DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 05/22/2023, 02/05/2024 and 05/22/2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 05/22/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/16/2026. Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1-20 are now pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from examination as being drawn to non-elected invention. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. Claim 5 recites a source of energy for the capturing, the using of the electrochemical regeneration, or both comprises renewable energy, It is unclear both of what: source for energy for the capturing or source for electrotechnical generation?
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2011/0056876 to Ide (Ide).
Regarding claim 1, Ide discloses a method comprising: capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2) from air and/or another CO2-containing gas in an absorber (electrolysis pretreatment plant 50) in which the air and/or the another CO2-containing gas contacts a base (para 62) to produce a carbonate precipitating one or more salts from a brine to provide an aqueous solution comprising a chloride using electrochemical regeneration to convert the chloride to electrochemically regenerated product comprising the base (electrolysis plant 60) and recycling (through line L63)at least a portion of the electrochemically regenerated product comprising base to the capturing of the CO2 from the air and/or the another CO2-containing gas. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 2, Ide discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Even if Ide does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more salts comprise lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), one skilled in the art easily recognize inherent presence of lithium ion in sea water and as such formation and precipitation (re claim 4) of lithium carbonate (Li2CO3).
Regarding claim 3, Ide discloses wherein using electrochemical regeneration produces chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen (H2), or both, along with the electrochemically regenerated product comprising the base (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Ide discloses a step comprising formation of Hydrogen and chlorine (claim 6, Fig. 5, 6). Therefore, claimed electrochemical transformations are inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0056876 to Ide.
Regarding claim 5, Ide discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition Ide teaches a power recovery device 33 a (para 50) and a power generation plant 80 (Claim 8). Ide does not expressly disclose wherein source of energy for the capturing, the using of the electrochemical regeneration, or both comprises renewable energy. However, since the criticality of use of renewable energy- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such step in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such step serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Ide, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was made use renewable energy as an obvious design choice.
Alternatively, Ide teaches a power recovery device 33, and recovered power can be use for capturing or electrochemical regeneration.
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 closest prior art of record: US 20110056876, 20210207243, US 20140178277 fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6 directly or indirectly and objected as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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 Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights