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 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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " BP-1 or FBM membranes ". There is no specific delineation of what these membrane represent in the specification. For examination purposes the FBM will be interpreted as Fumasep bipolar membrane (FBM).
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Digdaya et al. (Digdaya, I.A., Sullivan, I., Lin, M. et al. A direct coupled electrochemical system for capture and conversion of CO2 from oceanwater. Nat Commun 11, 4412 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18232-y).
Digdaya discloses an electrochemical system that uses a bipolar membrane electrodialysis (BPMED) cell and a vapor-fed CO2 reduction (CO2R) cell to capture and convert CO2 from oceanwater (Digdaya abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1a: obtained and modified from Digdaya)]For claim 1, Digdaya further teaches system for capturing carbon based on bipolar membrane electrodialysis, comprising a first cation exchange membrane, a bipolar membrane and a second cation exchange membrane arranged in sequence, wherein a desorption chamber is arranged between the first cation exchange membrane and the bipolar membrane, and an absorption chamber is arranged between the bipolar membrane and the second cation exchange membrane; and a cathode reaction chamber is arranged on the other side of the first cation exchange membrane, and an anode reaction chamber is arranged on the other side of the second cation exchange membrane (Digdaya P. 2 section results, design and fabrication of the BPMED cell for CO2 capture from oceanwater, Pg. 8 section methods, Fabrication of BPMED cell and Fig. 1a).
For claim 3, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Digdaya further teaches that a to-be-reduced solution is passed into the cathode reaction chamber, and a to-be-oxidized solution is passed into the anode reaction chamber; and the to-be-reduced solution and the to-be-oxidized solution form a redox pair (Digdaya Pg. 2 section results and abstract). Digdaya further teaches introduction of solutions via a pulstalic pump which indicates a form of pipe delivery (Digdaya Fig. 1b, the anode and cathode chamber are connected to a single pipeline which then diverges at a T joint. They then come back into the same electrolyte tank). It would be obvious to use same return structure as introduction structure.
For claim 4, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Digdaya further teaches a first electrode, a second electrode and a power source, wherein the first electrode is arranged in the cathode reaction chamber and connected to a negative electrode of the power source; and the second electrode is arranged in the anode reaction chamber and connected to a positive electrode of the power source (Digdaya Fig. 1a and Pg.8 section
For claim 5, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Digdaya further teaches the bipolar membrane comprises a cation exchange layer, a reaction layer and an anion exchange layer connected in sequence (Digdaya Pg. 3 section results, Polarization losses in the BPMED cell and Pg. 2 section results, Design and fabrication of the BPMED cell for CO2 capture from oceanwater; At the middle of the BPMED cell, a BPM that generates proton (H+) and hydroxide ion (OH−) fluxes via water dissociation reactions at the BPM interface (i.e. a reaction layer) was used to convert the input oceanwater into output streams of acidified and basified oceanwater).
For claim 6, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Digdaya further teaches the bipolar membrane is any one selected from the group consisting of an FBM bipolar membrane (Digdaya Pg. 8 section methods, Fabrication of the BPMED cell).
For claim 7, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Digdaya further teaches that the bicarbonate solution is a KHCO3 solution (Digdaya Pg. 8 section methods , chemicals and Construction of the vapor-fed CO2R cell).
For claim 8, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Digdaya further teaches that the to-be-reduced solution is a K3[Fe(CN)6] solution, and the to-be-oxidized solution is a K4[Fe(CN)6] solution (Digdaya Fig. 1a).
For claim 9, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Digdaya further teaches that the first electrode and the second electrode are each any one selected from the group consisting of Pt (Digdaya Pg. 8 section methods, Preparation of electrodes).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digdaya et al. (Digdaya, I.A., Sullivan, I., Lin, M. et al. A direct coupled electrochemical system for capture and conversion of CO2 from oceanwater. Nat Commun 11, 4412 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18232-y) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iizuka et al. (Iizuka et al. Carbon dioxide recovery from carbonate solutions using bipolar membrane electrodialysis. Separation and Purification Technology 101 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.09.016).
For claim 2, Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Digdaya teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Digdaya further teaches a bicarbonate solution being passed into the desorption chamber and the absorption chamber, respectively (Digdaya Fig. 1a, Pg. 5 results section Results, Design and fabrication of the BPMED cell for CO2 capture from oceanwater, and Pg. 8 section methods , chemicals).
Digdaya does not teach one end of the desorption chamber and one end of the absorption chamber are connected by a first pipeline; the other end of the desorption chamber and the other end of the absorption chamber are connected by a second pipeline.
Iizuka discloses a process for recovering carbon dioxide from carbonate solutions via bipolar membrane electrodialysis (Iizuka abstract), thus being analogous to Digdaya.
PNG
media_image3.png
493
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3: Obtained and modified from Iizuka)]Iizuka further teaches teach one end of the desorption chamber and one end of the absorption chamber are connected by a first pipeline; the other end of the desorption chamber and the other end of the absorption chamber are connected by a second pipeline (Iizuka Pg. 50 section 2. Outline of the CO2 absorption and recovery process, and Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Iizuka of having a first and second pipeline to those of Digdaya to have the proper connections and circulation within the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABELLINE K FIONAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm with every other Friday off.
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.
/ABELLINE KATUSIIME FIONAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759