DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 8/14/26:
claims 1-5, 8-13 and 16 are presently pending
claims 9-13 and 16 are withdrawn, with claims 1-5 and 8 currently pending
the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., (US Pub. No. 2021/0040631) (hereinafter referred to as “TANAKA”) in view of Mitsushima et al., (US Pub. No. 2022/0136115) (hereinafter referred to as “MITSUSHIMA”) with evidence from Kofuji et al., (US Pub. No. 2022/0298655) (hereinafter referred to as “KOFUJI”) as to the rejection of claim 1 only.
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 provided to face the cathode; and an anode flow path provided to 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).
While TANAKA teaches the presence of a cathode (see TANAKA at Fig. 2 depicting cathode chamber 12 which would include a cathode), TANAKA fails though to explicitly teach the cathode configured to either: (1) reduce carbon dioxide to produce a carbon compound; or, (2) reduce nitrogen to produce ammonia. However, MITSUSHIMA teaches that for an alkaline water electrolysis device (see generally MITSUSHIMA at Abstract), it is known to use materials as a catalyst for the cathode such as platinum and palladium or oxides thereof (see MITSUSHIMA at ¶56).
Furthermore, since TANAKA is also directed towards an alkaline water electrolysis cell (see TANAKA at Abstract and ¶2) but which is silent as to the material making up the cathode of the cell, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other known cathode materials for teachings as to what types of catalyst materials could be used for the water electrolysis reaction in the alkaline water electrolysis cell. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have employed as a catalyst material for the cathode of TANAKA a conductive substrate having platinum or palladium or their oxides for use as the cathode.
Moreover, as evidenced by KOFUJI, it is known in the art of carbon dioxide electrolysis (see KOFUJI at Abstract teaching the reference directed towards a carbon dioxide electrolysis device) that platinum, palladium, or their oxides can be used to catalyze the carbon dioxide reduction reaction (see KOFUJI at ¶20 and ¶26 evidencing that the use, amongst other metals, of platinum, palladium or their oxides as the cathode catalyst material). As such, the platinum, palladium or their oxides coated on the cathode of the alkaline water electrolysis cell would provide a cathode configured, i.e. structurally capable of reducing carbon dioxide to produce a carbon compound as claimed.
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 used as the catalyst material for the cathode of the alkaline water electrolysis cell of TANAKA a platinum, palladium or oxides thereof, as the catalyst material, as taught by MITSUSHIMA such that the cathode of the cell would be configured to reduce carbon dioxide as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, TANAKA in view of MITSUSHIMA 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 in view of MITSUSHIMA teaches the device wherein the tank does not comprise any pumps in the opening (see TANAKA at ¶80).
Regarding claim 8, TANAKA in view of MITSUSHIMA 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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA as modified by MITSUSHIMA as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 in view of MITSUSHIMA 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 tanks with a communicating pipe configuration of TANAKA, as modified by MITSUSHIMA, 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 as modified by MITSUSHIMA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekiguchi et al., (EP 1143546 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “SEKIGUCHI”).
Regarding claim 5, while TANAKA in view of MITSUSHIMA 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 as modified by MITSUSHIMA 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While it is noted that a new grounds of rejection is applied, Applicant’s arguments still applicable to the new grounds of rejection are addressed below.
Specifically, applicant argues that TANAKA fails to teach the claims as amended since TANAKA is directed towards an alkaline electrolytic apparatus that would generate oxygen at the anode and hydrogen at the cathode (see Remarks at page 6, lines 8-11). However, for at least the following reasons the examiner must respectfully disagree.
As set forth above, the examiner has rejected claim 1 as amended based on an electrode with a catalyst that would be capable of reducing carbon dioxide at the cathode. Furthermore, since the claim is directed towards an electrolytic device and not a method of operating the electrolytic device, the claim only requires a cathode configured so as to be able to reduce carbon dioxide, not necessarily performing the reduction of carbon dioxide when in use.
Consequently, for at least these reasons, the examiner is of the opinion that the art as currently applied still reads on the claim as amended and find applicant’s arguments to the contrary unpersuasive.
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 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