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 .
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 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Combined anodic and cathodic hydrogen production from aldehyde oxidation and hydrogen evolution reaction, 5 Nature Catalysis 66 (2022) [hereinafter Wang] in view of Zhao et al., CN 112981443 A; Helmenstine, Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity (2019); and either Mues, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0181785 A1 or Lamaison et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0323226 [hereinafter Lamaison]. A machine translation was used for Zhao et al. [hereinafter Zhao].
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 teach the claim.
I. Wang
A system for generating hydrogen (H2) from an aldehyde (hydrogen production from aldehydes; Wang title, abstract), said system comprising:
an anode comprising a metal-based … catalyst (anode with copper catalyst; Wang p. 67, fig. 3);
a cathode comprising Ni2P or Pt/C (Pt/C; Wang p. 70, fig. 3); and
a [separator] positioned between the anode and the cathode (separator pictured; Wang fig. 3)… .
Wang is silent on the catalyst being an alloy.
However, Wang teaches that both copper and silver were both known to be catalysts to cleave the C-H bond. Wang p. 67. It further is obvious to combine equivalents.
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 catalyst by combining the equivalents of copper and silver to yield the predictable result of having a suitable alloy to catalyze the cleavage of the C-H bond.
II. Dialysis Membrane
Wang is silent on the separator being a dialysis membrane. However, Wang teaches the separator should conduct hydroxides. Wang fig. 3a.
Mues or Lamaison teaches this limitation.
A. Mues
Mues teaches a separator which is a dialysis membrane since it is not an anion nor a cation exchange membrane. Mues [0041]-[0050]. Mues teaches the separator comprises pores that may range between 0.05-0.3 microns for the first polymer layer and 0.2-6.5 microns for the second polymer layer. Mues [0024]-[0025]. Mues teaches this separator conducts hydroxides by ensuring sufficient ionic conductivity. Mues [0006], [0012], [0014], [0026].
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 separator to be Mues separator comprising pores that may range between 0.05-0.3 microns for the first polymer layer and 0.2-6.5 microns for the second polymer layer to yield the predictable result of conducting hydroxides.
B. or Lamaison
Lamaison teaches that separators such as anion-exchange membranes and diaphragms/non-charged separators (i.e. dialysis membranes) can facilitate charge transfers such as hydroxides. Lamaison [0080].
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 separator to be Lamaison’s diaphragm/dialysis membrane to yield the predictable result of conducting hydroxides.
III. Current Density and Voltage – Zhao and Helmenstine
Wang is silent on wherein the system is capable of a current density of about 200 mA cm-2 to about 500 mA cm-2 at a cell voltage of about 0.2 V to about 0.6 V.
However, it is noted that the specification describes and claim 5’s claims a CuAg/Cu foam anode, which would achieve this result. See also App. Spec. [0014]-[0015] (noting the anode achieves the current density and voltages).
Wang teaches that both copper and silver were both known to be catalysts to cleave the C-H bond. Wang p. 67. It further is obvious to combine the equivalents of copper and silver to make a copper-silver alloy.
Helmenstine teaches that silver has a higher conductivity than copper. Helmenstine table.
Zhao teaches that an electrode film covering a base foam comprising silver improves the electrode’s conductivity. Zhao abstract, [n0015].
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 anode by plate the foam with the prior art’s copper-silver alloy to improve the conductivity as taught by Zhao and Helmenstine.
Since the prior art teaches the claimed CuAg/Cu foam anode, this anode would also be capable of the claimed current density and cell voltage ranges.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anode comprises Copper (Cu) (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anode comprises Silver (Ag) (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anode comprises Copper (Cu) and Silver (Ag) (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anode comprises CuAg/Cu foam (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anode comprises an alloy of any two or more metals selected from the group consisting of Platinum (Pt), Palladium (Pd), Gold (Au), Copper (Cu), and Silver (Ag) (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the dialysis membrane comprises a pore size of 50 nm to 1 micron (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
10. The system according to any one of claims 1-9, wherein the separator comprises an alkaline tolerable material (the solution is alkaline and thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the separator to be alkaline tolerable).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571)270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (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.
/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights