DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim 1 is withdrawn from consideration.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 of Group II in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo et al. (US 2018/0216243).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses an electrolytic device for carbon dioxide gas mix (abstract, [0044]) (= a gas recovery system configured to recover a recovery target gas from a gas mixture by an electrochemical reaction, the gas recovery system), comprising:
A cathode (22) that collects and reduces carbon dioxide [0022] (= a working electrode that adsorbs the recovery target gas);
An anode (11) that exchanges electrons [0040] (= a counter electrode that exchanges electrons with the working electrode);
A cathode current collector (24) [0022] that is in contact with the cathode (22) (Figure 10) (= a working electrode current collector in contact with the working electrode to electrically connect the working electrode and the counter electrode);
An anode current collector (13) in electrical contact with the anode, the anode and cathode and current collectors connected through power supply (40) (= a counter-electrode current collector in contact with the counter electrode to electrically connect the working electrode and the counter electrode);
The cathode current collector having an opening (24a) [0052] (= the working electrode current collector has a working electrode opening to expose the working electrode to the gas mixture); and
The anode current collector (13) is formed as a plate (Figure 10) (= the counter electrode current collector is formed to prohibit contact between the gas mixture and the counter electrode). Regarding the claimed “is formed to prohibit contact between the gas mixture and the counter electrode”, the instant specification indicates that a plate-like member without openings prohibits contact between the gas mixture and the counter electrode [0076]. Since Kudo discloses a plate-like current collector, the disclosure of Kudo reads on the claimed “is formed to prohibit contact between the gas mixture and the counter electrode”.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 of US 2018/0216243.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US 2018/0216243) in view of Dinh et al. (US 2020/0141015).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kudo discloses a current collector thickness of 1 mm or less [0052] as applied to claim 4. Kudo does not disclose the counter electrode formed of a plurality of fine particles and is silent in regards the surface roughness of the current collector.
In the same or similar field of carbon dioxide gas electrochemical treatment devices [0002], [0004], Dinh discloses a device comprising an electrode with nanoparticles (10-100nm) as a catalyst layer (abstract, [0004], [0039]). Regarding a surface roughness, Dinh discloses that a surface roughness can have an impact on optimal current densities due to variations in surface area for example [0027]. Dinh discloses that an electrode may have a surface roughness in the micron range [0039].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an electrode comprising particles because Dinh discloses metallic nanoparticles for providing a catalytic material to an electrode as applied to claim 3. Regarding the surface roughness, it would have been obvious to adjust the surface roughness to have an optimal current density as applied to claims 3-4. The thickness of the electrode being greater in thickness (e.g. millimeter range) as applied to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US 2018/0216243) in view of Tsujimura et al. (JP 2006-056749, see IDS 29 January 2026).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo fails to disclose wherein a buffer layer is formed between the counter electrode current collector and the counter electrode to improve adhesion between the counter electrode current collector and the counter electrode.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical gas processing devices, Tsujimura discloses an electrochemical cell comprising electrodes (2, 3) having an intermediate layer (7) between the electrodes are the respective current collectors (4, 5). Tsujimura discloses the intermediate layer (7) for improving the adhesion between the electrodes and the current collector [0024].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kudo with the intermediate layer of Tsujimura for improving the adhesion between the electrodes and current collectors.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of JP 2006-056749.
Conclusion
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