge storage electrodes and the Ag/AgCl electrodes are operated in salt water (title of instant application, ¶0011, ¶0015, and ¶0017 of SPEC).
Additionally, the reversable electrodes taught by WO 2018/004164 are silver/silver chloride.
Accordingly in the combination of prior art (i.e. Laukien US 5249990 as modified by Yan US 2015/0180049, WO 2018/004164 and WO 2009/076134), when the silver/silver chloride electrodes (taught by the combination of prior art) are operated in the saltwater environment (Laukien US 5249990) like the instant application, it is reasonable to conclude that the silver/silver chloride electrodes taught by the combination of prior art will accumulate/store charge in the same manner as the instant application. Accordingly, there is inherently a need/an obvious reason why one would look to WO 2009/076134 to reverse the polarity as proposed in the rejection.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iddan US 2003/0214580 – teaches a MHD propulsion system (Fig 2) similar to Laukien US 5249990 where the electrodes are made from suitable electrically conducting material or materials, such as, for example, electrically conducting metals or alloys, such as but not limited to gold, copper, silver, or the like, gold plated copper, or any other suitable electrically conducting materials or composite materials, including but not limited to graphite, carbon, or the like (¶0027).
Rice USPN 2997013 – teaches a MHD propulsion system (Fig 2) like that of Laukien US 5249990 where the electrodes include silver.
Ciocanel US 2011/0037325 – teaches that electroosmotic and magnetohydrodynamic principals to move fluid can be used together in the same pump (¶0004).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights