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
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunot et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0194816) in view of Reytier et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0348699).
Regarding claim 1, Brunot discloses a methane production system (paragraph 5) comprising:
a co-electrolysis/reforming cell having a first electrode, a second electrode, and an electrolyte disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraphs 5, 15-17, 46); and
a control unit configured to control an operating temperature of the co-electrolysis/reforming cell (step (a) comprises co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide at a first temperature, followed by a step (b) comprising a methanation reaction carried out at a temperature which is inferior to at least 100oC to the temperature of step (a). Brunot further teaches controlling the temperature by controlling the flow rates of the reagents injected into the reactor and thus, a control unit is necessarily present to perform the function – paragraphs 43-44, 57),
wherein the co-electrolysis/reforming cell operates in either a co-electrolysis mode in which H2 and CO are produced at the first electrode from CO2 and H2O (paragraphs 35, 50), or a reforming mode in which CH4 is produced at the first electrode from the H2 and CO produced in the co-electrolysis mode (paragraphs 36-38, 51), and
the control unit makes an operating temperature of the co-electrolysis/reforming cell in the reforming mode lower than an operating temperature of the co-electrolysis/reforming cell in the co-electrolysis mode (step (b) is carried out at a temperature inferior to at least 100oC to the temperature of step (a); paragraphs 43-44).
Brunot fails to teach wherein the co-electrolysis/reforming cell is configured to operate in both a co-electrolysis mode in which H2 and CO are produced and a reforming mode in which CH4 is produced, as amended.
Reytier discloses a reactor capable of operating as both an electrolytic cell in which H2 and CO are produced and a reforming mode in which a methanation reaction is promoted (paragraphs 1-4; 94; 97-98, 104, 120). Reytier further discloses that methanation reactions are promoted at lower temperatures than the electrolytic reactions and thus, a temperature control unit is inherently present to carry out each reaction within the cell (paragraphs 52, 149, 160). Advantageously, the co-electrolysis is carried out at least in part with the steam water produced by methanation and the reforming is carried out at least partly with the water produced by oxidation (paragraphs 74, 85, 97).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to operate a co-electrolysis/reforming cell of Brunot in both a co-electrolysis mode and a reforming mode, because as taught by Reytier it is possible to envisage directly producing methane within a co-electrolysis reactor itself as a function of the temperature and pressure levels and gas flow rate (paragraph 55). Advantageously, the co-electrolysis is carried out at least in part with the steam water produced by methanation and the reforming is carried out at least partly with the water produced by oxidation.
Regarding claim 2, Brunot further teaches wherein the operating temperature of the co-electrolysis/reforming cell in the co-electrolysis mode is 700°C or more and 850°C or less (paragraphs 41, 43), and the operating temperature of the co-electrolysis/reforming cell in the reforming mode is inferior to at least 100°C to the temperature of step a (paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 3, Brunot discloses a storage/supply unit configured to store the H2 and CO produced at the first electrode when the co-electrolysis/reforming cell operates in the co-electrolysis mode, and supply the stored H2 and CO to the first electrode when the co-electrolysis/reforming cell operates in the reforming mode (paragraphs 35-38, 47, 50-51, 85).
Regarding claim 4, Brunot discloses a methane production method (paragraph 5) using a co-electrolysis/reforming cell having a first electrode, a second electrode, and an electrolyte disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraphs 5, 15-17, 46),
the method comprising: a co-electrolyzing step of producing H2 and CO at the first electrode from CO2 and H2O (paragraphs 35, 50); and
a reforming step of producing CH4 at the first electrode from the H2 and CO produced in the co-electrolyzing step (paragraphs 36-38, 51).
Regarding claim 5, Brunot further teaches a first storing step of storing the H2 and CO produced in the co-electrolyzing step, wherein, in the reforming step, CH4 is produced from the H2 and CO stored in the storing step (paragraphs 35-38, 47, 50-51, 85 – the gases produced are collected).
Regarding claim 6, Brunot discloses a second storing step of storing the CH4 produced in the reforming step (paragraphs 35-38, 47, 50-51, 85 – the gases produced are collected and distributed as needed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that Bruno fails to disclose a single reactor in which both co-electrolysis and methanation are performed, as amended. In contrast, in Brunot, the reactor for co-electrolysis and the reactor for methanation are separate.
Therefore, after further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection has been presented in view of Reytier et al.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights