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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/26.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Specifically, claim 1 includes limitations requiring “a cathode flow path facing on the cathode” and “an anode flow path facing on the anode” (see claim 1 at lines 2-3). However, this phrasing is unclear as to what is actually being required of the respective flow paths by the limitation requiring the “facing on” of the respective electrodes. While it would seem the flow path would need to run along the face of the respective electrode, it is unclear if something else is also being required. For example, does the flow path also have to be on the surface of the electrode or does it just need to be facing or running in parallel with the surface of the electrode.
Consequently, because the phrase requiring the respective flow paths to be “facing on” the respective electrode is unclear, the limitation is deemed indefinite for failing to reasonably set forth the meets and bounds of what is being claimed.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the limitation as requiring a flow path that includes flowing along the surface of the electrode.
Additionally, claim 4 is noted as requiring the tank to not comprise “any pumps in the middle of the opening” (see claim 4 at line 2). However, the specification discloses the benefit of the disclosed invention being that no pumps are required (see Specification at ¶52). As such, it would seem that what is intended is for the claim to not require a pump within the opening connecting the first and second rooms, but by requiring the phrase “in the middle” the phrase would seem to limit placement of the pump to only the middle and so could allow for a pump placed at either end.
The examiner will be interpreting claim 4 as not requiring a pump anywhere in the opening which connects the first room and the second room as disclosed in the Specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al., (US Pub. No. 2021/0040631) (hereinafter referred to as “TANAKA”).
Regarding claim 1, TANAKA teaches an electrolytic device (see generally TANAKA at Abstract and Fig. 2 depicting electrolysis apparatus 200 and electrolysis vessel 10), comprising:
an electrolysis cell comprising: a cathode, an anode; a cathode flow path facing the cathode; and an anode flow path face the anode (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolysis vessel 10 having cathode chamber 12 and anode chamber 11 which would have an anode and cathode and which contains the electrolyte in each respective chamber and allows for fluid, i.e. electrolyte, flow along the surface of the respective electrodes);
a tank comprising: a first room; a second room (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting first and second electrolyte tanks 40 and 50 connected via communicating pipe 80); and an opening connecting the first room and the second room (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 with the opening comprising the pipe connecting the two vessels or rooms), the first room and the second room being configured to store a liquid containing at least one ion (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolyte tanks 40 and 50 which are each configured to store a liquid having at least one ion as claimed), the tank being configured to form a level difference between a first liquid level and a second liquid level so that a height of the first liquid level of the liquid to be stored in the first room relative to a bottom of the second room is higher than a height of the second liquid level of the liquid to be stored in the second room relative to the bottom of the second room, and thus cause an ion contained in the liquid to move from the first room to the second room through the opening (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolyte tanks 40 and 50 with communicating pipe 80 which as discussed in ¶80 would allow for fluid 50a of the second electrolyte tank 50 to move to the first electrolyte tank 40);
a first flow path connecting an outlet of the cathode flow path and the first room (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting the flow path from the cathode chamber 12 via flow path 31 to vessel 50); and
a second flow path connecting the second room and an outlet of the anode flow path (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting the flow path from the anode chamber 11 via flow path 21 to vessel 40).
Regarding claim 3, TANAKA teaches the device wherein the tank comprises a pipe having the opening (see TANAKA at ¶80 and Fig. 2 depicting communicating pipe 80 as the opening).
Regarding claim 4, TANAKA teaches the device wherein the tank does not comprise any pumps in the opening (see TANAKA at ¶80).
Regarding claim 6, TANAKA teaches the device wherein the cathode is configured to reduce carbon dioxide to produce a carbon compound (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolysis cell/vessel 10 having a cathode therein which would be capable of reducing CO2 to a carbon compound as claimed to at least some degree and so would include the claimed capability).
Regarding claim 7, TANAKA teaches the device wherein the cathode is configured to reduce nitrogen to produce ammonia (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting electrolysis cell/vessel 10 having a cathode therein which would be capable of reducing nitrogen to ammonia as claimed to at least some degree and so would include the claimed capability).
Regarding claim 8, TANAKA teaches the device wherein the at least one ion includes a potassium ion (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 teaching a cell having the claimed tank such that the ion present in the electrolyte could be a potassium ion as claimed).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA in view of Min et al., (KR 102344416 B1) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “MIN”).
Regarding claim 2, while TANAKA teaches the device wherein the tank comprises a fluid connection so as to allow for fluid flow between the various rooms or tanks (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting tanks 40 and 50 having communicating pipe 80), TANAKA fails to explicitly teach the tank comprising a partition between the first and second rooms as claimed.
However, MIN teaches that it is known in the art of electrolyte storage tanks to have a single tank with a partition in the middle and a special opening between the two portions formed by the partition so as to allow for the fluid level equalization between the two portions of the tank (see MIN at Fig. 2 depicting flow path unit 120 and Abstract).
Moreover, while MIN is specifically directed towards the anode and cathode electrolyte equalization in a redox flow battery system (see MIN at page 2, second para. in the “Background Art” section), MIN nevertheless is directed towards the problem of how to maintain equal electrolyte levels without the need of constant monitoring and adjustment with the energy requirements of said monitoring and controlling.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the storage tank and arrangement of MIN is directed to solve a similar problem as the communicating pipe of TANAKA. Namely, how to simply address the problem of electrolyte levels varying over time between the anode and cathode storage tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the two tank with a communicating pipe configuration of TANAKA with the partition and flow path part of MIN in order to provide for the equalization of the electrolyte level within the two parts of the electrolyte storage tank.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA in view of Sekiguchi et al., (EP 1143546 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “SEKIGUCHI”).
Regarding claim 5, while TANAKA teaches the device wherein the tank comprises a fluid connection so as to allow for fluid flow between the various rooms or tanks (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting tanks 40 and 50 having communicating pipe 80), TANAKA fails to explicitly teach the tank as claimed having the bottom of the first room higher than the bottom of the second room.
However, SEKIGUCHI teaches that it is known in the art of electrolyte storage tanks to have tanks connected via a pipe in which the height of one tank is positioned higher than the other so that the electrolyte is allowed to flow via gravity to the other tank (see SEKIGUCHI at ¶24). Moreover, SEKIGUCHI teaches the use of gravity as a way to avoid the use of a pump (see SEKIGUCHI at ¶24).
While SEKIGUCHI is also directed towards the movement of electrolyte between anode and cathode electrolyte levels in a redox flow battery system (see SEKIGUCHI at Abstract), SEKIGUCHI is nevertheless directed towards the problem of how to maintain electrolyte levels to allow for continuous operation (SEKIGUCHI at ¶22).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the storage tank and arrangement of SEKIGUCHI is directed to solve a similar problem as the communicating pipe of TANAKA. Namely, how to simply address the problem of electrolyte levels varying over time between the anode and cathode storage tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the two tanks with a communicating pipe configuration of TANAKA to have one tank with a bottom higher than the second so as to allow for the assistance of gravity to help in the transfer of the electrolyte between tanks as taught by SEKIGUCHI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2339682 A1 to Mou et al., teaching a redox flow battery and method for continually operating the battery
US Pub. No. 2020/0087803 to Kitagawa et al., teaching an electrochemical reaction device
US Pub. No. 2018/0179649 to Fleischer et al., teaching a reduction method and electrolysis system for electrochemical carbon dioxide utilization
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights