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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 36 reads “grasually”, but should read “gradually” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and” in both lines 4 and 13, the word “and” in line 4 should be removed to be grammatically correct;
Claim 2 line 6 recites “and adjusting” but should recite “which adjusts” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 6 line 9 recites “sinlge”, but should recite “single” to correct the typo;
Claim 10 line 6 recites “measuring temperature of”, but should recite “measuring a temperature of” or “measuring the temperature of” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“A power supply unit which …” in claim 1, which has been interpreted as “a potentiostat” or equivalents thereof based on para. 55 of the specification;
“A capture unit which …” in claim 1, which has been interpreted as “a compressor 31, a switching valve 32, and a capture tank 33” or equivalents thereof based on para. 52 of the specification;
“A flow rate adjusting unit …” in claims 2 and 10, which has been interpreted as “a flow rate regulating valve” based on para. 39 of the specification;
“an opening/closing member which …” in claim 6, which has been interpreted as “a shutter” or equivalents thereof passed on para. 44 of the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Furthermore, the following limitation was considered using the three-prong test, but were determined NOT to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
“an intake unit which …” in claim 1 is NOT considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the recited “intake port” is considered sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 13-15 are 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation "the adjusting unit" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 2 recites “a flow rate adjusting unit” in line 5, but does not recite “an adjusting unit”. It is therefore unclear whether the term “the adjusting unit” is intended to refer to “the flow rate adjusting unit”, or to a different “adjusting unit”.
Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite “the flow rate adjusting unit”.
Regarding claim 4, the term “gradually” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the specification indicates the cross-sectional area of the flow path “grasually [sic] decreases” in para. 36 and comprises a “decreased portion 7” in para. 88, but provides no guidance as to what rate of change in cross-sectional area would be considered “gradual”.
Claim 4 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 4 to remove the term “gradually”.
Regarding claims 13-15, claims 13-15 recite the limitation “the redox-active compound”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for this limitation. Specifically, claim 11, from which these claims depend, recites “one or several redox-active compounds”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation “the redox-active compound” refers to at least one of or each of the “one or several redox-active compounds”.
Claims 13-15 are therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claims 13-15 to recite “at least one of the one or several redox-active compounds”.
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.
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 1, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0338895 A1) in view of Eisenberger (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0361271 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiwaki teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (title) comprising:
an intake unit which takes in gas through an intake port (“a door that can be opened and closed” para. 105) by utilizing gaseous flow around the intake unit (“the natural wind passes through the inside of the housing 122.” Id.);
an electrolysis unit (“recovery unit 120” para. 36 and Fig. 1 and “recovery unit 120 includes an electrochemical cell device 121” Id.) including an adsorbent which can adsorb and release carbon dioxide by an adjustment of an electric potential of the electrolysis unit (“The electrochemical cell device 121 is configured to adsorb and desorb the carbon dioxide through an electrochemical reaction,” para. 37 and Fig. 1), the gas flowing from the intake port into the electrolysis unit (“the natural wind passes through the inside of the housing 122.” para. 105), the gas flowing from the intake port into the electrolysis unit (see Fig. 1); and
a power supply unit which adjusts the electrical potential of the electrolysis unit, so as to adsorb carbon dioxide from the flowing gas to the adsorbent and release carbon dioxide from the adsorbent in the electrolysis unit (“power unit 170 applies a predetermined voltage to the electrochemical cell device 121” para. 63 and Fig. 1 and para. 71, see also below).
Regarding the limitation “a power supply unit”, the “power unit 170” applies a potential to the electrolysis unit of Nishiwaki to either adsorb or release carbon dioxide gas. The “power unit 170” is therefore considered to be an equivalent of the claimed “potentiostat” (“(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.” MPEP § 2183).
Nishiwaki further teaches a capture unit which collects carbon dioxide released from the adsorbent after adsorption to the adsorbent comprising:
“first collector opening and closing device 143” (para. 54 and Fig. 1), “second collector opening and closing device 144” (Id.) and “connector opening and closing device 152” (para. 57 and Fig. 1) which are valves (paras. 54 and 60) that together allow the produced gas to be passed to either a carbon dioxide utilization or exhausted to atmosphere (see Figs. 1 and 7-8), and are therefore an equivalent of the claimed “switching valve 34” (“(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.” MPEP § 2183); and
“utilization unit 141” (para. 53 and Fig. 1), which is a “tank which stores the carbon dioxide” (para. 53), and therefore reads on the “capture tank” as claimed.
Nishiwaki does not teach the capture unit comprises a “compressor” or an equivalent thereof.
However, Eisenberger teaches systems for the capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air (abstract), wherein a compressor is used to provide the predictable benefits of storing the carbon dioxide at a higher pressure (para. 216), removing water from the carbon dioxide (para. 57), and/or storing the carbon dioxide in liquid form (para. 53).
As Nishiwaki teaches a system for the electrochemical capture of carbon dioxide, Nishiwaki is analogous art to the instant invention. As Eisenberger teaches systems for the capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air, Eisenberger is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the capture unit of Nishiwaki, such that it comprises a compressor, as taught by Eisenberger. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of allowing the carbon dioxide to be stored at a higher pressure and/or in a liquid state and removing water from the carbon dioxide, as taught by Eisenberger. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., adding a compressor to a carbon dioxide capture system to compress the carbon dioxide prior to storage) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, as currently drafted, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a horizontal plane in the intake unit” is any arbitrary plane. The intake port of Nishiwaki (or modified Nishiwaki) is therefore necessarily arranged at an angle of depression with respect to a horizontal plan in the intake unit, because the intake port of Nishiwaki is necessarily arranged at some angle.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches the gaseous flow can be flowed from the intake port of the intake unit into the electrolysis unit without heating or cooling (Nishiwashi does not recite any heating or cooling systems).
Regarding claim 9, Nishiwashi is silent as to the temperature of the gas, and therefore implicitly teaches the gas can be flowed into the electrolysis unit at a temperature of about 20 °C i.e., ambient temperature, a value within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches the adsorbent of the electrolysis unit includes one or several redox-active compounds (“The carbon dioxide adsorbent is an electroactive species that has a redox activity and can induce a reversible oxidation-reduction reaction.” para. 39).
Regarding claim 12, Nishiwaki further teaches the adsorbent of the electrolysis unit adsorbs the carbon dioxide in a reduction state and releases the carbon dioxide in an oxidation state, by an electrical response to the electric potential (“The carbon dioxide adsorbent can bind with the carbon dioxide to adsorb the carbon dioxide in a reduced state and can release the carbon dioxide in an oxidized state.” para. 39).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches the electrolysis unit includes a working electrode (“a working electrode” para. 38), the working electrode includes a current collector (“The working electrode further includes a working electrode side base material,” para. 40) and an adsorption layer formed on a surface of the current collector, and the adsorption layer includes the adsorbent (“The working electrode side binder is a retaining material that retains the carbon dioxide adsorbent and the working electrode side conductive agent at the working electrode side base material” para. 40, see also para. 39).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches the electrolysis unit includes a working electrode (“a working electrode” para. 38), the working electrode includes a current collector (“The working electrode further includes a working electrode side base material,” para. 40), and the current collector includes a porous body (“The working electrode side base material is a porous conductive material,” Id.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bourhis (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0120750 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches a flow rate adjusting unit (“a first duct opening and closing device 112,” para. 33 and Fig. 1) placed between the intake port and the electrolysis unit (“first duct opening and closing device 112 is installed at a location which is on an upstream side of the recovery unit 120 in the introduction pipe 111” para. 34 and Fig. 1) and which adjusts the gaseous flow rate toward a downstream side (“The first duct opening and closing device 112 opens and closes an upstream portion of the introduction pipe 111 according to a command of the controller unit 160.” Id.); and
a control unit (“controller unit 160” para. 34 and Fig. 1) which controls the flow rate of the flow rate adjusting unit (“The first duct opening and closing device 112 opens and closes an upstream portion of the introduction pipe 111 according to a command of the controller unit 160.” Id.).
Nishiwaki does not teach a flow meter which measures a rate of gas flow at the intake port of the intake unit, wherein the control unit controls the flow rate adjusting unit based on single or multiple measurement results of the flow meter by regulating the gas flow rate toward the downstream side so as not to exceed a standard value.
However, Bourhis teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (title) comprising a flow meter which measures a rate of gas flow at an inlet (“flow rate sensors … may be used to monitor … gas/air stream flow rate …” para. 94, see also para. 113 and Fig. 3), which allows a control unit (“to provide feedback to the controller in order to achieve and maintain optimal process parameter settings for maximizing CO2 capture efficiency and/or the rate of transfer of CO2 from, e.g., ambient air to an enclosed environment” para. 94, see also para. 93) to regulate the gas flow rate so as not to exceed a standard value (“to achieve and maintain optimal process parameter settings” para. 94 and “the volumetric flow rate of gas, ambient air, and/or humid air may be at most 100 m3/hr/kg” para. 106).
As Bourhis teaches a system for the recovery of carbon dioxide from air, Bourhis is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki by adding a flow meter which measures a rate of gas flow at the intake port of the intake unit, wherein the control unit controls the flow rate adjusting unit based on single or multiple measurement results of the flow meter by regulating the gas flow rate toward the downstream side so as not to exceed a standard value, as taught by Bourhis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the controller to maintain optimal air flow conditions in the system, as taught by Bourhis.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoshima (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0017211 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches a control unit (“controller unit 160” para. 62 and Fig. 1).
Nishiwaki does not teach an anemoscope which measures a direction of ambient gas flow of the intake unit, wherein the control unit controls a position of the intake unit and adjusts an opening direction of the intake port based on single or multiple measurement results of the anemoscope.
However, Aoshima teaches a carbon dioxide recovery system (title) comprising an anemoscope which measures a direction of ambient gas flow of the intake unit (“wind direction and speed sensor 20” paras. 40 and 69 and Fig. 1) and a control unit (“control device 17” para. 76 and Fig. 1) that controls a position of the intake unit and adjusts an opening direction of an intake port based on single or multiple measurement results of the anemoscope (“the control device 17 acquires information about wind direction and wind speed from the wind direction and speed sensor 20” and “the control device 17 determines whether or not the wind speed is stronger than a fifth reference value TH5 … controlling an introducing direction of the atmosphere into the collector device 12” para. 79, see also para. 80), which provides the benefit of allowing the system to operate while inhibiting the entry of particulate matter (“As a result, it is possible to prevent the atmosphere containing a relatively large amount of fine particles from being introduced into the collector device 12.” para. 79).
As Aoshima teaches an electrochemical carbon dioxide recovery system, Aoshima is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki, by adding an anemoscope and configuring the control unit to control a position of the intake unit and adjust an opening direction of the intake port based on single or multiple measurement results of the anemoscope, as taught by Aoshima. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of inhibiting the entry of particulate matter into the system, as taught by Aoshima. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oliver (WO 2022/238474 A1).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been interpreted as “a cross-sectional area of the flow channel decreases away from the intake port”.
Modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches the intake unit includes a flow channel from the intake port to the electrolysis unit (see e.g., Fig. 1).
Nishiwaki does not teach a cross-sectional area of the flow channel decreases away from the intake port.
However, Oliver teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (title), wherein the cross-sectional area of a flow channel decreases away from an intake port (“The gas inlet zone becomes increasingly narrow in the direction of the outlet section” p. 14 lines 4-14), which provides the predictable benefit of forcing the input gas through the adsorbent (Id.).
As Oliver teaches a carbon dioxide capture system, Oliver is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki, such that the cross-sectional area of the flow channel decreases away from the intake port, as taught by Oliver. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of forcing the input gas through the adsorbent second i.e., the electrolysis unit, as taught by Oliver. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmitt (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0176309 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki does not teach a filter that is attached to the intake unit and is able to cover the intake port.
However, Schmitt teaches a system for the recovery of carbon dioxide (title), wherein the intake port is provided with a filter (para. 201), which provides the predictable benefit of removing contaminants such as dust, oil, and microorganisms (Id.).
As Schmitt teaches a system for the recovery of carbon dioxide, Schmitt is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki by adding a filter attached to the intake unit and capable of covering the intake port, as taught by Schmitt. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of removing contaminants such as dust, oil, and microorganisms from the intake feed, as taught by Schmitt. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lackner (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0091698 A1) and Ding (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0252980 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches a flow rate adjusting unit (“a first duct opening and closing device 112,” para. 33 and Fig. 1) placed between the intake port and the electrolysis unit (“first duct opening and closing device 112 is installed at a location which is on an upstream side of the recovery unit 120 in the introduction pipe 111” para. 34 and Fig. 1) and which adjusts the gaseous flow rate toward a downstream side (“The first duct opening and closing device 112 opens and closes an upstream portion of the introduction pipe 111 according to a command of the controller unit 160.” Id.).
Nishiwaki does not teach a first thermometer measuring a temperature of the gas taken in from the intake port between the intake port and the flow rate adjusting unit.
However, Lackner teaches a system for the electrochemical capture of carbon dioxide gas (title), wherein a thermometer measures the ambient temperature (para. 91), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing the control unit to operate the system only when suitable ambient temperatures are present (Id.).
As Lackner teaches an electrochemical system for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air, Lackner is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki, by adding a (first) thermometer between the intake port and the flow adjusting unit. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of allowing the control unit of Nishiwaki to only operate the system when the ambient temperature is suitable for operation, as taught by Lackner.
Nishiwaki does not teach a second thermometer measuring the temperature of the gas flowing from the flow rate adjusting unit toward the downstream side between the flow rate adjusting unit and the electrolysis unit.
However, Ding teaches a system for electrochemical carbon dioxide capture (title), wherein a thermometer measures the temperature of the feed supplied to an electrolysis unit (para. 43, see also para. 15), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing the system to adjust the temperature of the feed to the electrolysis unit (para. 43 and see para. 41).
As Ding teaches a system for electrochemical carbon dioxide capture, Ding is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki, by adding a (second) thermometer arranged between the flow rate adjusting unit and the electrolysis unit. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the control unit to adjust the temperature of the feed to the electrochemical cell, as taught by Ding.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Umeda (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0134278 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 11 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki does not teach the adsorbent of the electrolysis unit includes at least one of metal-organic frameworks and covalent-organic frameworks, and
the metal-organic frameworks and/or the covalent-organic frameworks include a molecule of the redox-active compound as a crosslinking moiety.
Nishiwaki is silent as to the specific adsorbent used.
However, Umeda teaches an electrochemical carbon capture system (title), wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent comprises a metal-organic framework or a covalent-organic framework (para. 49), wherein the metal-organic frameworks and/or the covalent-organic frameworks include a molecule of the redox-active compound as a crosslinking moiety (paras. 49-50 and see Fig. on p. 4).
As Umeda teaches an electrochemical carbon capture system, Umeda is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki, such that the adsorbent is a metal-organic framework and/or a covalent-organic framework, wherein the metal-organic framework and/or the covalent-organic framework includes a molecule of the redox-active compound as a crosslinking moiety, as taught by Umeda. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Nishiwaki is silent as to the specific adsorbent, and Umeda teaches these materials are suitable as the adsorbent in an electrochemical carbon capture system. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 11 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki does not teach the redox-active compound includes at least one of the groups of a carbonyl compound, a pyridyl compound, and an imide compound.
Nishiwaki is silent as to the exact redox-active compound used.
However, Umeda teaches an electrochemical carbon capture system (title), wherein the carbon dioxide adsorbent comprises a carbonyl compound (para. 48), specifically anthraquinone (para. 56).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Umeda, such that the redox-active compound includes a carbonyl compound i.e., anthraquinone, as taught by Nishiwaki. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Nishiwaki does not specify a specific redox-active compound, and Umeda teaches anthraquinone is a suitable redox-active compound for electrochemical carbon dioxide adsorption. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger, as applied to claims 1 or 11 above, and further in view of Buttry (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0271434 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 11 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki does not teach the electrolysis unit includes an electrolytic solution, wherein the electrolytic solution includes the redox-active compound.
However, Buttry teaches a system for electrochemical carbon capture (title), wherein the electrolysis unit includes an electrolytic solution (“an ionic liquid” para. 11 and para. 44) that includes a redox-active compound (“benzyl disulfide dissolved in the ionic liquid.” para. 44).
As Buttry teaches a system for electrochemical carbon capture, Buttry is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki by adding an electrolytic solution containing a redox-active compound or, in the alternative, by replacing the redox-active compound of the electrode with an electrolytic solution containing a redox-active compound, as taught by Buttry. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Buttry teaches dissolving the redox-active compound in an electrolyte is a suitable means for adsorbing carbon dioxide electrochemically. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nishiwaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki does not teach the electrolysis unit includes an electrolytic solution, wherein the electrolytic solution includes the adsorbent.
However, Buttry teaches a system for electrochemical carbon capture (title), wherein the electrolysis unit includes an electrolytic solution (“an ionic liquid” para. 11 and para. 44) that includes the carbon dioxide adsorbent (“benzyl disulfide dissolved in the ionic liquid.” para. 44).
As Buttry teaches a system for electrochemical carbon capture, Buttry is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Nishiwaki by adding an electrolytic solution containing the adsorbent or, in the alternative, by replacing the adsorbent of the electrode with an electrolytic solution containing the adsorbent, as taught by Buttry. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Buttry teaches dissolving the adsorbent in an electrolyte is a suitable means for adsorbing carbon dioxide electrochemically. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 6.
The closest prior art is considered to be Nishiwaki (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0338895 A1), Eisenberger (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0361271 A1), Lee (WO 2023/146037 A1, with citations to EP 4471315 as an official English translation), and Aoshima (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0017211 A1).
Nishiwaki in view of Eisenberger is considered to render the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Nishiwaki further teaches an opening/closing member which switches an operating state of the intake port between an open state and a close state (“door that can be opened and closed to enable capturing and sealing of the atmospheric gas.” para. 105).
The limitation “a water level gauge which measures ambient water level of the intake unit;”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, neither Nishiwaki nor Eisenberg teach a water level gauge capable of measuring the ambient water level of the intake unit.
Lee teaches a carbon capture system (title) comprising a water level gauge (“level sensor 17” para. 51) and a control system configured to close an inlet valve based on the sensed water level (para. 53).
However, the water level gauge of Lee is located inside a storage tank (para. 51), and therefore is not capable of measuring an ambient water level. Lee therefore cannot be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to modify the system of Nishiwaki by adding a water level sensor capable of measuring an ambient water level as claimed.
Aoshima teaches a means for protecting a direct air carbon dioxide capture device from damage when located in a coastal area (para. 70), however the system of Aoshima does not use a water level gauge for this purpose, but rather an anemometer (para. 69). While Aoshima could be considered to provide evidence a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a means to protect the system of Nishiwaki from damage due to a nearby body of water, it cannot reasonably be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to specifically add a water level gauge to the system of Nishiwaki.
Absent a teaching in the prior art of a water level gauge configured or capable of measuring an ambient water level, it cannot reasonably be considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Nishiwaki, or another system, to comprise such a water level gauge.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 6 are patentably distinguished over the prior art. Claim 6 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form and incorporating all limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795