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/Restrictions & Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 17-20 have been cancelled and claim 16 has been amended to depend from claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejoined into Group I, which is now claims 1-14 and 16.
Therefore, claims 1-14 and 16 are drawn to the elected group and are examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 states “…less than about 1200 parts per million…”.
Applicant’s specification states that “about” in reference to a numerical value may include additional numerical values within a range of from 90% to 110% of the numerical value (P26).
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 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jahnke et al (US 20180261864 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jahnke discloses a method for capturing carbon dioxide, the method comprising:
introducing a first feed stream comprising carbon dioxide and dioxygen into a first electrochemical cell (enriched flue gas stream (first exhaust stream) in fuel cell supply line 154 goes into fuel cell 30 in Fig. 2; molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC); flue gas stream supplies carbon dioxide and oxygen for the cathode of the fuel cell 30; see entire disclosure and especially P40, 50);
reducing the carbon dioxide to carbonate ions at a first cathode of the first electrochemical cell (see entire disclosure and especially P49, 50 and Fig. 2);
reducing the carbonate ions at a first anode of the first electrochemical cell to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide and a second product stream comprising water (“The reaction results in the production of water and carbon dioxide, which form an anode exhaust stream, and electrons, which drive the production of electricity”, P42; “To remove the CO2, at the sequester system 40, the anode exhaust stream is cooled and water present in the stream is condensed out”, P44; “Due to the electrochemical reactions produced in the fuel cell 30, as described in detail above, an anode exhaust stream (second exhaust stream), which comprises a high concentration of CO2 (e.g., about 70% or more), is released from the anode 34”, P48; the anode produces two products, carbon dioxide and water stream; these two products are separated into two product streams at the sequester system; therefore, the anode produces two product streams via the sequester, one of carbon dioxide and one of water);
introducing a second feed stream comprising water to a second electrochemical cell coupled to the first electrochemical cell (return line 144, of which water has been added through water supply line 146, enters the anode of reformer-electrolyzer-purifier (REP) cell 162 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P45, 49);
oxidizing the water of the second feed stream at a second anode of the second electrochemical cell to produce hydrogen ions and dioxygen gas (see entire disclosure and especially P49 and Fig. 2);
reducing the hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas at a second cathode of the second electrochemical cell (flue gas is produced, which would inherently contain some hydrogen gas since the cell is a reformer-electrolyzer-purifier cell; see entire disclosure and especially P45, 49);
transporting the hydrogen gas produced by the second cathode of the second electrochemical cell to the first anode of the first electrochemical cell (the flue gas stream goes through fuel cell supply line 154 to fuel cell 30 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P50); and
removing the first product stream from the first electrochemical cell (the first product stream leaves fuel cell 30 through anode exhaust line 132 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P48).
Regarding claim 2, Jahnke discloses wherein introducing a first feed stream comprising carbon dioxide and dioxygen into a first electrochemical cell comprises introducing the first feed stream comprising carbon dioxide and dioxygen into a molten carbonate fuel cell (see entire disclosure and especially P40, 50).
Regarding claim 5, Jahnke discloses wherein introducing a first feed stream comprising carbon dioxide and dioxygen comprises introducing a carbon dioxide-containing feed stream from a coal fired power plant or from an ethanol fenenter (combustion power plant, such as coal, P4; the off gas produced by the combustion power plant enters the REP cell to be enriched and then goes as flue gas to the MCFC, P11-12; therefore, it can be said the first feed stream comes from a coal fired power plant).
Regarding claim 6, Jahnke discloses wherein reducing the carbonate ions to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide comprises producing the first product stream comprising a greater concentration of carbon dioxide than the concentration of carbon dioxide in the first feed stream (“due to the electrochemical reactions of the fuel cell 30, the anode exhaust stream contains higher concentrations of carbon dioxide than the flue gas stream”, P44).
Regarding claim 7, Jahnke discloses wherein introducing the second feed stream comprising water to a second electrochemical cell comprises introducing the second feed stream comprising water to a proton conducting electrolyzer (see entire disclosure and especially P45, 49).
