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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20180127886A1 in view of Ono US20180274108A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, Fig. 3), comprising:
a first plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first plate) comprising a first electrolyte inlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet) formed therethrough (Park, [0014]) at a predetermined position thereof and a first electrolyte outlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first outlet) spaced apart from the first electrolyte inlet by a predetermined distance and formed therethrough (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet, first outlet), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed therethrough” is satisfied by the disclosure of Park of supplying the solution to the anode,
PNG
media_image1.png
720
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an anode (Park, Fig. 3, anode) located at a first side of the first plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of first plate),
a separation membrane (Park, Fig. 3, membrane) located at a first side of the anode (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of anode),
a cathode (Park, Fig. 3, cathode) located at a first side of the separation membrane (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of membrane), and
a second plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second plate) located at a first side of the cathode (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of cathode) and comprising a second electrolyte inlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet) formed therethrough (Park, [0015]) at a predetermined position thereof and a second electrolyte outlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet) spaced apart from the second electrolyte inlet by a predetermined distance and formed therethrough (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet, second outlet), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed therethrough” is satisfied by the disclosure of Park of supplying the mix to the cathode. Park does not explicitly disclose an anode comprising a first communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte inlet and a second communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte outlet, a spacer located between the anode and the separation membrane and configured to support an edge a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode facing the separation membrane to form a space between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane.
Ono teaches an anode (Ono, Fig. 2, elements 11 and 12) comprising a first communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte inlet and a second communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte outlet (Ono, [0026], [0029], Fig. 2, element 14),
a spacer (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, spacer) located between the anode (Ono, Fig. 2, element 12) and the separation membrane (Ono, Fig. 2, element 30) and configured to support a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, peripheral portion of element 12) facing the separation membrane to form a space (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, space) between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, element 12, element 30, space). The examiner notes the spacer is in contact with the peripheral portion of one surface of the anode, satisfying the functional limitation of configured to support.
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the anode and spacer of Ono to Park, thereby allowing the electrolytic solution to flow therethrough (Ono, [0026]) and supporting the anode (Ono, [0021]).
PNG
media_image2.png
382
54
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
720
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teach wherein: the first plate comprises a first body (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first body) having a plate shape(Park, annotated Fig. 3, first body)
and a first protrusion (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first protrusion) formed to protrude and to have a predetermined area near a center of a first surface of the first body (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first protrusion, center of first surface of the first body), the first electrolyte inlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet) is formed in the first protrusion (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet, first protrusion) through the first protrusion and the first body (Park, [0014]), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed…through” is satisfied by the disclosure of Park of supplying the solution to the anode, and the first electrolyte outlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first outlet) is formed in the first protrusion (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first outlet, first protrusion) through the first protrusion and the first body (Park, [0014]), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed…through” is
PNG
media_image4.png
720
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
satisfied by the disclosure of Park of recovering the solution from the anode.
Regarding claim 3, modified Park additionally teaches wherein the first electrolyte inlet is formed near an edge of the first protrusion (Park, above annotated Fig. 3, first inlet, first protrusion), the examiner notes the inlet is formed through the first protrusion and inherently is formed near an edge of the first protrusion, and the first electrolyte outlet is formed at a position symmetrical to the first electrolyte inlet relative to a center point of the first protrusion (Park, as reasonably suggested by above annotated Fig. 3, first inlet, first outlet, first protrusion), it is the examiner’s position that the inlet and outlet are formed through a center point of the first protrusion, satisfying the claim limitation as they are symmetrical.
Regarding claim 5, modified Park further teaches wherein: the anode has an area larger than an area of the first protrusion (Park, as reasonably suggested by above annotated Fig. 3, first protrusion, anode), and the anode comprises aluminum (Park, [0067]).
PNG
media_image5.png
561
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Park as modified by Ono also teaches wherein the spacer has a frame shape having an opening (Ono, [0021], annotated Fig. 2, spacer) and supports an entire peripheral portion of the one surface of the anode (Ono, [0021], as reasonably suggested by annotated Fig. 2, spacer, entire peripheral portion of element 11). It is the examiner’s position that as Park as modified by Ono teaches the anode 11 is porous (Ono, [0021]), if the spacer did not seal the space, the electrolyte would leak, causing either a short or otherwise rendering the device inoperable, and the skilled artisan would therefore find it obvious the spacer satisfies the functional limitation to seal the space.
Regarding claim 10, modified Park also teaches wherein the cathode comprises carbon paper (Park, [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Park further teaches wherein the cathode comprises a noble metal catalyst loaded on a support (Park, [0068], [0070]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Park further teaches wherein: the second plate comprises a second body having a plate shape (Park, Fig. 2, gas diffusion layer). Park as modified above by Ono does not teach a second protrusion formed to protrude and to have an area that is equal to or less than an area of the cathode near a center of a first surface of the second body, the second electrolyte inlet is formed in the second protrusion through the second protrusion and the second body, the second electrolyte outlet is formed in the second protrusion through the second protrusion and the second body, and the second plate further comprises a flow path formed to be recessed from a surface of the second protrusion, one end of the flow path communicating with the second electrolyte inlet and a remaining end of the flow path communicating with the second electrolyte outlet.
PNG
media_image6.png
720
780
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ono teaches a second protrusion (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, protrusion)
PNG
media_image7.png
554
524
media_image7.png
Greyscale
formed to protrude and to have an area that is equal to or less than an area of the cathode (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, cathode) near a center of a first surface of the second body (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, first surface, second body), it is the examiner’s position that the protrusion around the cathode of Ono, as reasonably suggested in Figs. 2-3, would be understood by the skilled artisan to have an area less than an area of the cathode, satisfying the functional limitation of formed to have,
the second electrolyte inlet (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet) is formed in the second protrusion through the second protrusion and the second body (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet, protrusion, second plate of second body), the second electrolyte outlet (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet) is formed in the second protrusion through the second protrusion and the second body (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet, protrusion, second plate of second body), it is the examiner’s position that the second inlet and outlet serve as a medium of connecting the second protrusion and the second body, satisfying the limitation “through”,
PNG
media_image8.png
705
896
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and the second plate further comprises a flow path formed to be recessed from a surface of the second protrusion (Ono, Fig. 3, flow path 243), one end of the flow path communicating with the second electrolyte inlet and a remaining end of the flow path communicating with the second electrolyte outlet (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, flow path 243, second inlet, second outlet).
Regarding claim 13, Park as modified by Ono above further teaches wherein the cathode is in direct contact with the second protrusion (Ono, annotated Figs. 2-3, cathode, second protrusion).
Regarding claim 14, Park as modified by Ono above also teaches wherein the second electrolyte inlet (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet) is formed near an edge of the second protrusion (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, edge of protrusion), and the second electrolyte outlet (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet) is formed at a position symmetrical to the second electrolyte inlet relative to a center point of the second protrusion (Ono, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet, second inlet, protrusion). The examiner is interpreting the “center point of the second protrusion” to be the central point around which the rectangular structure of the protrusion of Ono is arranged in Ono Fig. 3 and the inlet and outlet are formed at positions approximately 180° rotation about this central point axis, coming out of the page, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 16, modified Park additionally teaches further comprising a conductive wire (Park, Fig. 3, wire connecting power supply unit to the battery) configured to connect the first plate and the second plate to each other (Park, [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches a hydrogen production and carbon dioxide storage system (Park, [0069]), comprising: the metal/carbon-dioxide battery of claim 1 (see claim 1), configured to generate hydrogen using carbon dioxide as a fuel (Park, [0069]),
a first electrolyte supply unit (Park, Fig. 3, electrolytic solution storage tank) connected to a first electrolyte inlet of the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, Fig. 3, line from electrolytic solution storage tank to electrolyte inlet) and configured to supply a first electrolyte to the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, [0014]),
a second electrolyte supply unit (Park, [0015], Fig. 3, a mixed gas of CO2 and water vapor) connected to a second electrolyte inlet of the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, Fig. 3, line from a mixed gas of CO2 and water vapor to the second inlet) and configured to supply a second electrolyte and carbon dioxide to the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, [0015]) and
a separation unit (Park, Fig. 3, gas-liquid separation on right hand side) connected to a second electrolyte outlet of the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, Fig. 3, line from the second outlet to gas-liquid separation on right hand side) and configured to receive a product of the metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, [0011-0012]), and recover carbon dioxide stored in a salt form (Park, [0041-0042], reaction scheme 4).
The examiner notes that while modified Park does not explicitly recite separate hydrogen gas from the product, Park teaches hydrogen can be generated as a product (Park, [0069]) and the products are sent to a gas-liquid separation unit from which carbonate is separated from the products and stored in a storage tank (Park, [0012], [0069], Fig. 3, gas-liquid separation, carbonate storage tank), it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the separation unit is configured to separate hydrogen gas from the product thereby recovering carbon dioxide stored in a salt form (Park, [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Park also teaches wherein the first electrolyte comprises an alkaline aqueous solution (Park, [0032], aqueous solution of a Group I metal salt).
Regarding claim 20, modified Park additionally teaches wherein the second electrolyte comprises an alkaline aqueous solution (Park, reaction scheme 4, 2CO2+H2O+2M++2e −)
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20180127886A1 in view of Ono US20180274108A1 and further in view of Sahu US20120208061A1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Park does not teach further comprising a first gasket fitted on an outer circumferential surface of the first protrusion.
Sahu teaches further comprising a first gasket (Sahu, Fig. 6, element 210) fitted on an outer circumferential surface (Sahu, Fig. 6, outer circumferential surface of element 202) of the first protrusion (Sahu, Fig. 6, element 206-1). It is the examiner’s position that the outer circumferential surface of Sahu element 206-1 on which element 210 is fitted satisfies the claim limitation. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the first gasket of Sahu to modified Park thereby preventing leaking (Sahu, [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park does not teach further comprising a second gasket fitted on an outer circumferential surface of the second protrusion.
Sohu teaches further comprising a second gasket (Sohu, Fig. 6, element 212) fitted on an outer circumferential surface of the second protrusion (Sohu, Fig. 6, element 206-2). It is the examiner’s position that the outer circumferential surface of Sahu element 206-2 on which element 212 is fitted satisfies the claim limitation. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the first gasket of Sahu to modified Park thereby preventing leaking (Sahu, [0047]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20180127886A1 in view of Ono US20180274108A1 and further in view of Visco US20080182157A1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Park does not teach wherein a thickness of the anode is about 1 mm to 50 mm.
Visco teaches wherein a thickness of the anode is about 1 mm to 50 mm (Visco, [0263], [0298], [0324], about 1 mm to greater than 10 mm), rendering the claimed range obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the anode of Visco in Park having a thick of about 1 mm to greater than 10 mm, thereby delivering very high energy density (Visco, [0263]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20180127886A1 in view of Ono US20180274108A1 and further in view of Mills US20150171455A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Park does not teach wherein a thickness of the spacer is about 1 mm to 10 mm.
Mills teaches wherein a thickness of the spacer is about 2 mm to 5 mm (Mills, [0383], [0404]), rendering obvious the claimed range of about 1 mm to 10 mm, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spacer of Mills to modified Park thereby providing insulation (Mills, [0196]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US20180127886A1 in view of Ono US20180274108A1 and further evidenced by Nafion N115 N117 N1110 (hereafter referred to as NafionN115).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches wherein the separation membrane is Nafion 115 (Park, [0093]) and which has a typical thickness of 127 µm as evidenced by NafionN115 (NafionN115, Table 1, Nafion N115), which falls with the claimed range wherein a thickness of the separation membrane is about 25 µm to 250 µm. The Courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen US20170288243A1 in view of Park US20180127886A1 and further in view of Ono US20180274108A1.
Regarding claim 17, Thomsen discloses a plurality of structures (Thomsen, Fig. 8, elements 100) comprising a first plate (Thomsen, Fig. 8, element 30b), an anode (Thomsen, Fig. 8, element 50), a separation membrane (Thomsen, Fig. 8, element 60), a cathode (Thomsen, other element 50), and a second plate (Thomsen, element 30a) are stacked (Thomsen, Fig. 8), with an insulator (Thomsen, [0044], Fig. 8, element 20) interposed between each pair of the plurality of structures as stacked (Thomsen, Fig. 8, element 20, element 100). Thomsen however does not teach the metal/carbon-dioxide battery of claim 1.
Park teaches a metal/carbon-dioxide battery (Park, Fig. 3), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
720
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first plate) comprising a first electrolyte inlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet) formed therethrough (Park, [0014]) at a predetermined position thereof and a first electrolyte outlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first outlet) spaced apart from the first electrolyte inlet by a predetermined distance and formed therethrough (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first inlet, first outlet), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed therethrough” is satisfied by the disclosure of Park of supplying the solution to the anode,
an anode (Park, Fig. 3, anode) located at a first side of the first plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of first plate),
a separation membrane (Park, Fig. 3, membrane) located at a first side of the anode (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of anode),
a cathode (Park, Fig. 3, cathode) located at a first side of the separation membrane (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of membrane), and
a second plate (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second plate) located at a first side of the cathode (Park, annotated Fig. 3, first side of cathode) and comprising a second electrolyte inlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet) formed therethrough (Park, [0015]) at a predetermined position thereof and a second electrolyte outlet (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second outlet) spaced apart from the second electrolyte inlet by a predetermined distance and formed therethrough (Park, annotated Fig. 3, second inlet, second outlet), the examiner notes that the limitation “formed therethrough” is satisfied by the disclosure of Park of supplying the mix to the cathode. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the battery of Park in Thomsen thereby preparing carbonate and/or formate from carbon dioxide (CO2) (Park, [0008]). Thomsen as modified by Park does not explicitly teach an anode comprising a first communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte inlet and a second communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte outlet, a spacer located between the anode and the separation membrane and configured to support an edge a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode facing the separation membrane to form a space between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane.
Ono teaches an anode (Ono, Fig. 2, elements 11 and 12) comprising a first communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte inlet and a second communication hole formed therethrough to communicate with the first electrolyte outlet (Ono, [0026], [0029], Fig. 2, element 14),
a spacer (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, spacer) located between the anode (Ono, Fig. 2, element 12) and the separation membrane (Ono, Fig. 2, element 30) and configured to support an edge a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, peripheral portion of element 12) facing the separation membrane to form a space (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, space) between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, element 12, element 30, space). The examiner notes the spacer is in contact with the peripheral portion of one surface of the anode, satisfying the functional limitation of configured to support.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
54
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the anode and spacer of Ono to Thomsen as modified by Park, thereby allowing the electrolytic solution to flow therethrough (Ono, [0026]) and supporting the anode (Ono, [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Park as modified by Ono does not teach a spacer located between the anode and the separation membrane and configured to support a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode facing the separation membrane to form a space between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane. This is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
54
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As set forth above, Park as modified by Ono teaches an anode (Ono, Fig. 2, elements 11 and 12), a spacer (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, spacer) located between the anode (Ono, Fig. 2, element 12) and the separation membrane (Ono, Fig. 2, element 30) and configured to support a peripheral portion of one surface of the anode (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, peripheral portion of element 12) facing the separation membrane to form a space (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, space) between the one surface of the anode and the separation membrane (Ono, annotated Fig. 2, element 12, element 30, space). The examiner notes the spacer is in contact with the peripheral portion of one surface of the anode (element 12), satisfying the functional limitation of configured to support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa US20160153100A1 (discloses an electrochemical cell comprising similar structural elements to the claimed invention).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights