DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 12 are pending.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 11 is 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The previous objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other rejections from the previous Office action stand.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 December 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office action on 21 July 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1-5, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 2020/0087233) in view of Eckert et al. (DE 102018206568).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a carbon dioxide electrolytic method (= a method of protecting a nonoperation CO2 electrolysis stack from corrosion) including a refresh operation of the electrolysis cell (2), the method comprising:
At the time of a refresh operation, the anode solution and the cathode solution are discharged to the waste solution collection system (600) so that the anode (11), the anode flow path (12), the cathode (22), the cathode flow path (21) are exposed from the anode solution and cathode solution [0048] (= at least partly emptying the electrolyte from parts of at least the first electrolysis cell);
A refresh material source including a gas (e.g. carbon dioxide) source to supply a gaseous substance to the at least one flow path (e.g. 21), additionally a rinse solution supplied to the flow paths and the gaseous refresh material contains a part of a liquid substance (abstract, [0048]-[0049]) (= wherein the electrolyte which is removed by the at least partial emptying is exchanged for a mixture comprising an inert gas and liquid droplets present, wherein the inert gas is CO2).
The second paragraph of claim 1 includes a listing of five scenarios of which only one option is required.
The preamble of claim 1 appears to recite structure to the claim including an electrolysis stack with a first and second electrolysis cell.
Ono fails to disclose the electrolysis cell as part of a stack.
In the same or similar field of CO2 electrolysis, Eckert discloses wherein electrolysis cells can be formed as an electrolysis stack, the cells being connected electrically and geometrically in series in order to set a predetermined total voltage [0003], [0024].
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 method comprising a stack of a first electrolysis cell and a second electrolysis cell because Eckert discloses that electrolysis cells can be connected in series as a stack to produce a predetermined total voltage. The use of known techniques such as providing cells in stacks to improve similar devices would have been an obvious engineering design choice to improve performance.
Regarding claim 2, Ono discloses wherein at the at least one feed is emptied [0048], Figure 1. Flow paths are refreshed and therefore electrolyte is removed from the feed and drain flow paths. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to refresh any one of the flow paths to recover the anode and cathode [0025].
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12, Ono does not explicitly state the degree of emptying, however, Ono clearly indicates that the flow paths are refreshed with a gaseous substance and liquid substance and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a refresh operation would refresh the entire flow path by removing the electrolyte. Regarding the entire stack being filled with inert gas, Ono discloses the supply of the inert carbon dioxide gas to the various flow paths. Supply of inert gas to the entire stack would have been an obvious engineering design choice in view of the combination of Ono in view of Eckert in order to refresh the entire stack. As to claim 12, Ono discloses wherein the anode solution and cathode solution are discharged to the waste solution collection system such that the anode flow path and the cathode flow path are exposed from the anode solution and the cathode solution [0048]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that flow paths being exposed from a solution would indicate that at least 50% by volume of the solution would not be present.
Regarding claim 7, Ono discloses applying current during refresh [0072], [0089].
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 2020/0087233) in view of Ono et al. (US 2020/0002822).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a carbon dioxide electrolytic method (= a method of protecting a nonoperation CO2 electrolysis stack from corrosion) including a refresh operation of the electrolysis cell (2), the method comprising:
At the time of a refresh operation, the anode solution and the cathode solution are discharged to the waste solution collection system (600) so that the anode (11), the anode flow path (12), the cathode (22), the cathode flow path (21) are exposed from the anode solution and cathode solution [0048] (= at least partly emptying the electrolyte from parts of at least the first electrolysis cell)
A refresh material source including a gas (e.g. carbon dioxide) source to supply a gaseous substance to the at least one flow path (e.g. 21), additionally a rinse solution supplied to the flow paths and the gaseous refresh material contains a part of a liquid substance (abstract, [0048]-[0049]) (= wherein the electrolyte which is removed by the at least partial emptying is exchanged for a mixture comprising an inert gas and liquid droplets present, wherein the inert gas is CO2).
The second paragraph of claim 1 includes a listing of five scenarios of which only one option is required.
The preamble of claim 1 appears to recite structure to the claim including an electrolysis stack with a first and second electrolysis cell.
Ono fails to disclose the electrolysis cell as part of a stack.
In the same or similar field of CO2 electrolysis, Ono (‘822) discloses wherein electrolysis cells can be formed as an electrolysis stack [0103], Figure 16. Ono (‘822) discloses wherein the stacked cells may be connected in parallel and provided with a sensor for detecting a crossover amount, a leak for each cell, etc. [0103].
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 method comprising a stack of a first electrolysis cell and a second electrolysis cell because Ono (‘822) discloses that electrolysis cells can be connected in parallel. The use of known techniques such as providing cells in stacks to improve similar devices would have been an obvious engineering design choice to improve performance.
Regarding claim 2, Ono discloses wherein at the at least one feed is emptied [0048], Figure 1. Flow paths are refreshed and therefore electrolyte is removed from the feed and drain flow paths. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to refresh any one of the flow paths to recover the anode and cathode [0025].
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12, Ono does not explicitly state the degree of emptying, however, Ono clearly indicates that the flow paths are refreshed with a gaseous substance and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a refresh operation would refresh the entire flow path. Regarding the entire stack being filled with inert gas, Ono discloses the supply of the inert carbon dioxide gas to the various flow paths. Supply of inert gas to the entire stack would have been an obvious engineering design choice in view of the combination of Ono in view of Ono (‘822) in order to refresh the entire stack. As to claim 12, Ono discloses wherein the anode solution and cathode solution are discharged to the waste solution collection system such that the anode flow path and the cathode flow path are exposed from the anode solution and the cathode solution [0048]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that flow paths being exposed from a solution would indicate that at least 50% by volume of the solution would not be present.
Regarding claim 6, Ono (‘822) discloses wherein the cells are in plurality and the flow path (e.g. 23) is located at an edge (Figure 16). It would have been obvious that the emptying would be at an edge given the combination of Ono and Ono (‘822) to refresh the flow paths.
Regarding claim 7, Ono discloses applying current during refresh [0072], [0089].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument presented on pages 6-8 is directed towards the claimed mixture comprising an inert gas and liquid droplets and that Ono et al. (‘233) fails to disclose the claimed mixture. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The following portion of (‘233) indicates that the gaseous substance from the refresh material source (e.g. carbon dioxide, [0049]) contains liquid substance of the rinse solution [0048].
[0048] (‘233)
PNG
media_image1.png
82
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it would have been obvious that liquid rinse substance would be present when the gas is supplied since the gas is present to dry the rinse refresh material substance away. The instant claim language does not exclude the interpretation of Ono. A mixture is present since the gas contains a liquid substance as unambiguously disclosed by Ono.
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