Regarding claim 8, Jahnke discloses wherein reducing the carbon dioxide to carbonate ions in the first electrochemical cell and reducing the carbonate ions to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide comprises producing thermal energy (it is inherent in the reduction of carbon dioxide and carbonate ions that thermal energy is released).
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke et al (US 20180261864 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hartvigsen (US 20080060935 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jahnke does not disclose using the thermal energy from the first electrochemical cell to oxidize the water of the second feed stream in the second electrochemical cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hartvigsen teaches a fuel cell and electrolyzer can be physically integrated together into a single solid-state electrochemical stack to enable the electrochemical cells to be both electrically and thermally integrated in a way that increases the efficiency of each of the electrochemical cells (P29, 40). Hartvigsen teaches the fuel cell (300 in Fig. 4A) and electrolyzer (200 in Fig. 4A) are physically adjacent to one another in the stack and separated by an interconnect plate (400 in Fig. 4A; P40). Hartvigsen teaches the interconnect plates allow electrical current to flow through the stack, as seen by the electron streams (402 in Fig. 4A; P40).
Hartvigsen teaches the electrolyzer’s reaction is endothermic, therefore, it requires significant thermal input in order to operate effectively (P37). Hartvigsen teaches the fuel cell and electrolyzer are thermally coupled, which allows heat from the fuel cell to be absorbed by the adjacent electrolyzer (P43). Hartvigsen teaches this reduces air-flow requirements through the fuel cell which, in some embodiments, allow a ten-fold reduction in the area and cost of previously required air-heat exchangers (P43).
Hartvigsen teaches their design generates electricity and hydrogen in a way that improves the efficiency of both processes (P15). Hartvigsen teaches that while their disclosure centers around solid oxide fuel cells, their disclosure is applicable to molten carbonate fuel cells or the like as well (P11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hartvigsen and modified Jahnke such that the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell are physically adjacent and connected thermally and electrically through an interconnect, thereby allowing the thermal energy from the first electrochemical cell to oxidize the water of the second feed stream in the second electrochemical cell, given Hartvigsen teaches their disclosure is applicable to molten carbonate fuel cells and the like, and a system such as this can improve efficiency of both cell’s processes.
Regarding claim 11, Jahnke does not disclose wherein reducing the hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas at a second cathode of the second electrochemical cell comprises using electrons generated by the first anode of the first electrochemical cell to reduce the hydrogen ions in the second electrochemical cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hartvigsen teaches a fuel cell and electrolyzer can be physically integrated together into a single solid-state electrochemical stack to enable the electrochemical cells to be both electrically and thermally integrated in a way that increases the efficiency of each of the electrochemical cells (P29, 40). Hartvigsen teaches the fuel cell (300 in Fig. 4A) and electrolyzer (200 in Fig. 4A) are physically adjacent to one another in the stack and separated by an interconnect plate (400 in Fig. 4A; P40). Hartvigsen teaches the interconnect plates allow electrical current to flow through the stack, as seen by the electron streams (402 in Fig. 4A; P40).
Hartvigsen teaches the electrolyzer’s reaction is endothermic, therefore, it requires significant thermal input in order to operate effectively (P37). Hartvigsen teaches the fuel cell and electrolyzer are thermally coupled, which allows heat from the fuel cell to be absorbed by the adjacent electrolyzer (P43). Hartvigsen teaches this reduces air-flow requirements through the fuel cell which, in some embodiments, allow a ten-fold reduction in the area and cost of previously required air-heat exchangers (P43).
Hartvigsen teaches their design generates electricity and hydrogen in a way that improves the efficiency of both processes (P15). Hartvigsen teaches that while their disclosure centers around solid oxide fuel cells, their disclosure is applicable to molten carbonate fuel cells or the like as well (P11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hartvigsen and modified Jahnke such that the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell are physically adjacent and connected thermally and electrically through an interconnect, given Hartvigsen teaches their disclosure is applicable to molten carbonate fuel cells and the like, and a system such as this can improve efficiency of both cell’s processes.
As seen in Hartvigsen, the interconnect allows electrical current to flow from the fuel cell to the electrolyzer (see the electron streams in Fig. 4A going from fuel cell 300 to electrolyzer 200). Therefore, in modified Jahnke, the electrons at generated by the first electrochemical cell that flow to the second electrochemical cell would aid in reducing the hydrogen ions in the second electrochemical cell.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke et al (US 20180261864 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Bosio et al (Thermal management of the molten carbonate fuel cell plane) in view of Barelli et al (High temperature electrolysis using Molten Carbonate Electrolyzer).
Regarding claim 10, Jahnke does not disclose what temperature the two electrochemical cells were maintained at.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bosio teaches the operating temperature range of molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) is about 925–955 K (651.85 - 681.85 °C; Abstract).
Also in a similar field of endeavor, Barelli teaches molten carbonate electrolyzers are derived from the MCFC technology that is based on a molten carbonate electrolyte suspended in a porous and chemically inert ceramic matrix, and their operating temperature is in the range of 620-680 °C (Page 14923, Left Column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of both Bosio and Barelli and chosen the operating/maintenance temperature of the two electrochemical cells to be between 651.85 and 680 °C, given the first electrochemical cell is a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC), the second electrochemical cell is a reformer-electrolyzer-purifier (REP) cell (which is known to be based upon MCFC technology), and Bosio and Barelli teach the above operating temperature ranges for both cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 16 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.
Through search and consideration of the claims, previously cited Jahnke has been found to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Jahnke discloses the first feed stream includes a flue gas stream (P40, 50). Jahnke does not disclose wherein the first feed stream includes air.
Milewski et al (Experimental investigation of CO2 separation from lignite flue gases by 100 cm2 single Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell) looks at separation of lignite flue gases by a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC). Milewski teaches that the flue gases contain an insufficient amount of oxygen, therefore, an addition of air is needed to increase the amount of CO2 able to be separated (Page 1561, Right Column).
However, while it is known to add air to flue gas to ensure sufficient oxygen for CO2 separation in a MCFC, Jahnke teaches their flue gas stream is enriched with greater concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide (P49). Further Jahnke’s disclosure is drawn to providing a CO2 recovery system that generates flue gas enriched with O2 prior to its input into the fuel cell such that a higher output value may be realized, further offsetting the costs of capturing CO2 from the flue gas and increasing the overall efficiency of the power plant (P9). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to add air to the first feed (flue gas) stream.
Regarding claim 4, Jahnke discloses an off-gas from a power plant enters a reformer-electrolyzer-purifier (REP) in order to form the first feed stream which a flue gas stream (P4,9, 11-12, 40, 50). Jahnke does not disclose the amount of carbon dioxide in the first feed stream.
Songolzadeh et al (Carbon Dioxide Separation from Flue Gases: A Technological Review Emphasizing Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions) teaches CO2 concentration in flue gases depends on the fuel such as coal (12–15 mol- % CO2) and natural gas (3-4 mol-% CO2) (Page 1). Songolzadeh teaches in petroleum and other industrial plants, CO2 concentration in exhaust stream depends on the process such as oil refining (8-9 mol% CO2) and production of cement (14–33 mol-% CO2) and iron and steel (20–44 mol-%) (Page 1).
These concentrations of CO2 can be written as coal - 125,000 ppm to 150,000 ppm CO2, natural gas - 30,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm, oil refining - 80,000 ppm to 90,000 ppm, cement - 140,000 ppm to 330,000 ppm, and iron and steel - 200,000 ppm to 440,000 ppm.
