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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-15 in the reply filed on 15 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the architecture of the systems of group I (claims 1-10) and group II (claims 11-15) and the method of group III (claims 16-20) does not exist in the prior art and is therefore a “special technical feature,” i.e. there exists unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the rejections herein on claims 11-15 made under 35 U.S.C. §103 demonstrate that the invention of the elected group II does not make a patentable contribution over the prior art, and therefore there is a lack of unity of invention.
Additionally, it is noted that while the previously referenced WO 2020/198350 A1 may be overcome by 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2)(A) due to the effective filing date of the instant application, the lack of unity is maintained because all common technical features are known in the art as shown hereinafter using different references.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear if the ending phrase “or combinations thereof” refers to the “portion of the one or more acidic product streams and the metal-including product outlet stream” as alternatives, where including one but not the other would be within the scope of the claim; or requires these streams in combination before considering the “or combinations thereof” phrasing; or if the acidic product stream(s) are required regardless. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the claim is interpreted as always requiring the acidic product stream(s) before considering the metal-containing product, alkaline mineral source, or both in fluid communication with the mixing tank.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumita (US 2016/0272514 A1) in view of Esposito et al. (US 2017/0081770 A1) and Gilliam et al. (US 2013/0206606 A1).
Regarding claims 11-13, Sumita teaches an electrochemical system for producing acidic and alkaline solutions from a salt water solution ([0005] and Fig. 2). The electrolyzer of the system includes a reactor chamber (Fig. 2, element 6) with a feed channel (61), an anode effluent channel (21), and a cathode effluent channel (41). There is a porous anode (1) between the feed and anode effluent channel, and a porous cathode (5) between the feed and cathode effluent channel. The arrangement of the porous electrodes is such that the feed channel is between them, forming a stacked configuration (1, 61, 5). No mention is made of a power supply, but it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the electrolysis current applied to the Sumita system requires a means of supplying said current ([0058]).
Sumita does not teach one or more gas inlet streams in fluid communication with the reactor chamber, acidic or alkaline product streams in fluid communication with the anode or cathode effluent streams respectively, a precipitation tank, a neutralization tank, or a brine feed stream as claimed.
However, Esposito teaches an electrochemical system for producing alkaline and acidic products from electrolysis of a salt solution ([0005], as brine). The system comprises an acidic product stream in fluid communication with the anode effluent channel ([0036]: anolyte stream 108 comprises an acid), an alkaline product stream in fluid communication with the cathode effluent channel ([0036]; [0056]; Fig. 9b: cathode graph shows pH above 9 for all current densities, indicating an alkaline product), and a neutralization tank in fluid communication with a portion of the alkaline and acidic product streams (Fig. 1A, element 101: as a tank downstream of mixed catholyte and anolyte effluent streams 107 and 108). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to apply the features taught by Esposito to the system taught by Sumita. One would have been modified to make these modifications in order to create multiple useful products from the same pH neutral brine (Esposito [0005]). The inclusion of a neutralization tank is motivated by the resulting product stream, which in some embodiments may be recycled back into the electrolyzer to reduce material costs ([0013]; Fig. 1A elements 101 and 112).
Furthermore, Gilliam also teaches an electrolyzer system for production of acidic and alkaline products from a saltwater or brine solution (Fig. 5C: first cell has a NaCl inlet, a NaOH outlet on the cathode side, and a HCl outlet on the anode side). The system includes a precipitation tank ([0572]; Fig. 13, element 1301) in fluid communication with the feedstream and a portion of the alkaline product streams, producing an aqueous salt solution and a metal-including product outlet stream ([0567]: treatment of carbonate/bicarbonate solution from cathode electrolyte; [0568]: supernatant fed into the feed stream of the electrochemical cell; [0571]: precipitate/product may include calcium and magnesium salts). There is a carbon dioxide feed to the precipitation tank (Fig. 13, as “CO2 Solution.”). Because the carbon dioxide feed is a gas inlet to the precipitation tank upstream of the reactor chamber, it is in fluid communication with the reactor chamber.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to combine features of the electrolysis systems taught by Sumita, Esposito, and Gilliam. One would be motivated to include the precipitation tank with the CO2 feed in order to obtain useful metallic carbonate salts as products or co-products ([0573]-[0574], as precursors to cements).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sumita, Esposito, and Gilliam teaches all inherited limitations from claim 11 on which it depends. Furthermore, Esposito teaches a plurality of reactors in series, i.e. the outlet of one reactor feeds to the inlet of another ([0009]). The electrolysis cell of Esposito produces gaseous hydrogen and oxygen in addition to acids and bases in the separated chambers ([0042]; Fig. 4). One skilled in the art would be motivated to use multiple reactors in series in the system of claim 11, because this increases the electrolysis current ([0039]) and therefore overall conversion of reactant into product (Fig 9a and 9b: more extreme pH values at greater current densities indicate higher concentration of acidic and basic products, respectively). The inclusion of a second electrolyzer to produce a hydrogen or oxygen product is further motivated by these chemicals’ value as products of manufacture ([0002]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumita in view of Esposito and Gilliam as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Barnicki et al. (WO 2020/185482 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sumita in view of Esposito and Gilliam teach all inherited limitations, but not a mixing tank in fluid communication with at least a portion of the one or more acidic product streams and the metal-including product outlet stream, an alkaline mineral source, or combinations thereof.
However, Barnicki discloses an electrochemical system for producing cyclodecasulfur ([00122]), wherein the system includes a mixing tank (Fig. 2, element 36, as anolyte storage) in fluid communication with the product exiting the anode side of the electrochemical cell (30: cell; 32: anolyte chamber). The tank is fed by an alkaline mineral source (14; [0023] as alkali metal halide such as NaCl). The tank is a mixing tank because the inlet streams are combined before reaching the outlet, and the art is analogous because both relate to electrochemical processes which produce a variety of co-products ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the mixing vessel as taught by Barnicki with the electrolysis system taught by Sumita, Esposito, and Gilliam. One would be motivated to do so because the addition of alkaline minerals may be used to maintain adequate electrolytic concentration in the anode chamber of the cell when the outlet of the mixing tank is returned into the cell (Barnicki [00120]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,604,720 B2 to Kaczur et al. discloses an electrochemical system for producing chlorine gas and bleach from an alkaline salt solution. US 5,702,585 to Hillrichs et al. discloses an electrochemical process for producing alkaline solution including adding an alkaline salt to the acidic product of the anode outlet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights