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 6 April 2026. Claims 1-30 are currently pending of which claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 22 are currently amended and claim 30 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 6 April 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 16 November 2026 are withdrawn. However, new rejections are presented, as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
As to claim 23, the claim recites the limitation of magnetron sputtering and thermal annealing. However, these limitation are already presented in claim 1, upon which claim 23 is dependent. Therefore, it is unclear as to if these limitation intend to refer back to those of claim 1 or to new and separate limitations. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 broadens the coating material deposition method beyond the magnetron sputtering and fails to add additional limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 6 April 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 16 November 2026 are 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 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0115609 A1 to Barker et al. (Barker) in view of US 3,852,175 to Hoekje (Hoekje) and further in view of “The Effect of Rapid Thermal Annealing on Sputtered Pt and Pt3Pd2 Thin Film Electrocatalysts for Aqueous SO2 Electro-Oxidation” to Falch et al. (Falch).
As to claims 1 and 23, Barker teaches an electrochemical reactor configured for extracting a target metal, copper, from a copper containing solution, the electrochemical reactor comprising a flow cell (1), comprising a plurality of anodes (2) and a plurality of cathodes (3) arranged in an alternating array, the plurality of cathodes comprise a carbon material, steel, and the plurality of anodes comprising, for example, titanium or PbCaSn coated with platinum or gold, the invention specifically directed to reducing the voltage for the electrolytic reaction and thus also comprising a voltage source of some sort configured to apply a voltage between the plurality of anodes and cathodes (Paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0030 and 0031; Figures 1 and 3). A platinum or gold coating would provide increased extraction efficiency compared to an uncoated anode alone with the platinum and gold acting as an electrocatalyst.
However, Barker fails to teach that the anodes comprise silicon. However, However, Hoekje also discusses titanium based electrodes and teaches that effective and cheaper electrodes can be formed by forming the coating, including platinum, on a silicon base electrode (Column 1, Line 15 to Column 2, Line 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to replace the platinum coated titanium electrode of Barker such that the titanium or PbCaSn is itself a coating on a silicon electrode in order to allow for reduced cost as taught by Hoekje.
Barker further fails to specifically teach that the coating material is deposited by magnetron sputtering; however, this limitation is a product by process style limitation. The specific means by which the coating is achieved is not patentably significant as the end result coating would be the same.
Barker further fails to teach that the coating material is refined by thermal annealing. However, Falch also discusses catalysts such as those containing palladium and teaches that thermal annealing improves current density and stability (Page 40, Column 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrodes of the combination with a thermal annealing step in order to improve the current density and stability as taught by Falch.
As to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that the silicon electrode base can be monolithic and non-porous (i.e. a solid piece) with a 99.5% silicon concentration (Example 1).
As to claim 5, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Barker teaches that the cathode comprises carbon.
As to claim 6, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The electrodes of Barker must be connected to the voltage source, and thus the apparatus comprises some sort of electrified lead.
As to claim 9, Barker teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Barker further teaches that the anodes comprises plates, thus non-porous (Paragraph 0050).
As to claim 11, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Barker teaches that the anodes (2) and cathodes (3) are each provided in plurality, more than two of each (Figure 1).
As to claim 12, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Barker further teaches that the anodes (2) and cathodes (3) are arranged in an alternating array (Figure 1).
As to claim 14, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Barker teaches that the cathodes are uncoated steel and the anodes are coated.
As to claim 15, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the coating on the silicon electrode comprises Ti/Pt or Ti/Au.
As to claim 16, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the coating on the silicon electrode comprises Pt/Pb/Sb/Ca.
As to claim 17, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the coating on the silicon electrode comprise Au/Pb/Sb/Ca.
As to claim 20, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective coating thickness on the silicon electrode is, for example, around 50 nm (2 micro inches) (Column 10, Lines 14-18).
As to claim 21, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective coating thickness on the silicon electrode is, for example, around 50 nm (2 micro inches) (Column 10, Lines 14-18).
As to claim 22, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitations of the claim are functional limitations. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The coated electrodes of Barker are capable of performing the functional limitation depending upon the operating conditions and fluids worked upon.
As to claim 25, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Barker further teaches that the metal containing solution comprises sulfuric acid (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031).
As to claim 26, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Barker teaches that the target metal is copper.
As to claim 27, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitations of the claim are functional limitations. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The apparatus of Barker is capable of performing the functional limitation depending upon the operating conditions and fluids worked upon.
As to claim 29, the combination of Baker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective base electrode thickness is, for example, approximately 0.3 cm (1/8 inch) (Example I).
Claims 1-13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,535,218 to Brown et al. (Brown) in view of US 4,040,914 to Nidola et al. (Nidola), further in view of Hoekje and further in view of Falch.
As to claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 23 and 26, Brown teaches an electrochemical reactor for extracting a target metal, copper, from a metal containing solution, the reactor (1) comprising a flow cell comprising a plurality of anodes (3) and a plurality of cathodes (4) forming an array of alternating anodes (3) and cathodes (4), the anodes and cathodes formed of the same material in order to allow for beneficial reversal and copper recovery and a voltage source configured to apply a voltage between the anodes and the cathode (Column 2, Line 62 to Column 3, Line 2; Column 3, Line 30-35; Column 3, Lines 57-65; Figures 1 and 4).
However, Brown fails to teach that the anodes and the cathodes comprises a coating material as claimed. However, Nidola also discusses the electrolytic recovery of copper and teaches that an improved cathode material in terms of corrosion resistance, adherence and electronic transfer for improved metal deposit morphology comprises a cathode of, for example, hafnium, an alloy of titanium and nickel, or an alloy of titanium and palladium (Ti/Ni or Ti/Pd)) coated with silver (Ag) (Column 3, Lines 12-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the cathode of Brown, and thus also the anode to maintain the reversible operation, of hafnium, Ti/Ni, or Ti/Pd coated with silver in order to improve the corrosion resistance, adherence and electronic transfer for improved metal deposition as taught by Nidola. The coated electrode providing increased extraction efficiency as comparted to uncoated electrodes.
However, the combination fails to further teach that the anodes and the cathode comprise silicon. However, Hoekje discusses electrodes and teaches that electrodes can be formed at a low cost by forming the electrodes as a coating on a silicon base rather than as the bulk metals (Column 1, Lines 48 to Column 2, Line 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the silver coated electrodes such that the hafnium, Ti/Ni or Ti/Pd alloy itself is also a coating on a silicon base, in order to allow for a reduced cost as taught by Hoekje.
The combination further fails to specifically teach that the coating material is deposited by magnetron sputtering; however, this limitation is a product by process style limitation. The specific means by which the coating is achieved is not patentably significant as the end result coating would be the same.
The combination further fails to teach that the coating material is refined by thermal annealing. However, Falch also discusses catalysts such as those containing palladium and teaches that thermal annealing improves current density and stability (Page 40, Column 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrodes of the combination with a thermal annealing step in order to improve the current density and stability as taught by Falch.
As to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that the silicon electrode base can be monolithic and non-porous (i.e. a solid piece) with a 99.5% silicon concentration (Example 1).
As to claim 6, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The electrodes of the combination must be connected to the voltage source, and thus the apparatus comprises some sort of electrified lead.
As to claims 7, 8, 9 and 10, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Brown teaches that the electrodes are simple rectangular plates, thus non-porous (Column 3, Lines 57-73).
As to claim 15, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the coating material comprises, for example, Ti/Pd or Ti/Ni.
As to claim 19, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the coating material comprises, for example, Hf/Ag.
As to claim 20, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective coating thickness on the silicon electrode is, for example, around 50 nm (2 micro inches) (Column 10, Lines 14-18).
As to claim 21, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective coating thickness on the silicon electrode is, for example, around 50 nm (2 micro inches) (Column 10, Lines 14-18).