Given these concentrations of CO2 from power plant flue gas are already so large and the off-gas from the power plant of Jahnke is enriched to form the flue gas of the first feed stream, one of ordinary skill in the art would not believe the amount of carbon dioxide in the first feed stream to be 1200 ppm or less as required by claim 4. Furthermore, given Jahnke wants an enriched flue gas for the first feed stream, there would be no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide in the first feed stream to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “…positioning an interconnect material between the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell, the interconnect material formulated to separate the concentrated carbon dioxide produced at the first electrochemical cell from water produced at the first electrochemical cell.”
Hartvigsen (cited above in the rejection of claims 9 and 11) teaches a fuel cell and electrolyzer can be physically integrated together into a single solid-state electrochemical stack to enable the electrochemical cells to be both electrically and thermally integrated in a way that increases the efficiency of each of the electrochemical cells (P29, 40). Hartvigsen teaches the fuel cell (300 in Fig. 4A) and electrolyzer (200 in Fig. 4A) are physically adjacent to one another in the stack and separated by an interconnect plate (400 in Fig. 4A; P40). Hartvigsen teaches the interconnect plates allow electrical current to flow through the stack, as seen by the electron streams (402 in Fig. 4A; P40).
However, Hartvigsen does not teach that the interconnect material is formulated to separate the concentrated carbon dioxide produced at the first electrochemical cell from water produced at the first electrochemical cell.
Through further search and consideration, no art has been found to teach the particular structure as described in claim 1 that also includes that the interconnect material is formulated to separate the concentrated carbon dioxide produced at the first electrochemical cell from water produced at the first electrochemical cell.
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of claims 12-14.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “A method for capturing carbon dioxide, the method comprising: introducing a first feed stream comprising air into a molten carbonate fuel cell maintained at a temperature of from about 500 °C to about 700 °C; reducing carbon dioxide from the air to carbonate ions at a cathode of the molten carbonate fuel cell; transporting the carbonate ions through an electrolyte of the molten carbonate fuel cell; reducing the carbonate ions at an anode of the molten carbonate fuel cell to produce a first product stream comprising carbon dioxide and a second product stream comprising water; introducing the second product stream comprising water to a proton conducting electrolyzer coupled to the molten carbonate fuel cell and maintained at a temperature of from about 500°C to about 700 °C; oxidizing the water of the second product stream at an anode of the proton conducting electrolyzer to produce hydrogen ions and dioxygen gas; transporting the hydrogen ions through an electrolyte of the proton conducting electrolyzer; reducing the hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas at a cathode of the proton conducting electrolyzer; and transporting the hydrogen gas to the anode of the molten carbonate fuel cell; and recovering the first product stream from the molten carbonate fuel cell.”
Previously cited Jahnke discloses a method for capturing carbon dioxide, the method comprising: introducing a first feed stream into molten carbonate fuel cell (enriched flue gas stream (first exhaust stream) in fuel cell supply line 154 goes into fuel cell 30 in Fig. 2; molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC); flue gas stream supplies carbon dioxide and oxygen for the cathode of the fuel cell 30; see entire disclosure and especially P40, 50);
reducing the carbon dioxide to carbonate ions at a cathode of the molten carbonate fuel cell (see entire disclosure and especially P49, 50 and Fig. 2); transporting the carbonate ions through an electrolyte of the molten carbonate fuel cell (see entire disclosure and especially P42); reducing the carbonate ions at an anode of the molten carbonate fuel cell to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide and a second product stream comprising water (“The reaction results in the production of water and carbon dioxide, which form an anode exhaust stream, and electrons, which drive the production of electricity”, P42; “To remove the CO2, at the sequester system 40, the anode exhaust stream is cooled and water present in the stream is condensed out”, P44; “Due to the electrochemical reactions produced in the fuel cell 30, as described in detail above, an anode exhaust stream (second exhaust stream), which comprises a high concentration of CO2 (e.g., about 70% or more), is released from the anode 34”, P48; the anode produces two products, carbon dioxide and water stream; these two products are separated into two product streams at the sequester system; therefore, the anode produces two product streams via the sequester, one of carbon dioxide and one of water);
introducing a second feed stream comprising water to a proton conducting electrolyzer coupled to the molten carbonate fuel cell (return line 144, of which water has been added through water supply line 146, enters the anode of reformer-electrolyzer-purifier (REP) cell 162 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P45, 49); oxidizing the water of the second feed stream at an anode of the proton conducting electrolyzer to produce hydrogen ions and dioxygen gas (see entire disclosure and especially P49 and Fig. 2); transporting the hydrogen ions through an electrolyte of the proton conducting electrolyzer (see entire disclosure and especially P49);
reducing the hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas at a cathode of the proton conducting electrolyzer (flue gas is produced, which would inherently contain some hydrogen gas since the cell is a reformer-electrolyzer-purifier cell; see entire disclosure and especially P45, 49); transporting the hydrogen gas to the anode of the molten carbonate fuel cell (the flue gas stream goes through fuel cell supply line 154 to fuel cell 30 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P50); and recovering the first product stream from the molten carbonate fuel cell (the first product stream leaves fuel cell 30 through anode exhaust line 132 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P48).
