SYSTEM FOR H2 GENERATION AND CO2 CAPTURE

Application No. 18/026,886

• Filed: Mar 17, 2023
• Priority: Sep 21, 2020 — EU 20306071.0
  • Sep 21, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTEP2021075850
• Examiner: CHUNG, HOSUNG CHARLES
• Art Unit: 1794
• Tech Center: 1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
• Assignee: TotalEnergies SE
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that claims 8 and 10-13 cannot be rejoined while claim 1 is rejected.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.

Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, KR 2013-0000534 A in view of Phillips, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0198401 A1. A machine translation was used for Lee.
The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes.

1. The following references render this claim obvious.
I. Lee
A device comprising:
(i) an electrolysis cell (electrolysis unit 10; Lee [0025], fig. 1) comprising:
(ia) a negative electrode compartment reducing water into dihydrogen (compartment with negative electrode 11; Lee [0025]-[0026], fig. 1) and
(ib) a … flow compartment as a positive electrode compartment (positive electrode 12 which can be made from activated carbon powder forms a flow compartment; id.),
wherein said electrolysis cell is in fluidic communication with a carbonation reactor (carbonate ion conversion unit 20 and carbonate conversion unit 30; Lee [0032]-[0036], figs. 1-2).
II. Philips - Supercapacitive
Lee is silent on supercapacitive.
However, Applicant’s specification teaches that a supercapacitive electrode’s “capacity is directly proportional to the electrode surface area” and that it is typically 500-3000 m2/g. App. Spec. p. 6 ll. 24-27.
Lee’s activated carbon must have some specific surface area.
Phillps teaches that 500-3000 m2/g provides for practical hydrogen generation. Phillips [0302]-[0303], [0305]-[0307], [0324].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s electrode to have a specific surface area of 500-3000 m2/g to provide for practical hydrogen generation.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s electrode to have a specific surface area of 500-3000 m2/g to yield the predictable result of having a suitable specific surface area to electrolyze with.

5. The device of claim 1, wherein said positive electrode compartment and negative electrode compartment are separated by a membrane (double membrane 13). Lee [0027]-[0029], fig. 1.

Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Phillips as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Han et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0172394 A1 [hereinafter Han].
7. The device of claim 1, wherein said device is powered by one or more photovoltaic cells. Lee is silent on this.
However, Han teaches that solar cells can advantageously provide renewable energy for water electrolysis. Han [0027]-[0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s device with Han’s solar cells to provide renewable energy for water electrolysis.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lee, KR 2013-0000534 A, is the closest prior art of record. Lee teaches:
A device comprising:
(i) an electrolysis cell (electrolysis unit 10; Lee [0025], fig. 1) comprising:
(ia) a negative electrode compartment reducing water into dihydrogen (compartment with negative electrode 11; Lee [0025]-[0026], fig. 1) and
(ib) a … flow compartment as a positive electrode compartment (positive electrode 12 which can be made from activated carbon powder; id.),
wherein said electrolysis cell is in fluidic communication with a carbonation reactor (carbonate ion conversion unit 20 and carbonate conversion unit 30; Lee [0032]-[0036], figs. 1-2).

However, Lee and the prior art of record do not teach:
2. The device of claim 1, wherein supercapacitive particles may flow through said positive electrode compartment from a first zone of discharged supercapacitive particles to a second zone of charged supercapacitive particles.

4. The device of claim 1, wherein said positive electrode compartment forms a supercapacitive suspension electrode.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hosung Chung whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday, 9 AM - 6 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is [phone].
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 [phone] (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call [phone] (IN USA OR CANADA) or [phone].

/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794

Prosecution Timeline

• Mar 17, 2023: Application Filed
• Jun 03, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)