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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-27 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 28-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for direct ocean capture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
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 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.
Claim 1 states that the anion exchange layer has a different thickness than the cation exchange membrane such that “the water transport rate at an anion exchange layer-cation exchange layer interface increases”. It is unclear what the rate increases in comparison to. For the sake of further examination, any instance of the rate being higher will be considered to have met the claim.
Claim 1 further states that the number of ionizable sites “enhances” an electric field at the anion exchange layer-cation exchange layer interface. It is unclear what qualifies as “enhancement.” For the sake of further examination, an interface featuring a plurality of ionizable sites will be considered to have met the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as dependent on earlier rejected claim 1.
Claims 5 and 19 contain the trademark/trade name SELEMION®, NEOSEPTA®, fumapem® FAA, fumasep® FAP, Sustainion® X37, Versogen® PiperION®, Ionomr Aemion®, and Nafion®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe anion and cation exchange membranes and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "membrane" in reference to presumably the cation exchange membrane, the anion exchange membrane, or the bipolar membrane. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends does not disambiguate which membrane is “the membrane.” For the sake of further examination, “the membrane” will be interpreted as “the bipolar membrane.”
Claims 10-14 are rejected as dependent on earlier rejected claim 9.
Claim 15 states that the anion exchange layer has a different thickness than the cation exchange membrane such that “the water transport rate at an anion exchange layer-cation exchange layer interface increases”. It is unclear what the rate increases in comparison to. For the sake of further examination, any instance of the rate being higher will be considered to have met the claim.
Claim 15 further states that the number of ionizable sites “enhances” an electric field at the anion exchange layer-cation exchange layer interface. It is unclear what qualifies as “enhancement.” For the sake of further examination, an interface featuring a plurality of ionizable sites will be considered to have met the claim.
Claims 16-27 are rejected as dependent on earlier rejected claim 15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190264338 A1 in view of J. Balster, R. Sumbharaju, S. Srikantharajah, I. Pünt, D.F. Stamatialis, V. Jordan, M. Wessling, Asymmetric bipolar membrane: A tool to improve product purity, Journal of Membrane Science, Volume 287, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 246-256, ISSN 0376-7388 , henceforth referred to as "Karp" and "Balster".
In regard to claim 1, Karp teaches in [0043] a reactor comprising anion exchange membrane and cation exchange membrane are laminated together to form a separator (bipolar membrane) with a catalyst layer between the anion and cation layer. Karp's catalyst layer comprises metal oxides and/or metal hydroxides such as TiOH, ZrOH, SiOH, polymeric materials such as poly(ferrocenyldimethysilane), poly(acrylamide), graphene and graphene oxides which would catalyze a water dissociation reaction. Said catalysts have a plurality of ionizable sites that enhance an electric field as claimed. Karp further teaches in [0045] that the thickness of the anion exchange layer is 1-1000 micrometers and the cation exchange layer is 1-1000 micrometers thick.
Karp does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the two layers must be the same or different.
Balster teaches an asymmetric bipolar membrane assembly comprising differing thicknesses of anion exchange and cation exchange layers and on page 255 in their conclusion paragraph 4 they specifically teach that an increase in bipolar membrane asymmetry decreases the co-ion leakage resulting in an overall more pure product.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to intentionally have an asymmetric thickness of anion exchange and cation exchange layers as taught by Balster in the bipolar membrane of Karp to produce higher purity products.
In regard to claim 2, Karp teaches in [0043] that their catalyst layer comprises metal oxides, polymeric materials, and/or graphene oxides.
In regard to claim 3, Karp teaches in [0043] that their catalyst layer has an embodiment comprising catalyst embedded within cation or anion exchange membrane.
In regard to claim 4, Karp teaches in [0044] that the ion exchange membranes in the separator (bipolar membrane) comprise sulfonic acid groups and quaternary ammonium groups which are functional groups with different pKa values.
In regard to claim 5, Karp teaches in [0044] that the anion exchange membrane used is SELEMION® and that the cation exchange membrane used is NAFION®
In regard to claim 6, Karp teaches in [0045] that a suitable configuration of their anion exchange membrane, cation exchange, and catalyst layers is up to 1100 micrometers thick.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Karp teaches in [0045] that the anion and cation exchange layers have a thickness between 1 micron and 500 microns. They fail to teach why to make the layers asymmetric in thickness.
As set forth above with regard to claim 1, Balster teaches an asymmetric bipolar membrane assembly comprising differing thicknesses of anion exchange and cation exchange layers and on page 255 in their conclusion paragraph 4 they specifically teach that an increase in bipolar membrane asymmetry decreases the co-ion leakage resulting in an overall more pure product.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to intentionally have an asymmetric thickness of anion exchange and cation exchange layers as taught by Balster in the bipolar membrane of Karp to produce higher purity products.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view of Balster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220144673 A1, henceforth referred to as "Xiang".
In regard to claim 9, Karp teaches a bipolar membrane as described in the above rejection to claim 1. Karp fails to teach a configuration of the membrane as part of an electrodialysis cell.
Xiang teaches in [0035] an electrodialyzer comprising a bipolar membrane. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the membrane of Karp in the electrodialyzer of Xiang due to Karp’s membrane being explicitly useful for water disassociation (electrodialysis) in Karp’s [0053] – [0054] and figure 3.
In regard to claim 10, Xiang teaches in [0014] that an exemplary embodiment is configured as a cell stack.
In regard to claim 11, Xiang teaches in [0062] that the electrodes for the electrodialyzers comprise in an exemplary configuration titanium with platinum coating. Xiang further teaches in [0068] that the cathodes comprise in an exemplary configuration, nickel, iron, or platinum.
In regard to claim 12, Xiang teaches in claim 2 that their electrodialyzer is used to remove carbon dioxide from ocean water (carbon capture) and further teaches in [0071] that bicarbonate and carbonate undergo conversion to carbon dioxide in the cell.
In regard to claim 13, Xiang teaches in [0033] - [0036] that their electrodialyzers are used for capturing carbon dioxide directly from ocean water.
Claims 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view Balster and US 20220144673 A1, henceforth referred to as "Xiang".
In regard to claim 15, Karp teaches a bipolar membrane as described in the above rejection to claim 1. Karp fails to teach a configuration of the membrane as part of an electrodialysis cell.
Xiang teaches in [0035] an electrodialyzer comprising a bipolar membrane. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the membrane of Karp in the electrodialyzer of Xiang due to Karp’s membrane being explicitly useful for water disassociation (electrodialysis) in Karp’s [0053] – [0054] and figure 3.
In regard to claim 16, Karp teaches in [0043] that their catalyst layer comprises metal oxides, polymeric materials, and/or graphene oxides.
In regard to claim 17, Karp teaches in [0043] that their catalyst layer has an embodiment comprising catalyst embedded within cation or anion exchange membrane.
In regard to claim 18, Karp teaches in [0044] that the ion exchange membranes in the separator (bipolar membrane) comprise sulfonic acid groups and quaternary ammonium groups which are functional groups with different pKa values.
In regard to claim 19, Karp teaches in [0044] that the anion exchange membrane used is SELEMION® and that the cation exchange membrane used is NAFION®.
In regard to claim 20, Karp teaches in [0045] that a suitable configuration of their anion exchange membrane, cation exchange, and catalyst layers is up to 1100 micrometers thick.
In regard to claims 21 and 22, Karp teaches in [0045] that the anion and cation exchange layers have a thickness between 1 micron and 500 microns. They fail to teach why to make the layers asymmetric in thickness.
As set forth above with regard to claim 1, Balster teaches an asymmetric bipolar membrane assembly comprising differing thicknesses of anion exchange and cation exchange layers and on page 255 in their conclusion paragraph 4 they specifically teach that an increase in bipolar membrane asymmetry decreases the co-ion leakage resulting in an overall more pure product.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to intentionally have an asymmetric thickness of anion exchange and cation exchange layers as taught by Balster in the bipolar membrane of Karp to produce higher purity products.
In regard to claim 23, Xiang teaches in [0014] that an exemplary embodiment is configured as a cell stack.
In regard to claim 24, Xiang teaches in [0062] that the electrodes for the electrodialyzers comprise in an exemplary configuration titanium with platinum coating. Xiang further teaches in [0068] that the cathodes comprise in an exemplary configuration, nickel, iron, or platinum.
In regard to claim 25, Xiang teaches in claim 2 that their electrodialyzer is used to remove carbon dioxide from ocean water (carbon capture) and further teaches in [0071] that bicarbonate and carbonate undergo conversion to carbon dioxide in the cell.
In regard to claim 26, Xiang teaches in [0033] - [0036] that their electrodialyzers are used for capturing carbon dioxide directly from ocean water.
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view of Balster and Xiang as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Michael B. McDonald, Michael S. Freund; Graphene Oxide as a Water Dissociation Catalyst in the Bipolar Membrane Interfacial Layer. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 27 August 2014; 6 (16): 13790–13797. (https://doi.org/10.1021/am503242v), henceforth referred to as "McDonald".
Karp in view of Balster and Xiang teaches an electrodialysis cell using a bipolar membrane as described in the above rejections to claims 9 and 15. Karp further teaches in [0070] that an applied overpotential of -830 mV vs SCE (less than 1.5 V) was used in their “Example 1” reactor, but fails to teach the operational current density or the time of operation. Xiang fails to teach an explicit potential, current density, or time of use.
The combination fails to teach the cell operating at a current density of greater than or equal to 100 mA/cm2 and at a voltage of less than or equal to 1.5 V for a duration of at least 60 hours.
McDonald teaches a graphene oxide catalyst containing bipolar membrane (just as Karp in view of Xiang teaches) and in section 3.2 paragraph 2, shows that the cell has a required voltage for electrodialysis ("E(100)") of 1.2 V while the current density was held at >100 mA/cm2 for 3 hours and further teaches in figure 5(b) that their testing of a bipolar membrane was repeated 6 times with no appreciable change in potential. This corresponds to 12-18 hours of use, which is less than the claimed 60 hours. However, it is reasonable to expect the electrodialysis cell that is operable for 12-18 hours to be capable of operation for 60 hours.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to that the graphene oxide catalyst containing bipolar membrane electrodialysis cell of Karp in view of Xiang would be able to operate under the operating conditions described by McDonald for at least 60 hours.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights