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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed inventions contribute over the prior art due to the feature of continuous electrolytic conversion with simultaneously performing activation/refreshing of the electrolyser. This is not found persuasive because the system of Group III, at least, is an apparatus and therefore does not necessarily share the feature of the continuous electrolytic operation which would be a limitation regarding how the apparatus is intended to be used. Regardless, the feature of the continuous electrolysis along with activation/refreshing still would not be special over Asanin et al. (DE 102016211155 A1), as cited in the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-12 are under consideration in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “comprising anion-conducting” should read “comprising an anion-conducting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanin et al. (DE 102016211155 A1, citations based on translation) in view of Kudo et al. (U.S. 2018/0274109).
Regarding claim 1, Asanin discloses a process to enhance electrolyser performance of an electrolyser for continuous electrolysis of gaseous carbon dioxide, CO2 (see e.g. Paragraphs 0014 and 0018, method for improved long-term, continuous operation of an arrangement for carbon dioxide electrolysis), said electrolyser comprising at least an anode with an anode catalyst layer (see e.g. Fig. 2, anode 13 of electrolysis cell 11 as counter electrode comprising platinum or iridium mixed oxide coating, i.e. catalyst layer; Paragraph 0008, line 1, and Paragraph 0023, lines 3-4), a cathode with a cathode catalyst layer formed as a gas-diffusion electrode, GDE (see e.g. Fig. 2, cathode 15 as gas diffusion electrode with applied catalyst; Paragraph 0026, lines 1-2), an ion-conducting separator layer arranged between the anode and the cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2, ion exchange membrane 21 between anode 13 and cathode 15; Paragraph 0006, lines 4-5, and Paragraph 0023, lines 5-6), an anode compartment formed in contact with the anode (see e.g. Fig. 2, anode space/compartment 12 adjacent anode 13; Paragraph 0023, lines 3-6), and a cathode compartment formed in contact with the cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2, gas space 16 adjacent cathode 15; Paragraph 0026, lines 5-6), said process comprising:
directing a flow of gaseous CO2 through the cathode compartment (see e.g. Fig. 2, CO2 introduced into gas space 16 via carbon dioxide inlet 24; Paragraph 0026, lines 3-4), directing a flow of anolyte through the anode compartment (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolyte flowing in and out of anode compartment 12 through respective inlet and outlet; Paragraph 0024, lines 5-8), and performing electrolysis of said CO2 in the electrolyser, thereby conversing said CO2 into at least one product leaving said electrolyser (see e.g. Paragraph 0024, lines 10-11, and Paragraph 0026, lines 4-6, CO2 reacts at cathode to form electrolysis products which leave through a product outlet), and
directing a liquid flow containing alkali metal cations through the cathode compartment on a gas side of said cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolyte containing potassium or other alkali metal salt ions as washing liquid pumped into gas space 16; Paragraph 0029, lines 4-7), the liquid flow being also capable of wetting the GDE, thereby activating the GDE (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, Paragraph 0019, lines 18-19, and Paragraph 0029, lines 6-7, electrolyte wets cathode, dissolving and transporting away formed carbonate salts, thereby cleaning and unclogging, i.e. activating, the cathode).
Asanin does not explicitly teach the ion-conducting separator layer comprising an anion-conducting substance, but does generally teach it comprising an ion exchange membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0006, lines 4-5) and an alkaline hydroxide solution being used as an electrolyte (see e.g. Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4).
Kudo teaches a carbon dioxide electrolytic device (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a separator constituted of an ion exchange membrane separating an anode part and a cathode part (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 1-4), the separator preferable being constituted of an anion exchange membrane with an alkaline solution containing hydroxide ions is used as an anode or cathode solution (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ion-conducting separator of Asanin to comprise an anion exchange, i.e. anion-conducting, membrane as taught by Kudo as a preferable type of ion exchange membrane for use in a carbon dioxide electrolytic device with alkaline hydroxide as an electrolyte solution. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Asanin teaches the liquid flow containing alkali metal cations being a liquid flow of at least one promoter, said at least one promoter being KOH (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0029, lines 4-7, electrolyte comprising KOH as washing liquid).
Regarding claim 3, Asanin as modified by Kudo above does not explicitly teach the at least one promoter having a concentration in said liquid flow of 0.001 to 5 mol/dm3. Asanin does however teach the liquid flow being an electrolyte solution containing KOH (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0029, lines 4-7, electrolyte comprising KOH as washing liquid).
Kudo further teaches the CO2 electrolytic device utilizing a high concentration 1 M, equal to 1 mol/dm3, aqueous KOH solution as the anode and cathode electrolyte solutions to provide reduced electrical resistance (see e.g. Kudo Paragraph 0042, lines 7-22, and Paragraph 0084, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid flow of modified Asanin to comprise 1 mol/dm3 of the KOH promoter as taught by Asanin as a suitable high concentration of KOH for use as an electrolyte solution in a carbon dioxide electrolytic device that provides reduced electrical resistance. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, modified Asanin teaches a total volume of the liquid flow directed through the cathode compartment being less than 1 times an empty volume of said cathode compartment (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0031, flow of washing liquid prevented from filling up gas space, i.e. being less than the total empty volume), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 7, modified Asanin teaches using said liquid flow capable of wetting the GDE for dissolving said at least one promoter (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0029, lines 4-7, electrolyte comprising dissolved KOH salt as washing liquid wetting the cathode).
Regarding claim 8, Asanin as modified by Kudo above does not explicitly teach the at least one promoter having a concentration in said liquid flow of 0.001 to 5 mol/dm3. Asanin does however teach the anolyte comprising a liquid containing an alkaline material (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4, electrolyte comprising alkaline KOH).
Kudo further teaches the CO2 electrolytic device utilizing a high concentration 1 M aqueous KOH solution as the anode and cathode electrolyte solutions to provide reduced electrical resistance (see e.g. Kudo Paragraph 0042, lines 7-22, and Paragraph 0084, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anolyte of modified Asanin to comprise 1 M KOH as taught by Asanin as a suitable high concentration of KOH for use as an electrolyte solution in a carbon dioxide electrolytic device that provides reduced electrical resistance. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, modified Asanin teaches an alkali-metal containing solution being applied as the electrolyte (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4, electrolyte comprising KOH).
Regarding claim 11, modified Asanin teaches directing said liquid flow through the cathode compartment simultaneously with the flow of gaseous CO2 (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0018 and Paragraph 0026, lines 3-6, electrolysis, and therefore introduction of CO2, operated continuously and uninterrupted along with the application of the washing liquid).
Regarding claim 12, modified Asanin teaches said electrolyser being a single electrolyser cell (see e.g. Asanin Fig. 2, electrolysis cell 11; Paragraph 0023, lines 1-2).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanin in view of Kudo, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. 2018/0066370).
Regarding claim 5, modified Asanin teaches all the elements of the process of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Asanin does not explicitly teach said liquid flow capable of wetting the GDE as a solvent mixture of at least two different solvents. Asanin does however teach said liquid flow being an electrolyte solution of the electrolyser (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0029, lines 4-7) which comprises potassium salts in a solvent (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0009).
Yamada teaches a CO2 reduction device (see e.g. Abstract) comprising an electrolyte solution which may include water and ions such as potassium ions, in addition to an alcohol such as methanol, ethanol or acetone (see e.g. Paragraph 0066, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid flow of modified Asanin to comprise water as well as an alcohol as solvents as taught by Yamada as suitable solvent components for an electrolyte solution for a CO2 reduction device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 6, Asanin as modified by Yamada teaches selecting solvents from a group of water, methanol, ethanol and acetone (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0010; see e.g. Yamada Paragraph 0066, lines 1-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanin in view of Kudo, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kaczur et al. (U.S. 2017/0037522).
Regarding 9, modified Asanin teaches all the elements of the process of claim 9 as stated above. Modified Asanin does not teach pure de-ionized water being applied as the anolyte. Asanin does however teach water being the only reactant for the anode reaction (see e.g. Asanin Paragraph 0010), and Kudo teaches that the anode and cathode solutions may be different, as long as they preferably contain at least water (see e.g. Kudo Paragraph 0042, lines 1-7).
Kaczur teaches an electrochemical device for conversion of carbon dioxide (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an anolyte solution to be introduced into an anode compartment can be deionized water (see e.g. Paragraphs 0223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anolyte of modified Asanin to be deionized water as taught by Kaczur as a suitable solution comprising water to be used as an anolyte solution in an electrochemical carbon dioxide conversion device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olshausen et al. (U.S. 2017/0175277) discloses an electrolysis method in which a gaseous flushing medium is introduced into an anode or cathode space along with a reactant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795