Previously cited Bosio teaches the operating temperature range of molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) is about 925–955 K (651.85 - 681.85 °C; Abstract), and previously cited Barelli teaches molten carbonate electrolyzers are derived from the MCFC technology that is based on a molten carbonate electrolyte suspended in a porous and chemically inert ceramic matrix, and their operating temperature is in the range of 620-680 °C (Page 14923, Left Column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of both Bosio and Barelli and chosen the operating/maintenance temperature of the two electrochemical cells to be between 651.85 and 680 °C.
Previously cited Jahnke includes the first feed stream includes as a flue gas stream (P40, 50). Jahnke does not disclose wherein the first feed stream includes air.
Milewski et al (Experimental investigation of CO2 separation from lignite flue gases by 100 cm2 single Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell) looks at separation of lignite flue gases by a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC). Milewski teaches that the flue gases contain an insufficient amount of oxygen, therefore, an addition of air is needed to increase the amount of CO2 able to be separated (Page 1561, Right Column).
However, while it is known to add air to flue gas to ensure sufficient oxygen for CO2 separation in a MCFC, Jahnke teaches their flue gas stream is enriched with greater concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide (P49). Further Jahnke’s disclosure is drawn to providing a CO2 recovery system that generates flue gas enriched with O2 prior to its input into the fuel cell such that a higher output value may be realized, further offsetting the costs of capturing CO2 from the flue gas and increasing the overall efficiency of the power plant (P9). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to add air to the first feed (flue gas) stream.
Through search and consideration of the claims, previously cited Jahnke has been found to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention. There has been no other art found to remedy the deficiencies of Jahnke.
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of independent claim 12 and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of independent claim 12. Since claims 13-14 depend on claim 12, they are allowable for the same reason.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tae et al (KR20210010313A and the provided machine English translation)
Tae discloses a fusion system of a molten carbonate fuel cell and a solid oxide electrolysis cell (P25). However, the anode of Tae’s molten carbonate fuel cell does not produce a product stream that is later separated into two product streams to provide “reducing the carbonate ions at a first anode of the first electrochemical cell to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide and a second product stream comprising water”.
Henry et al (WO2013128144A1 using the provided machine English translation)
Henry discloses a device (110 in Fig. 2) comprises a solid oxide fuel cell (211 in Fig. 2), a molten carbonate fuel cell operating in electrolyzer mode (213 in Fig. 2), and a first intermediate porous plate (212 in Fig. 2) between the two (P60-63). Henry discloses sending water vapor and carbon dioxide to the device such that the carbon dioxide is separated out (P57). Henry discloses the water vapor and carbon dioxide is injected into the first porous intermediate plate (P66).
Therefore, it does not appear Henry discloses introduction of a first feed stream comprising carbon dioxide and dioxygen into a first electrochemical cell (which would be drawn to the solid oxide fuel cell of Henry) or the reduction of carbonate ions at a first anode of the first electrochemical cell to produce a first product stream comprising concentrated carbon dioxide and a second product stream comprising water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729