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 .
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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The term “gradually” in claim 3 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. The claim is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art because there is no standard for determining which rates of increase were “gradual” and which rates were not “gradual”.
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, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al (US 2021/0292926) in view of Tao et al (CN 107732257).
Ono et al teach (see abstract, figs. 2-4) an electrolytic cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly comprising a fuel electrode (cathode 21), an oxygen electrode (anode 11) and an electrolyte membrane (30) disposed therebetween, a pair of separators (14, 24) sandwiching the membrane electrode assembly, a gas supply flow path (22) formed between the fuel electrode (21) and a separator (24) through which a raw material gas (CO-2) to be supplied to the fuel electrode is provided, and a gas discharge flow path (12) formed between the oxygen electrode and the other separator (14) through which oxygen gas generated at the oxygen electrode flows. The fuel electrode (cathode 21) included a catalytic material (see paragraph [0029]) that activated electrolytic reactions of the raw material gas.
Ono et al fail to teach that the amount of catalytic material contained in the fuel electrode increased from an upstream side to a downstream side of the gas supply flow path.
Tao et al teach (see paragraphs [0038]-[0045] of machine translation provided by Applicant) providing a catalyst amount gradient that increases from an upstream side to a downstream side of a gas supply flow path in an electrolytic cell. Tao et al teach that uniformity of reaction across the electrode surface was difficult in a gas flow path because of the changing concentration (partial pressure) of the reactants and products from the upstream side to the downstream side. The proposed solution was to have the initial upstream side have a small amount of catalyst and to increase the amount of catalyst exposed to the gas flow path as the location approached the downstream side. The catalyst amount gradient improved the operating efficiency of the electrolytic cell and also increased electrode lifetime (“slowing down the attenuation of the electrolytic cell”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electrolytic cell of Ono et al according to the suggestion of Tao et al by providing the cathode catalyst in an amount that increased from the upstream side to the downstream side of the gas supply flow path to improve operating efficiency and to increase electrode lifetime.
Regarding claim 3, Tao et al disclose (see paragraph [0015]) using a smooth gradient of catalyst amount, which is considered to inherently be a “gradual” increase.
Regarding claim 4, Tao et al disclose (see paragraph [0058] and fig. 7) providing a plurality of distinct sections of catalyst, wherein a second section downstream of a first section possessed a larger amount of catalyst.
Regarding claim 6, Ono et al teach (see paragraph [0030]) that the cathode catalyst layer may include a porous shape. Tao et al teach (see paragraph [0017]) that in addition to the amount of catalyst changing that the density of the pores increased from the upstream side to the downstream side.
Regarding claim 7, Ono et al do not teach the anode catalyst having a gradient in the amount present.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al (US 2021/0292926) in view of Tao et al (CN 107732257) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krause et al (US 2020/0131649).
Ono et al fail to teach that the flow direction of the raw material gas in the gas supply path was opposite to the flow direction of the oxygen gas in the gas discharge flow path.
Krause et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1-4, figs. 30-31 and paragraph [0216]) in the same field of endeavor as Ono et al (electrolytic cells for decomposition of carbon dioxide) that it was known that the carbon dioxide raw material gas may be flowed through flow paths in a direction opposite (“countercurrent”) to the direction of flow of the oxygen gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the electrolytic cell of Ono et al with the countercurrent flow taught by Krause et al with a reasonable expectation of predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A. No change in the respective functions of the different features is expected and the combination yielded no more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al (US 2021/0292926) in view of Tao et al (CN 107732257) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunegnaw et al (US 2020/0216968).
Ono et al teach (see paragraph [0030]) that the cathode catalyst layer may include a porous shape (i.e. “has a plurality of pores”).
However, Ono et al fail to teach that the pore diameter of the pores increased from the upstream side to a downstream side.
Hunegnaw et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0271]) in the same field of endeavor as Ono et al (electrolytic cells for decomposition of carbon dioxide) that it was known that the cathode catalyst layer may be constructed with a gradient of pore size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the electrolytic cell of Ono et al with the gradient of pore size in the cathode catalyst layer taught by Hunegnaw et al with a reasonable expectation of predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A. No change in the respective functions of the different features is expected and the combination yielded no more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suitor is cited on the record for the discussion of varying concentration of gases causing uneven reaction rates across an electrode. Oikawa is cited on the record as being an alternative teaching of countercurrent flow in a CO2 electrolyzer, however, Krause et al was considered preferable to Oikawa since Oikawa was only available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and is commonly owned with the instant application and would likely be excluded under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2).
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