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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, incorporating at least portions of original claim 5, and also introducing new limitations related to the alternation of the anode-side contact parts and cathode-side contact parts in both the flow direction and a direction orthogonal to the stacking direction and the flow direction are sufficient to overcome all prior grounds of rejection. Further search was conducted in view of the newly amended features. New grounds of rejection are presented below over Rees et al (WO 2020/126486 A1, Japanese language equivalent JP 2022/511936-A is cited as well for the convenience of Applicant).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rees et al (WO 2020/126486 A1).
Rees et al teach (see page 1, lines 3-13, figs. 1-8, page 15, line 20 to page 18, line 2) an electrochemical reaction device for conducting electrolysis of carbon dioxide comprising an electrode layer comprising an ion exchange membrane (solid oxide electrolyte) with electrode layers (cathode and anode as claimed) on opposing sides of the membrane, a first flow path structure (12) including an anode-specific flow path defined on one surface and a cathode-specific flow path defined on the opposing surface and a second flow path structure (also 12, but see fig. 8) including an anode-specific flow path defined on one surface and a cathode-specific flow path defined on the opposing surface, wherein the first flow path structure, the electrode layer and the second flow path structure and a second instance of the electrode layer are stacked in a predetermined stacking direction. Rees et al further show that the first flow path structure and the second flow path structure each included anode-side contact parts (e.g. 32) and cathode-side contact parts (e.g. 30), the anode-side contact parts of the first flow path structure being convex toward the one side of the first flow path structure, the cathode-side contact parts of the first flow path structure being convex toward the other side of the first flow path structure, the anode-side contact parts of the second flow path structure being convex toward the one side of the second flow path structure and the cathode-side contact parts of the second flow path structure being convex toward the other side of the second flow path structure, wherein the anode-side contact parts of the first flow path structure overlap with the cathode-side contact parts of the second flow path structure and the cathode-side contact parts of the first flow path structure overlap with the anode-side contact parts of the second flow path structure. Lastly, Rees et al teach that the anode-side contact parts and the cathode-side contact parts were arranged alternately in both the flow direction (e.g. left to right in fig. 4) as well as a direction orthogonal to the stacking direction and the flow direction (e.g. up-down in fig. 4).
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasser et al (US 3,941,675) in view of Rees et al (WO 2020/126486 A1).
First, the claim limitations “for reducing carbon dioxide” and “for a cathode-specific electrolytic solution containing dissolved carbon dioxide” relate to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. These claims limitations do not limit the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Strasser et al teach (see figs. 1-5) an electrochemical reaction device comprising an electrode layer comprising an asbestos diaphragm, a first flow path structure and a second flow path structure (bipolar metal electrodes 6), each flow path structure including (see figs. 4 and 5) an anode-specific flow path (+) on a first side of the structure and a cathode-specific flow path (-) on an opposing side of the structure. The electrochemical reaction device including a repeating stack of the first flow path structure, the diaphragm, the second flow path structure, and a second diaphragm. The first and second flow path parts included, see figs. 3-5, a plurality of convex anode-side contact parts defining the anode-specific flow path and a plurality of convex cathode-side contact parts defining the cathode-specific flow path. The convex anode-side contact parts of the first flow path structure and the convex cathode-side contact parts of the second flow path structure were arranged at positions corresponding to each other in a stacking direction of the cell, see fig. 5. The convex anode-side contact parts were arranged alternately with the convex cathode-side contact parts in a direction orthogonal to both the flow direction and the stacking direction.
Strasser et al fail to teach (1) the electrode layer comprised a cathode, an ion exchange membrane and an anode and (2) the convex anode-side contact parts and the convex cathode-side contact parts also being arranged alternately in the flow direction.
Regarding (1), Rees et al teach (see abstract, page 1, lines 3-20) that more recent electrolytic cells used ion exchange membranes (e.g.-solid oxide membrane) that included anode and cathode layers bonded to the surfaces of the membrane in the form of membrane electrode assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have updated the separator of Strasser et al from the asbestos diaphragm to the more modern membrane electrode assembly as taught by Rees et al to avoid using dangerous asbestos materials.
Regarding (2), Rees et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1-8, page 15, line 20 to page 18, line 2) providing convex anode-side contact parts and convex cathode-side contact parts in a separator between adjacent cells in a cell stack. The contact parts were arranged alternately (see fig. 4) in both a direction orthogonal to both the flow direction and the stacking direction and also the flow direction, to create a tortuous flow path which would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as increasing mass transfer of the reactants to the electrode surfaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first flow path structure and second flow path structure of Strasser et al according to the suggestion of Rees et al by providing an array of anode-side contact parts and cathode-side contact parts that alternated in both the flow direction and the direction orthogonal to both the flow direction and stacking direction to provide tortuous flow paths that increased mass transfer of the reactants to the electrode surfaces.
Regarding claim 2, per fig. 2 of Strasser et al, the electrolytic cell structure included a cathode-specific electrolytic solution inlet (9) in a lower left corner, a cathode-specific electrolytic solution outlet (11) in an upper right corner on one face of the flow path structure and an anode-specific electrolytic solution inlet (9) in a lower right corner, an anode-specific electrolytic solution outlet (10) in an upper left corner on the other face of the flow path structure. This arrangement resulted in the crossing of the lines as claimed in the last limitation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, per fig. 2 of Strasser et al, the electrolytic cell structure included inlets (9, 9) positioned along the bottom of the flow path structure and outlets (10, 11) positioned along the top of the flow path structure.
Regarding claim 4, Strasser et al teach surrounding the cell structures in frames (3,5) made of non-conducting material (i.e. “insulating”) and sealing elements (not shown) providing elastic sealing of the frames.
Regarding claim 7, the first flow path structure and the second flow path structure seen in fig. 5 of Strasser et al were identical in shape and were mirrored (i.e. rotated 180°) with respect to the stacking direction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasser et al (US 3,941,675 A) in view of Rees et al (WO 2020/126486 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beckman et al (US 2004/0038102 A1).
As addressed with respect to claims 2 and 3, Strasser et al show triangular areas for distribution of electrolyte to and from manifold holes in the cell stacking structure.
However, Strasser et al fail to teach flow path guide walls for guiding a flow of the electrolytic solution with the triangular areas.
Beckman et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 4, and paragraphs [0001], [0042], and [0051]) providing a distributor region (12) comprising circular structures (i.e. “flow path guide walls”) that provide for more uniform distribution of the fluid across the flow path region of an electrochemical cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the distributor region of Beckman et al to the electrochemical reaction device of Strasser et al to improve the distribution of the fluid into the separate anode and cathode flow channels on either side of the bipolar plate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794