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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 9/16/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-148606 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1, 9 and 14 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “122” has been used to designate both the flow path plate and the cathode flow path (see each of the respective figures in the region to the left of the “electrolytic part 100” mistakenly labeled 122 which should apparently be labeled 124 instead). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7, 9, 12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim sets forth a 3rd flow path (see page 3, line 21). However, while claim 2 does earlier recite a 1st flow path (see page 3 at line 13), the claim fails to set forth a 2nd flow path anywhere in the claim. As such, it is unclear whether the claimed 3rd flow path is actually as stated a 3rd flow path, such that a 2nd flow path is also necessarily required, or if the 3rd flow path is merely the 2nd flow path being required by the claim.
Additionally, claim 2 also requires a 2nd heat exchanger (see page 3 line 24). However, here also, it is noted that the claim fails to set forth a 1st heat exchanger. As such, it is unclear whether the claim also requires another heat exchanger to be the 1st heat exchanger or if the 2nd heat exchanger is really the only heat exchanger required by the claim.
Consequently, for at least each of these reasons the scope of the claim is considered to be unclear and therefor indefinite.
It is additionally noted that numerous other claims also contain similar issues. These instances will be pointed out below and the same rationale for the determination of indefiniteness is being incorporated with respect to these claims as well.
Regarding claim 4, the claim sets forth a 4th flow path (see claim 4 on page 4 line 11), but claims 2-4 fail to set forth a 2nd flow path.
Regarding claim 5, the claim sets forth a 5th flow path (see claim 5 on page 4 line 15), but claims 2, 3 and 5 fail to set forth a 2nd flow path or a 5th flow path.
Regarding claim 6, the claim sets forth a 3rd cooler (see claim 6 on page 4 at each of lines 21 and 24), but claims 1 and 6 fail to set forth a 2nd cooler.
Regarding claim 9, the claim sets forth a 6th flow path (see claim 9 on page 5 at each of lines 20 and 22), but claims 2 and 9 fail to set forth a 2nd flow path, 4th flow path, or 5th flow path.
Regarding claim 16, the claim sets forth a 3rd cooler (see claim 16 on page 6 at line 26 and also on page 7 line 1), but claims 1 and 16 fail to set forth a 2nd cooler.
Regarding claim 18, the claim sets forth a 3rd cooler (see claim 18 on page 7 at line 27 and also on page 8 at line 3), but claims 1 and 18 fail to set forth a 2nd cooler.
It is also noted that the claim sets forth a 6th flow path (see claim 18 on page 8 at each of lines 13 and 15), but claims 1 and 18 fail to set forth a 3rd flow path, 4th flow path or 5th flow path.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the limitation "the third flow path" on page 8 line 13. However, a third flow path was not earlier set forth. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is noted that there is nothing currently setting forth or defining what the third flow path is.
Regarding claim 19, the claim sets forth a 6th flow path (see claim 19 on page 9 at each of lines 10 and 12), but claims 2 and 19 fail to set forth a 2nd flow path, 4th flow path, or 5th flow path.
Please note, claims 3, 7, 12 and 17 are included herein as a result of their dependency which, in each instance, results in the claims above also having the same indefiniteness issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would all be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach electrolytic devices as claimed in independent claim 1 and 2 having the features as collectively claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2023/0119993 to Oikawa teaching a carbon dioxide treatment device and method for producing carbon compound
US Pub. No. 2022/0064808 to Ono et al., teaching carbon dioxide electrolytic device and method of electrolyzing carbon dioxide
US Pub. No. 2021/0079541 to Yamagiwa et al., teaching a carbon dioxide electrolytic device and method of electrolyzing carbon dioxide
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights