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.
Claims 1-10 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 1, the phrase "such as" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the OAE device," "the cell," "the electrodes," "the top," "the cathode," "the bubbling CO2," "the DAC unit," and "the gas-liquid phase interaction process," in lines 4, 6, 7, 11, and 12 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations "OAE device," "cell," "electrodes," "cathode," "bubbling CO2," "DAC unit," and "gas-liquid phase interaction process" were not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sea water" in line 13. Is the limitation "the sea water" the same as the limitation "alkalinity enhance sea water" in line 7 or a distinct limitation?
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “providing a precipitator to which the alkalinity enhanced sea water from OAE unit is fed at the top to contact with the bubbling CO2 enriched air from the DAC unit in a counterflow mode, during s the CO2 is chemically bonded with Mg2+/Ca2+ ions in the sea water to form MgCO3 and CaCO3 precipitates, thus the CO2 is permanently sequestered as insoluble carbonates deposited on ocean floor” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the steps of the method are concerned. In process claims, a claimed intended use must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. For examination on the merits prior art that discloses precipitates formed will be interpreted as the method step of providing a precipitator.
The remaining claims 2-10 that depend from independent claim 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "electrodes" was not previously recited.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation "applied voltage ranging from 0.5 V to 5 V" and also recites, "preferably in the range of 1.0 V to 2.5 V" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, claim 5 recites the broad recitation "a pH value preferably in the range of 8.5 ~10" and also recites "most preferably from 9 to 9.5" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and claim 7 recites the broad recitation "range of 1 ~ 40%," and also recites "at least 0.2% CO2" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Additionally, in claims 5 and 7, the "~” in the phrase "the range of 8.5 ~10" and in the phrase "the range of 1 ~ 40%" are ambiguous.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the air flow" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an air flow" was not previously recited.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "bottom section" was not previously recited.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the alkalinity enhanced sea water body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an alkalinity enhanced sea water body" was not previously recited.
Claim 8 recites the phrase "to generate small bubbles of CO2" in line 2. The size of the bubbles is not defined by the claims; the word small is subjective language, and therefore, is indefinite.
Claim 8 recited the phrase allowing "fast gas-liquid mass transport process and chemical reactions" in lines 3-4. The word fast is subjective and not defined by the claim. It is unclear the determining factors for the gas-liquid mass transport process and chemical reactions to occur fast.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a bottom" was not previously recited. Question raised is "the bottom" related to what feature?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sea water slurry" and "the solid precipitates" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations "sea water slurry" and "solid precipitates" were not previously recited.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the captured CO2" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "captured CO2" was not previously recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (Electrochemical Splitting of Calcium Carbonate to Increase Solution Alkalinity: Implications for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide and Ocean Acidity, (2008); Env. Science and Technology; vol. 42, no. 23; pp. 8935-8940. (Year: 2008)).
For claim 1, as interpreted Rau discloses a method for accelerated CO2 removal from air by electrochemical Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) coupled system comprising the steps of: providing an electrochemical cell as the OAE device (illustrated in Fig. 1) having an upstream porous anode and a downstream porous cathode (p. 8935, col.2: “cation and anion permeable membranes”; Fig. 1; p. 8937, col. 1 “anode…connected to the positive lead and the cathode to the negative lead”) powered by renewable DC power sources (p. 8938, col. 1, section 6: “non-fossil fuel electrical power generated…wind, tidal ocean thermal, solar”; “DC electricity”) such as solar and wind generated electricity, with sea water continuously flowing through the cell and the electrodes and creating alkalinity enhanced sea water around the cathode by electrochemical reduction reactions (Fig. 1; p. 8938, col. 1, section 7 : “electrolysis done directly in open reservoirs or the ocean”). Rau does not appear to disclose the method step of providing a Direct Air Capture (DAC) module producing continuous CO2 enriched air flow by processing atmospheric air and the method step of providing a precipitator; however, Rau does disclose “the use of hydroxide solutions in specially designed air contacting devices have been considered for large scale atmospheric CO2 absorption, and such devices might provide an effective use for the calcium hydroxide produced here for CO2 mitigation. Also, to the extent that CO2 rather than carbonate or bicarbonate would be the desired end product in such systems, the preceding electrochemistry might prove useful for stripping (calcining) and concentrating the captured CO2 from the carbonate or bicarbonate formed, and for reforming hydroxides. It would also be possible to add the hydroxide solution produced to large bodies of water in contact with air so as to chemically remove and store at least some atmospheric CO2 and illustrates CO2 flow counter entering the system from the top and a CO2-depleted stream of H2, also a stream with other gases, exiting the system containing a gas-liquid phase interaction forming precipitate (i.e., CaCO3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to apply the teaching disclose in Rau form MgCO3 and CaCO3 precipitates in order to sequester CO2 to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.
For claim 4, Rau teaches DC power with applied voltage supplied by renewable solar or wind power sources (p. 8938; col. 1, section 6: “any source of DC electricity or appropriate current and voltage”).
For claim 5, Rau teaches said alkalinity enhanced sea water has a pH (p. 8936; col. 2, section 2; “pH…between 6 and 9).
For claim 6, Rau teaches a membrane-based DAC module, or alternatively a dual solid sorbent module DAC unit, which provides continuous CO2 enriched air flow to the precipitator (p. 8935, col. 2, Section 1, “cation-and anion-permeable membranes can also be employed”; p.8938; col. 1, section 6: “the use of ion selective membranes...the anolyte…or…produced cathode to a gas diffusion anode…bipolar membranes…”).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of Wang (US 20050260473 A1).
For claim 2, Rau is relied upon as indicated above and discloses said porous anode and cathode but is silent regarding for nanostructured carbon material in which nanocatalysts are embedded. Wang porous electrode comprising: a porous conductive matrix; carbon nano-tubes supported by the porous conductive matrix; and electrode catalyst deposited on the carbon nano-tubes (par [0011]; claim 4) and teaches that the high surface area and the high electronic conductivity of carbon nano-tubes is believed to significantly improve electrode performance (par [0030]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of Wang with said porous anode and cathode in the method of Rau to improve the electrode performance.
For claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Wang further discloses wherein said nanocatalysts are chosen from a group consisting of iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, silver, phosphorus, manganese, platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, cerium, their corresponding oxides, and combinations (par [0030]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of Koide (US 20090162257 A1).
For claim 3, Rau is relied upon as set forth above and teaches said porous anode and cathode but does not indicate that they are made into physical forms of foam plate or honeycomb monolith with go-through channels which allow sea water flowing through the electrodes; however, Koide does disclose porous anode and cathode made into physical forms of foam plate or honeycomb monolith (par [0050]; claim 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the honeycomb monolith disclosed in Kiode with the said porous anode and cathode of Rau to support and provide voids for efficient operation of the system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of Gilliam (US 20100230293 A1).
For claim 9, the teaching of Rau is relied upon as set forth above for said coupled system. Rau disclose said precipitator but does not explicitly disclose an outlet port at the bottom to discharge the sea water slurry with CaCO3 and MgCO3 precipitates back to ocean, where the solid precipitates gravitate to the ocean floor and the captured CO2 is permanently sequestered. Gilliam discloses producing precipitates in a slurry or suspension comprising carbonates and/or bicarbonates and disposed of in a location where the slurry is held stable for an extended periods of time disposed in an ocean at a depth where the temperature and pressure are sufficient to keep the slurry stable indefinitely. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to apply the precipitate production step to the teaching of Rau to produce slurry with CaCO3 and MgCO3 to captured CO2 and permanently sequester.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110083968 A1: an electrochemical unit comprising an anode compartment comprising a hydrogen-oxidizing anode, a cathode compartment comprising a cathode, and a hydrogen delivery system configured to deliver hydrogen gas to the anode; and, a carbon sequestration system operably connected to the electrochemical unit and configured to sequester carbon dioxide with the cathode electrolyte.
US 20150191385 A1: a method for sequestrating carbon dioxide in the ocean.
DRUCKENMILLER et al., "Carbon sequestration using brine of adjusted pH to form mineral carbonates."
Yan et. al., “An Electrochemical Hydrogen-Looping System for Low-Cost CO2 Capture from Seawater.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 September 29, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776