DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that the basis for restriction was in part due to the inclusion of CO2 source of claim 16 (Invention III). Claim 18, which has been amended to depend from claim 1 is inclusive of the same CO2 source and therefore is aligned with inventions II and III which is non-elected. Therefore claim 18 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a distinct invention, non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (“Ethane dehydrogenation over nano-Cr2O3 anode catalyst in proton ceramic fuel cell reactors to co-produce ethylene and electricity”, J. Power Sources, 196, 2011, 1036-1041) and/or alternatively Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (“Ethane dehydrogenation over nano-Cr2O3 anode catalyst in proton ceramic fuel cell reactors to co-produce ethylene and electricity”, J. Power Sources, 196, 2011, 1036-1041).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 20, Fu discloses an ethane generation system (abstract) (= an ethane activation system), comprising:
An ethane source (Figure 1) (= a source of ethane);
A proton ceramic fuel cell reactor (Figure 1) connected with the ethane source (= an electrochemical apparatus in fluid communication with the source of ethane) and comprising:
A furnace (Figure 1) (= a housing structure configured and positioned to receive an ethane stream from the source of ethane);
A cell within the furnace (not labeled, Figure 1) (= an electrochemical cell within an internal chamber of the housing structure), and comprising:
An anode (abstract) (= a positive electrode);
A cathode (abstract) (= a negative electrode); and
A membrane electrode assembly comprising an electrolyte (Figure 6) (3.3. structure and conductivity of BCYN electrolyte) (= a proton-conducting membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and comprising an electrolyte material).
Regarding the claimed “to promote production of ethylene, H+ and e- through non-oxidative deprotonation of ethane” of the positive electrode, the phrase does not further structurally limit the claimed positive electrode. Fu for example discloses that it is known in the art to use platinum anode (page 1036, right column) which the instant claim (e.g. claim 4) indicates satisfies the claimed positive electrode. Moreover, Fu discloses the production of ethylene, proton, electrons (abstract, page 1036, left column). Further, similar rationale applies to claim 20 stating “is further formulated to promote” which does not further structurally limit the claimed device.
Regarding the phrase “formulated to promote production of a protonation product from the produced H+” directed to the negative electrode does not further structurally limit the claimed negative electrode. Moreover, Fu discloses a platinum cathode (abstract) which instant claim 7 indicates as satisfying the phrase along with “is further formulated to accelerate reaction rates to produce the protonation product from the produced H+ and comprise at least one catalyst comprising one or more of Ni and Pt”. Further, regarding claim 5 the claimed “wherein the negative electrode is formulated to synthesize H2(g) from H+ and e-“ the phrase is directed towards functional claim language and does not further structurally limit the claimed negative electrode.
Regarding the phrase “having an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 10-2 S/cm at one or more temperatures within a range from about 150℃ to about 650℃”, Fu discloses the membrane comprising BCYN perovskite oxide having a conductivity of 25.7 mS/cm at 650℃ (3.3 Structure and conductivity of BCYN electrolyte). The range of conductivity of the membrane of Fu lies within the claimed conductivity range.
Alternatively, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. The claimed “formulated to promote…” is directed towards functional claim language. Given the teachings of Fu, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily understand that the anode and cathode of Fu would perform the formulated to promote claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Fu discloses the membrane comprising BCYN perovskite oxide having a conductivity of 25.7 mS/cm at 650℃ (3.3 Structure and conductivity of BCYN electrolyte). Fu discloses that the proton conductivity of BCYN electrolyte was enhanced at higher temperature (Figure 7, 3.5 Electrochemical performance of proton ceramic fuel cell reactors). The instant specification indicates “ionic conductivity (e.g. H+ conductivity)” [0050] therefore it is understood and or rendered obvious that the range of conductivity of Fu would fall within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (“Ethane dehydrogenation over nano-Cr2O3 anode catalyst in proton ceramic fuel cell reactors to co-produce ethylene and electricity”, J. Power Sources, 196, 2011, 1036-1041) in view of Sala et al. (US 2014/0284220).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Fu fails to disclose the positive electrode (claims 3 and 19) and the negative electrode materials (claim 19).
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Sala discloses wherein anode and cathode materials may be formed of perovskite cermet materials including nickel [0089]. Sala discloses that proton-conducting ceramics for anodes and cathodes surrounding a proton-conducting electrolyte have a sufficiently high electroactive surface/geometric surface ratio making it possible to work at much higher current densities than those provided in the prior art without risk of delamination of the electrodes [0042].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising positive and negative electrodes comprising perovskite cermet materials because Sala discloses the material makes it possible to work at much higher current densities than those provided in the prior art without risk of delamination of the electrodes [0042].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (“Ethane dehydrogenation over nano-Cr2O3 anode catalyst in proton ceramic fuel cell reactors to co-produce ethylene and electricity”, J. Power Sources, 196, 2011, 1036-1041) in view of Park et al. (KR 20160135098).
Regarding claim 8, Fu discloses a perovskite electrolyte membrane, but fails to disclose a stack of at least two different perovskite materials.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical devices, Park discloses a multilayer perovskite material including a triple layer perovskite material [0034]. Park discloses that the layered structure smooths the movement of oxygen molecules and as differences in electronic structure within the oxygen atoms occur, the properties for oxygen reduction or oxygen generation can be improved [0034]. Park discloses that the trilayer perovskite can be applied to proton-conducting solid oxide electrochemical devices among other devices [0150]. Park discloses a number of different materials to form the layered structure.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a membrane comprising a stack of at least two different perovskite materials because Park discloses several advantages of a triple layer perovskite material over single and double layered perovskite materials as stated above.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (“Ethane dehydrogenation over nano-Cr2O3 anode catalyst in proton ceramic fuel cell reactors to co-produce ethylene and electricity”, J. Power Sources, 196, 2011, 1036-1041) in view of Kjolseth et al. (US 2019/0284048).
Regarding claim 21, Fu fails to disclose the claimed perovskite material of the positive electrode.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Kjolseth discloses a device for forming a hydrocarbon product and a protonation product comprising a supporting electrode comprising a Ni composite of formula Ni-AZraCebAcccO3y [0045]-[0046]. A is Ba, Sr or Ca, Acc is Y, Yb. Kjolseth discloses the perovskite as catalyst materials [0254]. Kjolseth discloses preferred electrode materials with characteristics such as electronic percolation, catalytic activity, porous microstructure, chemical compatibility, etc. [0127]-[0131].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a positive electrode with the perovskite material as claimed because in a similar device, Kjolseth discloses the use of Ni-AZraCebAcccO3y [0045]-[0046] as an electrode supporting material for its advantageous characteristics as stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomita et al. (“Surface Modification of a Doped BaCeO3 to Function as an Electrolyte and as an Anode for SOFCs”, Electrochemical and Solid State Letters, 2005, 8, A333).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights