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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1, 3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (JP2015036128A, as cited in the IDS filed on 09/01/2023) and in view of Iwasaki (JP2018001131A, as cited in the IDS filed on 09/01/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa discloses a carbon dioxide adsorption battery comprising: a positive electrode (3) [0019, fig. 2, Nakazawa]; a negative electrode (4) [0019, fig. 2, Nakazawa]; a separator (2) disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0062, fig. 2, Nakazawa]; and an electrolyte layer (1) between the negative electrode and the separator [0054-0058, fig. 2, Nakazawa], wherein the negative electrode is a gas-permeable electrode [0061, Nakazawa],
Nakazawa discloses that the electrode may be made of a mesh, paper, or cloth material. This reads on a gas-permeable electrode as these are porous materials.
Each of the electrolyte layers includes an electrolytic solution capable of dissolving carbon dioxide [0008, 0054, Nakazawa], and a redox compound having an N-oxy radical group within a molecule [0035-0042, Nakazawa], and the separator suppresses permeation of the redox compound but is permeable to the electrolytic solution [0062, Nakazawa].
The instant application discloses that examples of a separator able to suppress migration of the redox material include polyethylene, polypropylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene [0094, instant application]. Nakazawa discloses that materials that may be used for the separator include polyethylene, polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene [0062, Nakazawa]. Given that both the instant application and Nakazawa disclose using a separator made of PE, PP, or PTFE the separators of Nakazawa would be capable of suppressing the permeation of the redox compound, see MPEP 2112.
Nakazawa is silent to the electrolyte being disposed between the positive electrode and the separator.
However, Iwasaki discloses the use of a carbon dioxide separation device comprising an electrolyte solution layer capable of dissolving carbon dioxide in between and in contact with the porous negative and positive electrode [abstract, 0047, 0054, fig. 1, Iwasaki]. Wherein an N-oxy radical group capable of undergoing redox reactions are present within the electrolyte layer [0053, Iwasaki].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakazawa have an electrolyte solution layer in contact with both electrodes and spanning between both electrodes. Doing so would provide a (larger) layer in the carbon dioxide adsorption battery capable of dissolving carbon dioxide [0054, Iwasaki].
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakazawa discloses the battery, wherein the positive electrode is configured so as to avoid contact with outside air [0063, fig. 1-2, Nakazawa].
Nakazawa discloses the use of an exterior that incases the (positive) electrode(s). This reads on the claimed limitation as it prevents any outside air from coming in contact with the (positive) electrode(s).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakazawa discloses the battery, wherein the redox compound is a compound in which two quaternary carbons are bound to the N-oxy radical group [0041-0042, Nakazawa].
Nakazawa discloses the use of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidinoyloxy radicals. These are compounds with two quaternary carbons.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakazawa discloses the battery, wherein the redox compound is a compound represented by formula (1), or a compound having a group obtained by eliminating one hydrogen atom from a the compound represented by formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
201
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: Z represents -CR5R6CR7R8-, -CR9RioCR11R12CR13R14-, - (CR15R16)O-, -(CR17R18)NR27-, -(CR19R20)O(CR21R22)-, or -(CR23R24)NR28(CR25R26)-, and R1 to R28 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent [0041-0042, Nakazawa].
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakazawa discloses the battery, wherein the negative electrode is made of a conductive material containing at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers [0061, Nakazawa].
Nakazawa discloses using carbon paper or carbon cloth, this reads on carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakazawa is silent to the thickness of the electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and separator and the negative electrode and separator.
However, Iwasaki discloses an electrolyte layer with a thickness of 0.1 µm to 2 mm and more preferably 1 µm to 1 mm [0053, Iwasaki].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have the thickness of the electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and separator be between 1 µm to 1 mm and the thickness of the electrolyte layer between the negative electrode and separator be between 1 µm to 1 mm. Doing so provides an electrolyte layer capable of dissolving carbon dioxide and N-oxy radicals while still allowing for proper separation without negatively impacting the absorption and release rates of carbon dioxide [0053, Iwasaki]
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nakazawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voskian (US20200023307A1, as cited in the IDS filed on 09/01/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Nakazawa is silent to the positive electrode includes a gas permeation blocking portion that hinders gas permeation.
However, Voskian discloses an electrochemical process for separating out CO2 from a gas mixture [abstract, Voskian]. Wherein the electrochemical apparatus contains porous negative electrodes [0006, Voskian]. Wherein the positive electrode serves as an electron sink or electron source for the negative electrode [0029, Voskian]. Voskian continues to teach that an electrode (e.g. positive electrode) may contain a substantially non-porous core (“hinders gas permeation”) [0099, Voskian].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakazawa such that the positive electrode contained a solid core as this is a known means to construct an electrode [0099, Voskian]
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakazawa is silent to if adsorption of carbon dioxide occurs during charging or discharging.
However, Voskian teaches of during a charge mode the target species (CO2) is bonded to the electroactive species and released during discharge [0009, Voskian].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakazawa such that the adsorption of carbon dioxide occurs during charging and is released during discharging as this is a known. Doing so allows for the electroactive species to be reduced during charging (allowing for it to react with CO2) and oxidized during discharge (allowing for it to release CO2) [0074-0075, Voskian]
Regarding claim 8, modified Nakazawa is silent to two or more carbon dioxide adsorption batteries.
However, Voskian discloses a charge/discharge device comprising two or more of the carbon dioxide adsorption batteries [0084-0086, fig. 7a and 7b, Voskian].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakazawa such that it comprised two or more carbon dioxide adsorption batteries as this allows for one battery to work in charge mode with the other is in discharge mode [0084, Voskian].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant argues that carbon dioxide is absorbed and released from the negative electrode side of Nakazawa and cites [0088] as evidence. However, upon review Nakazawa does not state this, rather they state the following: “A carbon dioxide adsorption/desorption device was prepared by sequentially placing a composite membrane 1, a separator (Nafion (registered trademark) 117), and a positive electrode on a negative electrode, and then attaching an exterior. An air inlet/outlet was attached so that the flow of blown air was one-way.” Nakazawa only states that the air inlet/outlet was attached so that the flow of blown air was one-way. This does not state that the inlet/outlet is only on the negative electrode side. In fact Nakazawa does not state which electrode the inlet and/or outlet is attached to.
As such, arguments related to the inlet/out of gas flow of Nakazawa are unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that in Iwasaki is absorbed to a negative electrode moves through an electrolyte and released from the positive electrode.
The examiner notes that the applicant is mistaken as Iwasaki “In this case, the one electrode 11 becomes the electrode (first electrode: cathode electrode) 11 that takes in carbon dioxide (CO2) from a gas containing carbon dioxide, and the other electrode 12 becomes the electrode (second electrode: anode electrode) 12 that releases carbon dioxide from the electrolyte layer 13” [0040].
As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that the movement route of carbon dioxide, releasing position, and voltage control of Nakazaw and Iwaski are different making them fundamentally different. The examiner notes that these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. As such they are unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Iwasaki and Nakazawa operate on fundamentally different principle. This not true, both absorb carbon dioxide into an electrolyte layer where they react with an N-oxy radical to temporarily trap the carbon dioxide, only to desorb (release) it later. As such, the overall principle of each invention is the same. Minor differences in operation do not constitute fundamentally different operations.
Applicant continues to argue that it is not apparent why applying the configuration of Iwasaki to Nakazawa would be functional. This is in reference to the examiners proposed modification of having electrolyte layer of Nakazawa span between the cathode and anode. Nakazawa clearly states in their introduction that the oxidation and reduction aspect of their battery occurs via an electrolytic oxidation reduction [abstract], and that absorption and desorption of carbon dioxide occurs in the electrolyte [0006]. A compound with an unpaired electron (TEMPO/N-oxy radical) is used to absorb and desorb the gas [0006]. As noted by the examiner, having a larger electrolyte would allow for more carbon dioxide to be dissolved into the electrolytic solution. Additionally, the examiner also notes that increasing the electrolyte amount would allow for one to use more TEMPO/N-oxy radicals to trap the additional carbon dioxide.
Applicant then argues that the proposed modification would result in changing or excluding the configuration of the separator in Nakazawa. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this as it is well established that separators may exist inside/between electrolyte layer(s). There is no need to change the separator in the proposed medication but rather an electrolyte is simply existing on both sides of the separator.
Applicant finally argues that it is unclear from Iwasaki what advantageous effect would be obtained with respect to performance of the device of Nakazawa by applying the electrolyte layer arrangement of Iwasaki thereto. As noted above by having a larger area of an electrolyte one of ordinary skill within the arts would understand that they are able to A) include more of the N-oxy radical in their device and B) be able to dissolve more carbon dioxide.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights