DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 USC § 112
Claims 2, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 2 recites “a first concentration of said base substance in a portion of the base solution stream located upstream of the IE stack”; however, Claim 1 recites that the IE stack produces the base solution stream from a salt solution stream, so the claim language is unclear on how there is a base solution stream upstream of the IE stack in a manner that would read on the claims as filed. Claim 9 is rejected for the same logic, as said claim recites “a base holding tank configured to store a quantity of base solution and to supply the base solution stream to the IE stack”. Claim 12 is rejected for the same logic, as one of the options is to adjust a concentration of said base substance in the base solution stream supplied to the IE stack during the electrochemical process. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. While no art will be applied for Claims 2 and 9 due to this inconsistency, the examiner notes that art may be applied when this issue is rectified. With respect to Claim 12, art is applied due to the other options for the second control parameter.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 3 recites “a first concentration of said acid substance in a portion of the acid solution stream located upstream of the IE stack”; however, Claim 1 recites that the IE stack produces the acid solution stream from a salt solution stream, so the claim language is unclear on how there is an acid solution stream upstream of the IE stack in a manner that would read on the claims as filed. Claim 13 is rejected for the same logic, as one of the options is to adjust a concentration of said acid substance in the acid solution stream supplied to the IE stack during the electrochemical process. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. While no art will be applied for claim 3 due to this inconsistency, the examiner notes that art may be applied when this issue is rectified. With respect to Claim 1, art is applied due to the other options for the second control parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eisaman et al. (herein referred to as “Eisaman”; “CO2 extraction from seawater using bipolar membrane electrodialysis”; Energy Environ., Sci., 2012, 5, 7346-7352 (7 pages); found in IDS filed 07/29/2024).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Eisaman discloses a computer implemented method for operating a bipolar electrodialysis device (BPED) (Figure 1; p 7347, Experimental methodology; Setup and equipment Paragraphs 1-2; see BPMED and automatic recording with control software), the BPED including an ion exchange (IE) stack having a plurality of flow channels respectively separated by ion exchange membranes that are cooperatively configured to electrochemically process salt disposed in a salt solution stream to produce both an acid substance in an acid solution stream and a base substance in a base solution stream, wherein an operating state of the BPED is controlled by a plurality of BPED control parameters, and wherein a BPED production efficiency is determined by a rate of production of one of said base substance and said acid substance and a corresponding amount of consumed electrical power (Figure 1a; Figure 2b; Figure 3; pp 7347-7350; see Setup and equipment and procedure sections that describe the BPED and creation of acid and base solutions, including ratings and determination of efficiency percentages based on acid/base production);
generating a first production efficiency value while the BPED is in a first operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; efficiency is rated based on CO2 as a function of pH of acid solution);
applying a first modification in a first direction to a first BPED control parameter such that the BPED changes from the first operating state to a second operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; pH in acid solution is changed, affecting operational state of BPED);
generating a second production efficiency value while the BPED is in the second operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; see different efficiency values as plotted in Figure 3b); and
comparing the first and second production efficiency values (Figure 3b; see different data points); and
applying a second modification to the first BPED control parameter such that a second direction of the second modification is equal to the first direction when said comparison of the first and second production efficiency values indicates that applying the first modification caused the BPED efficiency to increase, and such that the second direction of the second modification is opposite to the first direction when said comparison indicates that applying the first modification caused the BPED production efficiency to decrease (Figure 3b; acid output pH can be reversed [likely to decrease pH] when efficiency decreases due to pH change as seen in Figure 3b).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein applying the first modification in the first direction comprises incrementally increasing the BPED control parameter (Figure 3b; see incremental acid output pH in the figure),
wherein applying the second modification in the second direction comprises incrementally increasing the BPED control parameter when the second parameter efficiency value is greater than the first production efficiency value (Figure 3b; see, for instance, that acid output pH can be decreased to increase efficiency in the case of 3.61 pm SW from 5.5 to 3.5, as an example), and
wherein applying the second modification in the second direction comprises incrementally decreasing the BPED control parameter when the first production efficiency value is greater than the second production efficiency value (Figure 3b; see, for instance, that acid output pH can be increased to increase efficiency in the case of 3.11 pm SW from 3.5 to ~5.0 to increase efficiency).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 4, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein incrementally increasing the first control parameter comprises increasing a set-point value of the first control parameter by an incremental amount in the range of 1% to 10% (Figure 3b; see data points are well below 10% incremental increases around 3.5 pH for several of the flow rates).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein applying the first modification in the first decreasing the BPED control parameter (Figure 3b; see incremental acid output pH in the figure),
wherein applying the second modification in the second direction comprises incrementally decreasing the BPED control parameter when the second production efficiency value is greater than the first production efficiency value (Figure 3b; see, for instance, that acid output pH can be increased to increase efficiency in the case of 3.11 pm SW from 3.5 to ~5.0 to increase efficiency), and
wherein applying the second modification in the second direction comprises incrementally increasing the BPED control parameter when the first production efficiency value is greater than the second production efficiency value (Figure 3b; see, for instance, that acid output pH can be increased to increase efficiency in the case of 3.11 pm SW from 3.5 to ~5.0 to increase efficiency).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein applying the first modification to the first control parameter comprises changing the acid substance in the acid solution stream (Figure 3b; see acid pH output values).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 7, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein incrementally changing said stack current comprises:
modifying a stack current set-point value from a first stack current value to a second stack current value (Figure 3a; p 7348; Procedure, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; see that several current densities are applied),
updating a stack current control signal from a first current signal value corresponding to the first stack current value to a second current value signal corresponding to the second stack current value (Figure 3a; p 7348; Procedure, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; see multiple current values are applied, including a first and second value); and
wherein the BPED comprises a stack current generator configured to generate stack current in accordance with the stack current control signal such that the stack current generator generates said stack current at a first current level corresponding to the first stack current value before the stack current control signal is updated, and the stack current generator generates said stack current at a second current level corresponding to the second stack current value after said updating (Figure 3a; pp 7348-7349, Procedure, Col. 1, third paragraph-Col. 1, first paragraph; current/voltage is applied across membrane stack via current generator, different currents are applied).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 7, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein incrementally changing the flow rate of the salt solution stream comprises:
modifying a salt flow rate set-point value from a first flow rate value to a second flow rate value (Figures 3a-d; see flow rates of salt solutions),
updating a pump control signal from a first pump signal value corresponding to the first flow rate value to a second pump signal value corresponding to the second flow rate value (Figure 1a; Figure 3a; p 7348, Procedure, Paragraph 3, see pump value and flow control values that achieve desired flow rates/pressures); and
wherein the BPED comprises:
a salt holding tank configured to store a quantity of salt solution (Figure 1a; Input Tank for seawater), and
a pressure control pump configured to supply the salt solution stream from the salt holding tank to the IE stack in accordance with the pump control signal such that the salt solution stream comprises a first flow rate corresponding to the first flow rate value before the pump control signal is updated, and comprises a second flow rate corresponding to the second flow rate value after the pump control signal is updated (Figure 1a; Figures 3a-d; p 7348, Procedure, Paragraph 3, pump is used to adjust flow rates).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein the method further comprises applying a third modification to a second BPED control parameter when said comparing indicates that a maximum BPED production efficiency level was achieved by applying the first modification (Figures 3(a)-(d); flow rate can be modified as well as acid pH output).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 11, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein the first control parameter comprises a stack current parameter defining an amount of electrical current applied across the IE stack to facilitate the electrochemical process (Figure 3a; p 7348; Procedure, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; see that several current densities are applied); and
wherein the second control parameter comprises:
a salt flow rate parameter of the salt solution stream supplied to the IE stack during the electrochemical process (Figures 3(a)-(d); flow rate can be modified).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 11, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein the first control parameter comprises a stack current parameter defining an amount of electrical current applied across the IE stack to facilitate the electrochemical process (Figure 3a; p 7348; Procedure, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; see that several current densities are applied); and
wherein the second control parameter comprises:
a salt flow rate parameter of the salt solution stream supplied to the IE stack during the electrochemical process (Figures 3(a)-(d); flow rate can be modified).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses comprising:
systematically modifying said first control parameter by repeating said modifying, said generating and said comparing during a first time period that ends when said comparing indicates that the BPED production efficiency achieves as first maximum level (Figure 3b; see efficiency values based on acid output pH);
systematically modifying a second said control parameter during a second period starting after the BPED production efficiency achieves the first maximum level and until the BPED production achieves a second maximum level (Figure 3b; see efficiency values based on salt solution flow rates);
systematically modifying a third said parameter during a third period starting after the BPED production efficiency achieves the second maximum level and until the BPED production efficiency achieves a third maximum level (Figure 3b; see that salt concentration may change [SW vs. RO water]).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 14, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein systematically modifying each of the second and third control parameters comprises:
determining a third production efficiency level of the BPED when the BPED is a third operating state (Figure 3b; see plurality of efficiencies produced on the graph, including 1-3rd levels);
modifying said each second and third control parameter in a second direction such that the BPED changes from the third operating state to a fourth operating state, where modifying in the second direction includes one of incrementally increasing and incrementally decreasing (i.e., either increasing or decreasing) said each second and third control parameter (Figures 3a-d; see that salt solution, flow rates, acid pH outputs are all adjusted to arrive at different states);
determining a fourth production efficiency level of the BPED when the BPED is the fourth operating state (Figure 3b; see a fourth level of efficiency on the graph);
comparing the third and fourth production efficiency levels (Figure 3b; see two plots on said graph); and
until the BPED achieves one of the second maximum production efficiency level and the third maximum production efficiency level, modifying said second and third control parameter in the second direction when the fourth production efficiency level is greater than the third efficiency level, and modifying said each second and third control parameter in a direction opposite to the second direction when the third production efficiency level is greater than the fourth production efficiency level (Figure 3b; see maximums on plots for all control parameters, parameters are adjusted until maximums are reached).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 14, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses comprising repeating said systematically modifying of said first, second and third control parameters after the third time period (Figures 3a-d; see multiple data points recorded).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 1, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses comprising: performing an initial start-up process including ramping up a stack current applied through the IE stack until the applied stack current is substantially equal to a predetermined initial stack current set-point value (pp 7348-7349, Procedure paragraph 5, voltage is applied to stack); and
using a plurality of initial control parameter set-point values to control a plurality of BPED control devices of said BPED until the BPED achieves the first operating state in which a plurality of measured control parameter values are substantially equal to a plurality of initial parameter set-point values (Figure 1; Figure 2; Figure 3; Procedure section in its entirety, system is set up to arrive at initial values, such as a first plot in Figures 3a-d),
wherein generating said first production efficiency value is performed after the BPED achieves the first operating state (Figure 3b; see a plot point on graph).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Eisaman discloses a computer implemented method for operating a bipolar electrodialysis device (BPED) (Figure 1; p 7347, Experimental methodology; Setup and equipment Paragraphs 1-2; see BPMED and automatic recording with control software), the BPED including an ion exchange (IE) stack having a plurality of flow channels respectively separated by ion exchange membranes that are cooperatively configured to electrochemically process salt disposed in a salt solution stream to produce both an acid substance in an acid solution stream and a base substance in a base solution stream, wherein an operating state of the BPED is controlled by a plurality of BPED control parameters, and wherein a BPED production efficiency is determined by a rate of production of one of said base substance and said acid substance and a corresponding amount of consumed electrical power (Figure 1a; Figure 2b; Figure 3; pp 7347-7350; see Setup and equipment and procedure sections that describe the BPED and creation of acid and base solutions, including ratings and determination of efficiency percentages based on acid/base production), the method comprising:
systematically modifying a first said control parameter during a first time period that ends when the BPED production efficiency achieves a first maximum level (Figure 3b; see a maximum for efficiency based on multiple control parameters, such as acid pH output); and
systematically modifying a second said control parameter during a second period starting after the BPED production efficiency achieves the first maximum level and ending when the BPED production efficiency achieves a second maximum level (Figure 3b; see, for instance, separate maximum based on flow rate).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 18, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Eisaman further discloses wherein systematically modifying each of the first and second control parameters comprises:
determining a first production efficiency level of the BPED when the BPED is a first operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; efficiency is rated based on CO2 as a function of pH of acid solution);
modifying said each first and second control parameter in a first and second control parameter in a first direction such that the BPED changes from the first operating state to a second operating state, where modifying in the first direction includes one of incrementally increasing and incrementally decreasing said each first and second control parameter (Figure 3b; flow rate and acid pH output may be modified to arrive at new operating state based on efficiency);
determining a second production efficiency level of the BPED when the BPED is in the second operating state (Figure 3b; see plurality of data points indicating efficiency);
comparing the first and second production efficiency levels (Figure 3b; see first and second arbitrary data points); and
until the BPED achieves one of the first and second maximum production efficiency levels, modifying said each second and third control parameter in the first direction when the second production efficiency level is greater than the first production efficiency level, and modifying said each second and third control parameter in a direction opposite to the first direction when the first production efficiency level is greater than the second production efficiency level (Figures 3a-3d; see that control parameters can be adjusted to arrive at local maximums based on desired outputs, including efficiency).
Regarding instant Claim 20, Eisaman discloses an electrochemical ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) system configured to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide and mitigate ocean acidification (Abstract; method for extracting carbon dioxide from oceans), the OAE system including:
a bipolar electrodialysis device (BPED) (Figure 1; p 7347, Experimental methodology; Setup and equipment Paragraphs 1-2; see BPMED and automatic recording with control software) including an ion exchange (IE) stack having a plurality of flow channels respectively separated by ion exchange membranes that are cooperatively configured to electrochemically process salt disposed in a salt solution stream to produce both an acid substance in an acid solution stream and a base substance in a base solution stream, wherein an operating state of the BPED is controlled by a plurality of BPED control parameters, and wherein a production efficiency of the BPED is determined by a rate of production of one of said base substance and said acid substance and a corresponding amount of consumed electrical power (Figure 1a; Figure 2b; Figure 3; pp 7347-7350; see Setup and equipment and procedure sections that describe the BPED and creation of acid and base solutions, including ratings and determination of efficiency percentages based on acid/base production); and
a control circuit configured to control operations performed by the BPED (Figure 1; p 7347, Experimental methodology; Setup and equipment Paragraphs 1-2; see BPMED and automatic recording with control software) such that:
a first production efficiency value is generated while the BPED is in a first operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; efficiency is rated based on CO2 as a function of pH of acid solution);
a first modification is applied to a first BPED control parameter such that the BPED changes from the first operating state to a second operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; pH in acid solution is changed, affecting operational state of BPED);
a second production efficiency value is generated while the BPED is in the second operating state (Figure 3b; p 7351; see different efficiency values as plotted in Figure 3b); and
a second modification to the first BPED control parameter is applied when the second production efficiency value is different from the first production efficiency value (Figure 3b; acid output pH can be reversed [likely to decrease pH] when efficiency decreases due to pH change as seen in Figure 3b),
wherein the second modification value is equal to the first modification when the second production value is greater than the first production efficiency value, and
wherein the second modification is opposite to the first modification when the first production efficiency value is greater than the second production efficiency value (Figure 3b; see different data points; acid output pH can be reversed [likely to decrease pH] when efficiency decreases due to pH change as seen in Figure 3b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pelman et al. (US 12264084), Pelman et al. (US 12448309) and Glatz et al. (US 12134574) are all cases with related inventors regarding an Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement system similar to that of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:30pm CT.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 11/15/2025