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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0004] and [0008] each recite: “the CO2 adsorbent is configured to absorb” (emphasis added). Adsorption and absorption are distinct processes from each other. The interaction of the porous working electrode with carbon dioxide in the instant invention appears to be a surface phenomenon (adsorption) not a bulk phenomenon (absorption).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “the CO2 adsorbent is configured to absorb” (emphasis added) is recited. Appropriate correction is required. Adsorption and absorption are distinct processes from each other. The interaction of the porous working electrode with carbon dioxide in the instant invention appears to be a surface phenomenon (adsorption) not a bulk phenomenon (absorption).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al (JP 2017-202941) in view of Ikoma et al (US 2024/0294384).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yabe et al teach (see English abstract, fig. 1 (reproduced below), and the middle of page 4 and bottom of page 6 of machine translation) a carbon dioxide recovery system for separating CO2 from a CO2-containing gas by an electrochemical reaction, the system comprising an electrochemical cell (10) including a working electrode (combination of substrate 1 and porous body 4), a counter electrode (2), and an electrolytic solution (3), wherein the porous body of the working electrode was a CO2 adsorbent. The solution (3) was sandwiched between the working electrode (1+4) and the counter electrode (2). The CO2 adsorbent (4) was configured to adsorb CO2 in response to a voltage and current (i.e. “electrons”) being applied between the working electrode and the counter electrode. Yabe et al further teach (see second half of page 7 of machine translation) that the porous body (4) of the working electrode included a plurality of pores and that carbon-based electrodes using activated carbon were suitable.
Yabe et al fails to teach the pore diameter of the plurality of pores being larger than an ion diameter of the electrolytic solution.
Ikoma et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0013]) that conventional activated carbon utilized in electrodes possessed mostly micropores (smaller than 2 nm) that hindered sufficient realization of desired performance due to the poor diffusibility of an electrolytic solution into the activated carbon. Ikoma et al go on to teach that by forming the activated carbon material with mesopores and macropores improved the utilization of the activated carbon material and that the activated carbon material comprising micropores, mesopores, and macropores may be directly formed (see paragraph [0200] et seq.) via a process of firing a metal-organic framework material. Such process produced a mesoporous carbon material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the mesoporous activated carbon material taught by Ikoma et al for the generically recited “activated carbon” of Yabe et al because Ikoma et al teach that the mesoporous activated carbon material allowed better diffusion of an electrolytic solution into the activated carbon thereby increasing the available surface area for reactions.
Regarding claim 2, both Yabe et al and Ikoma et al teach activated carbon and Ikoma et al expressly teach the desirability of the carbon being mesoporous.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ikoma et al teach that the mesoporous carbon may be derived from a metal-organic framework as a precursor, such as by firing (i.e. thermal decomposition).
Regarding claim 5, Ikoma et al disclose (see paragraphs [0214]-[0215]) suitable examples of MOFs that could be used as the precursor and included at least ZIF-8, MOF-5, ZIF-69, and IRMOF-3.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the mesoporous carbon of Ikoma et al is an inorganic material since the firing process thermally decomposes the organic component of the metal-organic framework.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al (JP 2017-202941) in view of Ikoma et al (US 2024/0294384) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong et al (“The application of ZIF-67 and its derivatives: adsorption, separation, electrochemistry and catalysts”).
Yabe et al as modified by Ikoma et al teach ensuring that the porous carbon material CO2 absorbent working electrode was at least mesoporous as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Yabe et al and Ikoma et al fail to teach forming the porous inorganic material CO2 absorbent by using a metal organic framework of the Markush group set forth in claim 8.
Zhong et al teach (see abstract, section 2.1.1) that ZIF-67 possessed excellent CO2 adsorption capacity and (see Table 2 and paragraph spanning pages 1891 and 1892) pore sizes in the mesopore range (0.5 nm-4.0 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the suggestions of Yabe et al and Ikoma et al with the teachings of Zhong et al to arrive at the invention of claim 8 by simple substitution of the mesoporous inorganic material (ZIF-67) of Zhong et al for the mesoporous carbon material of Ikoma et al. See MPEP 2141.I.B. Here, Zhong et al provide a reasonable expectation of success since use of the mesoporous ZIF-67 based material was contemplated for CO2 adsorption.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al (JP 2017-202941) in view of Ikoma et al (US 2024/0294384) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inagaki et al (“Templated mesoporous carbons: Synthesis and applications”).
Yabe et al as modified by Ikoma et al teach ensuring that the porous carbon material CO2 absorbent working electrode was at least mesoporous as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Yabe et al and Ikoma et al fail to teach forming the porous carbon material CO2 absorbent by forming a composite of a metal oxide with a carbon material, and removing the metal oxide from the composite.
Inagaki et al teach (see abstract, section 2.1.1 and the last paragraph of section 5.4) that mesoporous carbon, that may be suitable for CO2 adsorption, was formable by templating a carbon material with MgO followed by subsequent removal of the MgO leaving behind only the carbon as a mesoporous body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the suggestions of Yabe et al and Ikoma et al with the teachings of Inagaki et al to arrive at the invention of claims 9-11 by simple substitution of the mesoporous carbon material of Inagaki et al for the mesoporous carbon material of Ikoma et al. See MPEP 2141.I.B. Here, Inagaki et al provide a reasonable expectation of success since use of the mesoporous carbon material formed using an MgO template was contemplated for CO2 adsorption.
Conclusion
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