DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 and 31-37 are pending.
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 23-30 are cancelled.
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 .
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
New grounds of rejection are presented for newly presented claims 31-37.
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.
Claim 31-33 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 31 recites the limitation "the mixture of the high purity concentrated liquid products" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what mixture is being referred to.
Claims 32-33 depend from claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-12 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bisselink (US 2019/0161869).
Regarding claim 1, Bisselink discloses an electrochemical reactor (title) (= a porous solid electrolyte electrosynthesis cell for direct synthesis of high purity concentrated liquid products wherein the porous solid electrolyte electrosynthesis cell comprises):
A catholyte compartment (9) including a cathode (2) comprising a gas diffusion electrode having catalyst particles for oxygen reduction [0004], [0025]-[0026], [0031], [0077] (= a cathode compartment including a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer loaded with a selective reduction reaction electrocatalyst for specific reduction reactions wherein the reduction reactions comprise oxygen reduction reactions, CO2 reduction reactions, CO reduction reactions, N2 reduction reactions, nitrate reduction reactions, nitrite reduction reactions, or combinations thereof);
An anolyte compartment (8) including an anode (1) comprising a gas diffusion electrode with a catalyst (e.g. Ir, Pt, Ru oxide coating) for oxidation [0065], [0074], [0077] (= an anode compartment including an anode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer loaded with a catalyst for specific oxidation reactions);
A solid ion-conductive material (6 = electrolyte) with passages, channels, open spaces, etc. (= porous) within a compartment (5) [0050], [0077], [0081] an inlet (not shown) and an outlet (7) [0027], [0049], [0078] (= a solid electrolyte compartment comprising a porous solid electrolyte, an inlet, and an outlet);
A cation exchange membrane (abstract) (= a cation exchange membrane); and
An anion exchange membrane (abstract) (= an anion exchange membrane);
Wherein the solid electrolyte compartment is separated from the cathode (2) and anode (1) by the anion exchange membrane (4) and cation exchange membrane (3) (Figure 1) [0077] (= wherein the solid electrolyte compartment is separated from the cathode and the anode by the anion exchange membrane and the first cation exchange membrane), and
Wherein the inlet and outlet of the compartment are arranged (e.g. on opposing sides, [0078]) to enclose water for example (= wherein the inlet and the outlet of the solid electrolyte compartment are arranged to confine a deionized water or N2 gas stream in the porous solid electrolyte, flowing from the inlet to the outlet, to bring out the high purity concentrated liquid products). The claimed “wherein the inlet and the outlet…are arranged to confine” does not particular limit the positioning of the inlet and the outlet. The claimed “to confine” does not exclude water and/or nitrogen gas stream from being in other areas of the cell. Bisselink discloses that the liquid stream usually withdrawn from the compartment has a relatively high concentration of product [0024]. Bisselink discloses the use of demineralized water [0097].
Regarding claims 2-3, Bisselink discloses a catalyst comprising indium oxide particles [0031], carbon, metal oxides, etc. [0071].
Regarding claim 5, Bisselink discloses wherein the oxidation reaction including oxidation of a compound with HO2 [0027] , oxidation of water, etc. [0074].
Regarding claim 6, Bisselink discloses the anode comprising an iridium oxide or Ru, Pt oxide coating [0065].
Regarding claim 7, the catalysts of Bisselink with the anode and cathode are in close contact with the CEM and AEM (Figure 3) and touching contact [0082]. The term “close” is relative and not particularly limiting.
Regarding claim 9, Bisselink discloses the CEM comprising perfluorosulfonic acid [0067].
Regarding claims 10-12, Bisselink discloses the solid electrolyte comprising acrylic resin or crosslinked styrene divinyl benzene polymeric resins including perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octenesulfonyl fluoride [0048].
Regarding claim 34, Bisselink discloses touching contact [0075].
Regarding claim 35, Bisselink discloses high purity products formed in the compartment since they are withdrawn from the compartment [0024].
Regarding claim 36, Bisselink discloses H2O2 products [0012], [0041].
Regarding claim 37, the instant claim does not further structurally limit the claimed cell. The claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device. Moreover, Bisselink discloses a current efficiency of 94% in one example [0114].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisselink (US 2019/0161869) in view of Schlogl et al. (US 2019/0099742).
Regarding claim 4, Bisselink fails to disclose wherein the selective reduction reaction electrocatalyst of the cathode is a single atom catalyst of transition metals anchored into carbon nanotubes and wherein the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of Fe, Pd, Co and Mn.
In the similar field of catalytic materials, Schlogl discloses a catalytically active material including a carbon material such as a carbon nanotube which enhances electron-transfer rate in many redox reactions and the CNT anchored with a transition metal such as Fe, Mn, Co [0008], [0030], [0106]-[0108]. Schlogl discloses that the atomically dispersed metal species in CNTs provides a material that delivers improved efficiency and activity as well as exhibiting excellent stability in a variety of oxidation reactions [0013].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising single atomic catalyst anchored into carbon nanotubes because Schlogl discloses that metal species such as Fe, Mn and Co atomically in CNTs delivers improved efficiency and activity as well as exhibiting excellent stability in a variety of oxidation reactions [0013]. It would have been obvious to substitute the catalyst material of Bisselink with the catalyst of Schogl for improving the catalytic activity of the electrochemical cell of Bisselink.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisselink (US 2019/0161869) in view of Masel et al. (US 2017/0128930).
Regarding claim 8, Bisselink discloses AEM comprising polymeric materials [0067]. Bisselink does not explicitly disclose wherein the anion exchange membrane is a copolymer of polystyrene and polystyrene methyl imidazolium chloride.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical reactors, Masel discloses an anion exchange membrane including a co-polymer of polystyrene and polystyrene methyl imidazolium chloride (e.g. PSMMIM) abstract, [0085], [0088]. Masel discloses the membrane for increasing faradic efficiency of an electrochemical cell into which the membrane is incorporated (abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a copolymer of polystyrene and polystyrene methyl imidazolium chloride because Masel discloses in the same field of endeavor, the use of anion exchange membranes including co-polymer of polystyrene and polystyrene methyl imidazolium chloride for improving faradaic efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12 the argument states that Bisselink does not disclose the flow from an inlet to an outlet as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Bisselink discloses wherein the inlet and outlet of the compartment are arranged (e.g. on opposing sides, [0078]) to enclose water for example. Bisselink identifies the outlet (7) and indicates that the inlet may be positioned on the opposing side [0078]. A teaching of water being transported by electro osmosis drag in a different embodiment is not a teaching away from other embodiments of Bisselink.
On page 12 the argument states that Bisselink does not disclose the claimed arranged to confine a deionized water or N2 gas stream. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The claimed “arranged to confine” does not particularly indicate a positioning of the inlet or outlet. The term confine may be interpreted as to enclose. The claimed “confine” does not exclude the water or nitrogen gas from being in other locations.
On page 13 the arguments are directed towards specific examples of Bisselink. In response, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP § 2123(11)). A reference is not limited to the working examples.
On page 13 the argument states that Bisselink broadly discloses a membrane electrode assembly in close contact and that this is not a requirement of Bisselink and therefore Bisselink does not disclose the claimed close contact (claim 34). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Bisselink unambiguously discloses touch and close contact [0075], [0082].
On page 14 the remarks state that the instant application leads to high current efficiency of over 90%. Bisselink discloses an example of obtaining overall current efficiency of 94%.
The remarks on pages 15-16 do not appear to present any argument not addressed above.
The Declaration dated 16 January 2026 is acknowledged. On page 2 the remarks are directed towards the examples of Bisselink. As stated above, in response, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP § 2123(11)). A reference is not limited to the working examples.
The remarks on pages 4-5 of the Declaration discuss the combination of the flow and close contact. It is initially noted that the claimed close contact is in claims 7 and 34 and not within the independent claim. Bisselink discloses both the claimed flow including the inlet and outlet and close or touching contact as stated above therefore the argument of the combination being non-obvious is not found persuasive.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights