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
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/11/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 6/11/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 5/1/20. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2020-080918 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0292197 to Lei et al., (hereinafter referred to as “LEI”).
Regarding claim 1, LEI teaches an electrolysis system (see generally LEI at Abstract and Fig. 2 depicting three solid oxide electrolysis cells “SOECs” as discussed in ¶38), comprising:
at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus that electrolyzes water to produce hydrogen (see LEI at ¶40 teaching the SOECs in an array as illustrated in Fig. 2 with a single feed stream of H2O and CO2; or, alternatively multiple feed streams with H2O and/or CO2, so including embodiments with a designated water feed stream with the associated SOEC being the H2O electrolysis apparatus as claimed);
at least one CO2 electrolysis apparatus that electrolyzes carbon dioxide to produce carbon monoxide (see LEI at ¶40 teaching the SOECs in an array as illustrated in Fig. 2 with a single feed stream of H2O and CO2; or, alternatively multiple feed streams with H2O and/or CO2, so including embodiments with a designated carbon dioxide feed stream with the associated SOEC being the CO2 electrolysis apparatus as claimed); and
a co-electrolysis apparatus that co-electrolyzes water and carbon dioxide to produce less hydrogen per unit time than produced by the at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus and less carbon monoxide per unit time than produced by the at least one CO2 electrolysis apparatus (see LEI at ¶40 teaching the SOECs in an array as illustrated in Fig. 2 with a single feed stream of H2O and CO2; or, alternatively multiple feed streams with H2O and/or CO2, so including embodiments with a designated water and carbon dioxide feed stream with the associated SOEC being the co-electrolysis apparatus as claimed which would be capable of operating under the condition as stated).
As noted above, LEI teaches that multiple feeds streams can be used which feed H2O and/or CO2 to any combination of the SOECs of an array (see LEI at ¶40). Such a configuration of LEI with three SOECs would then be taught to include a combination of one of each feed stream, i.e. one feeds stream of H2O, one feed stream of CO2, and one feed stream of H2O and CO2. Such a configuration would result in one H2O electrolysis apparatus that would generate hydrogen, one CO2 electrolysis apparatus that would generate carbon monoxide, and one co-electrolysis apparatus that would generate both hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Regarding claim 2, LEI teaches the electrolysis system wherein the at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus is arranged in parallel with the at least one CO2 electrolysis apparatus, the at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus is in parallel with the co-electrolysis apparatus, and the at least one CO2 electrolysis apparatus is arranged in parallel with the co-electrolysis apparatus (see LEI at Fig. 2 depicting the outlet streams from the SOECs all going to the same outlet which in the configuration as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 would also result in a combined final stream of CO and H2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, while LEI teaches the electrolysis system can comprise as many SOECs as desired (see LEI at ¶39), LEI fails to explicitly teach: (1) the at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus comprises a plurality of H2O electrolysis apparatuses arranged as claimed; or, (2) the at least one CO2 electrolysis apparatus comprises a plurality of CO2 electrolysis apparatuses arranged as claimed. However, in addition to LEI teaching the use of more SOECs than just three, LEI also teaches that the H2O feed stream or CO2 feed stream can feed any combination of SOECs of the array (see LEI at ¶40). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the electrolysis system of LEI could include 4 SOECs in which the 4th SOEC could be feed by either CO2 or H2O. Consequently, an additional SOEC fed by H2O would meet (1) from above, and likewise an additional SOEC fed by CO2 would meet (2) from above.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have followed the teachings of LEI so as to provide individual feed streams to more than one SOECs based on the teachings of LEI as set forth above. Additionally, by increasing the number of SOECs in the electrolysis system the overall capacity of the system would be increased. As such, including additional SOECs with either a CO2 feed or H2O feed would allow for increased amount of CO and H2 as needed.
Furthermore, the operating of the plurality of H2O electrolysis cell and the plurality of CO-2 electrolysis cells so that each produces more H2 and CO per unit time than the co-electrolysis apparatus would be a condition that the system would be capable of operating under.
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 included an additional SOEC in the electrolysis system of LEI and to have connected it to either the H2O feed so as to have a plurality of H2O electrolysis apparatuses or to connect it to the CO2 feed so as to have a plurality of CO2 electrolysis apparatuses as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, LEI teaches the electrolysis system wherein the at least one H2O electrolysis apparatus, the at least one CO-2 electrolysis apparatus, and the co-electrolysis apparatus each include a SOEC (see LEI at ¶38 and ¶40 teaching each of the cells in the array being a SOECs).
Conclusion
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