As to claim 22, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitations of the claim are functional limitations. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The coated electrodes of the combination are capable of performing the functional limitation depending upon the operating conditions and fluids worked upon.
As to claim 25, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitation “wherein the metal or mineral containing solution is acidic” merely limits a functional limitation of claim 1. Nonetheless, Brown further teaches that the metal containing solution is acidic, sulfuric acid (Column 3, Lines 36-44).
As to claim 27, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The limitations of the claim are functional limitations. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The apparatus of the combination is capable of performing the functional limitation depending upon the operating conditions and fluids worked upon.
As to claim 28, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Brown further teaches that the distance between the electrodes is, for example, 2.54 cm (1 inch) (Column 3, Lines 66-72).
As to claim 29, the combination of Brown, Nidola, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hoekje further teaches that an effective base electrode thickness is, for example, approximately 0.3 cm (1/8 inch) (Example I).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barker, Hoekje and Falch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0265996 A1 to Rosvall et al. (Rosvall) and further in view of US 2012/0312700 A1 to Bard et al. (Bard).
As to claim 24, the combination of Barker, Hoekje and Falch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Barker fails to further teach that the electrodes surfaces are prepared as claimed. However, Rosvall also discusses electrodes for electrolysis and teaches that the surface should be roughened, via, for example, laser roughening, prior to coating, in order to increase the surface area of the electrode substrate and improve mechanical adhesion of the coating layer (Paragraph 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrodes of the combination by roughening with laser roughening before coating in order to increase the surface area of the electrode substrate and improve mechanical adhesion as taught by Rosvall.
However, as discussed above, Rosvall teaches laser etching (roughening) and fails to contemplate ion-beam etching or HF etching. However, Bard also discusses roughened electrodes and teaches that ion-beam etching (irradiation) is a known equivalent to laser etching (Paragraph 0161). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the known equivalent laser etching with ion-beam etching (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Barker in view of Hoekje.
As to claim 30, Barker teaches an electrochemical reactor configured for extracting a target metal, copper, from a copper containing solution, the electrochemical reactor comprising a flow cell (1), comprising a plurality of anodes (2) and a plurality of cathodes (3) arranged in an alternating array, the plurality of cathodes comprise a carbon material, steel, and the plurality of anodes comprising, for example, titanium coated with platinum or gold, the invention specifically directed to reducing the voltage for the electrolytic reaction and thus also comprising a voltage source of some sort configured to apply a voltage between the plurality of anodes and cathodes (Paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0030 and 0031; Figures 1 and 3). A platinum or gold coating would provide increased extraction efficiency compared to an uncoated anode alone with the platinum and gold acting as an electrocatalyst.
However, Barker fails to teach that the anodes comprise silicon. However, However, Hoekje also discusses titanium based electrodes and teaches that effective and cheaper electrodes can be formed by forming the coating, including platinum, on a silicon base electrode (Column 1, Line 15 to Column 2, Line 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to replace the platinum coated titanium electrode of Barker with a platinum coated silicon electrode in order to allow for reduced cost as taught by Hoekje.
Barker further fails to specifically teach that the coating material is deposited by magnetron sputtering; however, this limitation is a product by process style limitation. The specific means by which the coating is achieved is not patentably significant as the end result coating would be the same.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 15-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22, 24 and 26 of copending Application No. 19/235,243 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 and 15-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24 and 26 of copending Application No. 19/275,580 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 and 15-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 34, 35 and 41 of copending Application No. 18/750,807 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 15-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 26 of copending Application No. 19/275,604 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable were the double patenting rejections overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the narrowing of the coating material on a silicon anode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that there would be no reason to utilize the silicon base of Hoekje as silicon has poor conductivity issues unless it is properly engineered and that the teaching of Hoekje would not be applicable to copper refining as Hoekje specifically discusses brine electrolysis. However, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that while silicon may have disadvantages, it also specifically has advantages in terms of cost as taught by Hoekje and thus would be obvious to modify. The Examiner further maintains that cost principles would be applicable to essentially all electrolysis, not merely brine electrolysis.
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