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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 13 May 2026. Claims 11-17 and 21 are currently pending of which claims 11, 14 and 16 are currently amended and claim 21 is new. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 13 May 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 16 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 13 May 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 16 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
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 11, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,788,820 to Liu (Liu) in view of US 2006/0032754 A1 to Surikov et al. (Surikov).
As to claim 11, Liu teaches an electrochemical reactor, capable of performing the functional language of “capable of processing an organic mixture comprising a suspension of a solid and a liquid”, the reactor comprising an inner electrode (21), an outer electrode (31), the inner electrode (21) and the outer electrode (31) arranged concentrically forming a first cavity therebetween, two inlets (14), forming a first inlet and a second inlet, each separately inputting into the first cavity and thus capable of performing the functional language of “introducing the liquid into the first cavity” and “introducing the solid into the first cavity” such that “the liquid and the solid are introduced separately”, the inner electrode (21) rotatable around its longitudinal axis (Column 3, Lines 26 to 49; Figure 2; MPEP 2114).
However, Liu fails to teach that the inner electrode comprises mixing elements comprising groove, recesses, depression, protrusions or attached elements.
However, Surikov also discusses rotating electrochemical reactors for water electrolysis and teaches that all of cuts, openings and screw grooves on the surfaces of the electrodes can be utilized to improve delivery and mixing of the electrolyte solution (Paragraphs 0016 and 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide either or both of the inner and outer electrode with, for example, grooves on the surface thereof in order to improve delivery and mixing of the electrolyte as taught by Surikov.
As to claim 12, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Liu further teaches that the reactor comprises a vessel (10) enclosing the inner electrode (21) and the outer electrode (31) forming a second cavity between the outer electrode (31) and the vessel (10), the cavity configured to be filled with a fluid and thus capable of being filed with thermostated fluid (Column 3, Lines 26 to 49; Figure 2; MPEP 2114).
As to claim 14, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Liu further teaches that the reactor comprises outlets (15 and 25) configured for allowing removal of electrolyzed reaction mixture from the reactor (Column 3, Lines 26 to 49; Figure 2; MPEP 2114).
As to claim 15, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 14. The outlets of Liu are capable of being connected to an inlet of another reactor (MPEP 2114), Liu specifically teaching outlets connected to downstream devices such as filters (Column 4, Lines 10-20).
As to claim 16, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Liu teaches that the inner electrode (21) and outer electrode (31) are concentric and thus that the inner diameter of the outer electrode is equal to the outer diameter of the inner electrode plus twice the interelectrode gap (Figure 2).
As to claim 17, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Liu teaches that the gap between the electrodes is constant (Figure 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu and Surikov as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2011/0147204 A1 to Leiato et al. (Leiato).
As to claim 13, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 11. However, Liu is silent as to the materials for forming the inner and outer electrodes. However, Leiato also discusses water electrolysis with concentric electrodes and teaches that both inner and outer electrodes can be effectively formed of, for example, stainless steel or titanium (Abstract; Paragraph 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the inner and outer electrode of Liu of stainless steel or titanium with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the electrodes as taught by Leiato.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu and Surikov as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 5,112,463 to Zhang et al. (Zhang).
As to claim 21, the combination of Liu and Surikov teaches the apparatus of claim 14. However, Zhang also discusses apparats for electrolysis such as water electrolysis with inlet and outlet and teaches that each inlet and outlet should be provided with valves for controlling the inlets and the outlets (Column 3, Lines 8-32; Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the inlets and outlet of Liu with valves for controlling the inlets and outlets as taught by Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights