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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, encompassing claims 34-44, in the reply filed on September 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 34 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance: claim 34 recites the broad recitation “gas outlet for the anode reaction product”, and the claim also recites “especially chlorine and optionally oxygen” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 34-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0195184) in view of Faita et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0000798) and further in view of Buschmann (US Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0131217).
Regarding claim 34, Fleischer discloses an electrolysis apparatus for electrochemical conversion of carbon dioxide and alkali metal chloride solution (abstract; paragraphs 9, 20), at least comprising
(i) at least one carbon dioxide gas source (CO2-R; figure 1; CO2 in figure 2; paragraph 71) and
(ii) at least one electrolysis cell (E1), at least comprising a cathode half-shell (KR) having a cathode (K), a catholyte feed (via pump P1; paragraph 70), and a gas space in fluid connection to the carbon dioxide gas source via a first gas inlet (as shown in figure 2 – a CO2 is supplied into a gas space; paragraph 74), and connected to a first gas outlet for gaseous reaction product-containing gas (paragraphs 53; 74),
further comprising an anode half-shell (AR), wherein the anode half-shell has been provided at least with a second gas outlet for the anode reaction product (chlorine gas is removed; paragraphs 18, 40, 53, 56, 70),
an anolyte feed for the introduction of an aqueous alkali metal chloride-containing solution as anolyte (paragraphs 12, 20, 35, 40), and an anode (A; figure 2), and
a separator (M) disposed between the anode half-shell (AR) and cathode half-shell (KR), for separation of anode space and cathode space (figure 2; paragraphs 19, 36), further comprising electrical power leads for connection of anode (A) and cathode (K) to a voltage source (paragraph 69),
wherein the cathode is designed as a gas diffusion electrode for conversion of carbon dioxide gas (paragraphs 70, 74), and cathode (K), anode (A) and the separator (M) are arranged with their main extent vertically (as shown in figures 1-2), and a gap as electrolyte space for passage of the catholyte (through electrolyte space KR; figure 2; paragraphs 70, 72).
Fleischer fails to teach a catholyte drain, an anolyte drain, wherein the voltage source is a DC voltage source and wherein the catholyte flows by the principle of a falling liquid film is disposed between separator and cathode.
Faita discloses an electrolytic cell comprising an anodic compartment and a cathodic compartment, wherein the cathode compartment is fed with gas and a porous planar element (9; figure 1) is interposed between the membrane (16) and the gas-fed electrode/cathode (10; paragraphs 25, 29-30). A flow of chemically aggressive electrolyte crosses the porous planar element downwards under the effect of gravity force in order to minimize the risk of gas build up (abstract; paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to flow the catholyte of Fleischer by a principle of a falling liquid film disposed between the separator and the cathode because as taught by Faita, this arrangement minimizes the risk of gas build up.
Fleischer in view of Faita fails to teach a catholyte drain, an anolyte drain, and wherein the voltage source is a DC voltage source.
Buschmann discloses electrochemical reactors comprising an anode chamber (116), a cathode chamber (110) separated by a separator (106) and a gas chamber (114; paragraphs 12, 34). The cell is also provided with a catholyte drain, an anolyte drain and the electrodes are connected by means of conductors to the poles of a DC power supply (paragraphs 64, 83-84, 148, 150, 174).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide drains in the anolyte and catholyte compartments of the modified Fleischer, as taught by Buschmann with the reasonable expectation of effectively draining the products and/or unreacted electrolyte from each electrode compartment.
It is noted that the recitation, in part, “by process as claimed in claim 23” relates to a product by process limitation. It has been held by the courts that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113.I
Furthermore, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 35, the separator (M) of Fleischer is an ion exchange membrane or a diaphragm (paragraphs 36-37).
Regarding claim 36, Faita discloses wherein the vertical main extent of the cathode is 100 cm (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 37, Fleischer further teaches wherein the cathode is in a compact design as a gas diffusion electrode based on silver as electrocatalyst (paragraphs 7, 53, 70, 74) and with a pulverulent fluoropolymer, i.e. PTFE on a conductive support (paragraphs 28, 30, 72 of Fleischer, and paragraphs 9, 25 of Faita).
Regarding claim 38, Fleischer discloses wherein the first gas outlet is connected at the upper end of the gas space and the second gas outlet at the upper end of the anode space (figure 2 shows outlets at the upper end of the cell; paragraph 70), and the first gas inlet (CO2 entrance) is connected at the lower end of the gas space (figure 2; paragraphs 71, 74).
Regarding claim 39, Fleischer teaches wherein the second gas outlet for the anode reaction product is connected to a second gas separation unit for separation of chlorine gas from the anolyte (paragraphs 18, 20 – it is noted that the production of oxygen is optional in claim 34).
Regarding claim 40, Fleischer further discloses wherein the first gas outlet is connected, via a collecting conduit, to a first gas separation unit (G1; figure 2) for separation of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and unconsumed carbon dioxide gas (paragraph 53, 70).
Regarding claim 41, Figure 1 of Fleischer shows wherein the first gas separation unit has a recycle conduit for carbon dioxide (CO2) gas separated off, connected to the first gas inlet for carbon dioxide gas via a distributor pipe conduit (into pump P1).
Regarding claim 42, Fleischer teaches wherein the gas separation units (G1 and G2) have an outlet for carbon monoxide separated off (PA1 – the gas separation units are provided with a product outlet PA1 and PA2 respectively from with the carbon monoxide and chlorine gas products are withdrawn for further use; figure 1; paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 43, the flow retarder (9) for the catholyte stream of Faita is provided in the gap (electrolyte space between the cathode 10 and the separator 16, where the flow retarder takes the form of an electrically nonconductive, chemically inert textile fabric (paragraphs 25, 29-30; abstract; figure 1).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer, Faita and Buschmann as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0250715).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Fleischer teaches all the features discussed above wherein the electrolyte drains are connected directly or indirectly via pipe conduits to an electrolyte collector (418, 444; figure 4; paragraphs 82-83 of Buschmann), a controllable feed for hydrogen chloride and a recycle conduit for electrolyte (as shown in figures 1-2 of Fleischer; feed is controlled by pumps in each of the AK, KK electrolyte recycling circuits; paragraphs 70, 72), and the recycle conduit is connected both to the catholyte feed (G1, N1) and to the anolyte feed (G2, N2). Fleischer further teaches wherein the gas separation units (G1 and G2) have an outlet for carbon monoxide separated off (PA1 – the gas separation units are provided with a product outlet PA1 and PA2 respectively from with the carbon monoxide and chlorine gas products are withdrawn for further use; figure 1; paragraph 70)
The modified Fleischer fails to teach that the electrolyte collector is provided via pipe conduit with a carbonate breakdown unit, and the carbonate breakdown unit at least with a recycle line for dissociated carbon dioxide.
Cooper discloses an apparatus for carbon dioxide capture wherein the carbon dioxide is recovered as a separate purified gas stream from the exhausts of decarbonation units by the decomposition of alkali metal carbonates. The recovered alkali metal carbonate solutions generated are then recirculated and returned to respective reactors for chemical generation-regeneration purposes (paragraphs 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a carbonate breakdown unit with a recycle line in the system of the modified Fleischer, as taught by Cooper, with the expectation of effectively generate desired products while regenerating the electrolyte during operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794