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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0195184 A1 to Fleischer et al. (Fleischer).
As to claim 1, Fleischer teaches a system for hydrogen generation and carbon dioxide storage, the system comprising an electrolyzer (E1) (a metal-carbon dioxide battery) including an anode (A), a cathode (K) and a separator (M) between the anode (A) and the cathode (K), a first supply unit (P2) to supply a first electrolyte to the anode (A); a second supply unit (P1) configured to supply a second electrolyte to the cathode, the electrolyte comprising hydrogen ions and aqueous alkali bicarbonate solution formed from fresh carbon dioxide dissolution and a recycle stream; a separation unit (G1) configured to separate hydrogen gas from a product discharged from the cathode and a dissolution unit (CO2-R) disposed downstream of the separation unit (G1) and configured to prepare a precursor by receiving a starting material, the starting material capable of being any number of compounds including water from the outside and carbon dioxide contained in a mixed gas (Paragraphs 0041, 0052 and 0069-0071; Figure 1).
As to claim 2, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the apparatus comprises a storage unit (reservoir) (PR) for buffering the catholyte between the separation unit and the dissolution unit, the catholyte comprising unreacted starting water supplied from the outside, unreacted starting material from the outside, and product discharged from the separation unit (Paragraph 0015; Figure 1).
As to claim 7, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleisher further teaches that the separator comprising a cation conductive resin, for example Nafion (Paragraphs 0019 and 0073).
As to claim 8, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The remaining limitation of claim 8 are merely narrowing a functional limitation of claim 1, “configured to supply a first electrolyte”; the anolyte side pump and circulation circuit of Fleischer would be capable of supplying any number of electrolytes including sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 9, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the bicarbonate is aqueous sodium bicarbonate (Paragraph 0041).
As to claim 10, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the pH of the second electrolyte is, for example, 8 (Paragraph 0043).
As to claim 11, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of Fleischer discusses the importance of temperature control of the catholyte, and thus provides a means of temperature control and would be capable of operating at temperatures in the claimed range (Paragraph 0059; MPEP 2114).
As to claim 12, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of Fleischer would be capable of operating with any number of catholyte compositions, and thus a composition with bicarbonate at 0.5 to 2M, furthermore Fleisher specifically discusses how concentration can be modified for different conditions rendering obvious optimization of this parameter (Paragraphs 0045 and 0088; MPEP 2114).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0352498 A1 to Raman (Raman).
As to claims 3 and 4, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the apparatus comprises a unit (AB) for precipitating and separating, at least indirectly, a portion of the alkali bicarbonate from the precursor fed from the dissolution unit and to supply the second electrolyte to the second supply unit (P1), the unit comprising a cooler for lowering and temperature and precipitating the bicarbonate (Paragraph 0071; Figure 1). However, Fleischer is silent as to specifically how the precipitated bicarbonate is separated after precipitate. However, Raman also discusses the precipitate of carbonate materials and teaches that they can be separated from the remaining solution via a filter (Paragraph 0150). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the unit of Fleischer with a filter, thus a filtration unit, with the reasonable expectation of effectively separating the precipitate form the solution as taught by Raman.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0069819 A1 to Farrukh et al. (Farrukh).
As to claim 5, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fleischer fails to teach an anode comprises zinc or aluminum, teaching that an anode side reaction comprises the generation of chlorine, however, further specifically teaching that this is merely an exemplary anode reaction and other reactions for producing other valuable products can be utilized (Paragraph 0067). Farrukh further teaches that a valuable anode reaction in aqueous solutions is the generation of zinc oxide from an anode comprising zinc (Claim 1). Therefore, is would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the anode side reaction by utilizing an anode formed of zinc to generate a different valuable product such as zinc oxide as taught by Farrukh.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0005911 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claim 6, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the cathode is a porous metal, but fails to specifically teach the formation of this porous metal (Paragraph 0074; Table 1). However, Kim also discusses carbon dioxide utilization at a cathode and teaches that an effective form for providing a metal cathode is as a metal foam (Abstract; Paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the cathode of Fleischer as a metal foam with the reasonable expectation of effectively providing the cathode as taught by Kim.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2017/111503 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee).
As to claims 13, 14, 15 and 16, Fleischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fleischer fails to further teach that the dissolution unit comprises a housing and a separator. However, Lee also discusses the provision of carbon dioxide to a solution and teaches that the source of carbon dioxide can come directly from a significantly impure mixed gas stream, such as from steek by product gas, via forming the dissolution unit as a housing provided with a separated such that a first space is formed inside the separator and second spate is defined by an outer surface of the separator and an inner surface of the housing such that the mixed gas flows in the first space and the solution for dissolving the carbon dioxide flow in the second space in a counterflow manner (Abstract; Example 1, Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the dissolution unit of Fleischer in the manner of Lee in order to allow for the starting carbon dioxide to be directly captured form a significantly impure mixed gas stream.
As to claim 17, the combination of Fleischer and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 13. While a functional limitation (MPEP 2114), Lee specifically further teaches that the pressure in the first space is 2.96 bar (3 atm) (Example 1).
As to claim 18, the combination of Fleischer and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 13. While a functional limitation (MPEP 2114), Lee specifically further teaches that the ratio of flow of carbon dioxide to solution is 0.4 (200 ml/min to 500 ml/min) (Example 1).
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2 and 5-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/229,723 in view of Fleischer. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claim 1 and 5-9 with the exception of a dissolution unit for capturing the carbon dioxide and a storage unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Fleischer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 3 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/229,723 in view of Fleischer and further in view of Raman. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claims 3 and 4 with the exception of filtration unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Fleischer and Raman.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/229,723 in view of Fleischer and further in view of Lee. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claims 13-18 with the exception of the specific configuration of the dissolution unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Lee.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/601,073 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the present claims are claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/601,073 in view of Fleischer. The copending claim claims all the limitations of claim 4 with the exception of a cooler; however, as discussed above, this is rendered obvious by Fleischer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0002775 A1 to Matsumoto et al. – General apparatus and external supply means
US 2016/0017503 A1 to Kaczur et al. – KOH and NaOH as anolytes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights