DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and transfer” may be more appropriately written as “and transfers” (line 18). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of the recovery unit” may be more appropriately written as “each of the recovery units” (page 3 line 2, multiple times). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “being executed” may be more appropriately written as “from being executed” (page 3 line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “if a user request” may be more appropriately written as “if a user requests”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “if a user request” may be more appropriately written as “if a user requests”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “if a user request” may be more appropriately written as “if a user requests”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “if a user request” may be more appropriately written as “if a user requests”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “which draw” may be more appropriately written as “which draws” (line 7). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the phrase “the unit controllers are configured to determine control contents of the electrochemical cell…” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by “control contents”. It is unclear what contents are being referred to.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “command to improve” is indefinite because it is unclear how such improvement is determined, carried out or what parameters are required. It is additionally unclear what is required by “command to reduce an energy consumption”. It is unclear what such a command would include to reduce an energy consumption. It is unclear what energy consumption is being referred to.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “emergency degree” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the terms. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because it is unclear what is required by ‘degree’.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the control for carbon dioxide recovery being executed” is indefinite because it is unclear what control is being referred to.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “disaster” is indefinite because it is unclear what parameters are required to achieve a disaster.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “condition of supply energy” is indefinite because it is unclear what supply energy is referring to.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the phrase “configured to provide the unit controller…indicating an improvement in a carbon dioxide recovery amount if a decrease in a carbon dioxide recovery amount in the future is predicted based on an acquired information on the weather forecast”. It is unclear what improvement is present for a carbon dioxide recovery amount. It is unclear how an improvement is measured and/or determined. It is unclear the time frame regarding ‘future’. It is unclear how one would arrive at the prediction.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the main controller is configured to assume, if the unit amount of energy that is calculated exceeds a predetermined reference energy, that a lowering degree of the carbon dioxide recovery amount of the entire system exceeds a predetermined threshold” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the phrase. It is unclear how the energy is defined. It is unclear what relationship is present between a predetermined reference energy, a lowering degree of the carbon dioxide recovery and a predetermined threshold.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. (US 2023/0175146).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Kashi discloses a carbon dioxide reduction system which uses carbon dioxide received directly from air [0176] (= a carbon dioxide recovery system which recovers carbon dioxide from the atmosphere containing carbon dioxide), comprising:
A separations unit (809) (= carbon dioxide recovery tank which accumulates recovered carbon dioxide);
An electrolyzer system (801) (Figure 8) [0189] including a plurality of electrochemical cells connected in parallel with the separations unit, separating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transferring the separated carbon dioxide to the separations unit (Figure 3a) [0134] (= a recovery unit group including a plurality of recovery units connected in parallel to the carbon dioxide recovery tank, separating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transferring a separated carbon dioxide to the carbon dioxide recovery tank or the claimed holding unit group as applied to claim 19); and
A controller including a processor [0173]-[0174] (e.g. computer) (= a main controller, including at least one processor, which controls the recovery unit group), wherein
Each of the units includes (= each of the plurality of recovery units included in the recovery unit group includes):
Electrochemical cell stack intrinsically including a housing including sorption/desorption during operation of the CO2 electrolysis system (e.g. to contain gas stream) [0126], [0164], [0186], [0261] (= an electrochemical cell which is disposed in a housing, adsorbs carbon dioxide by applying an adsorption potential and desorbs an adsorbed carbon dioxide by applying a desorption potential);
Inlets of the cells [0126], the device including valves that are controlled by the controller [0163], [0167] (= channel on/off unit enables the housing to introduce the atmosphere by opening an inlet of the housing…closing an inlet);
pumps (= a transfer unit which sucks carbon dioxide desorbed from the electrochemical cell from an inside of the housing and transfer carbon dioxide to a carbon dioxide);
multiple controllers including a computer for controlling the operation of the electrolysis operations, set process parameters, programs the parameters and/or settings [0171], [0173]-[0174], the multiple controllers including subset controllers work in conjuction or concert with each other [0165], [0167] (= unit controllers, including at least one processor, which control operation of the electrochemical cell, the channel on/off unit and the transfer unit, wherein the main controller is configured to provide each one of the unit controllers of the plurality of recovery units with control guidelines which serve as guidelines for controlling operations of the electrochemical cell, the channel on/off unit, and the transfer unit by the unit controllers, and wherein the unit controllers are configured to determine control contents of the electrochemical cell, the channel on/off unit, and the transfer unit based on the control guidelines).
Regarding the claimed “which controls the recovery unit group” (lines 7-8), the device of Kashi discloses a number of controllers that work in conjunction with each other as described above and since the controllers control the process as a whole a controller of Kashi necessarily controls the recovery unit group including the electrochemical cell(s).
Regarding the claimed “which enables the housing to introduce the atmosphere…when the electrochemical cell adsorbs carbon dioxide and disable the housing” the supply of atmosphere to the inlet of Kashi is controlled (i.e. gas flow control, [0030], [0132]) and the device of Kashi is inclusive of valves, etc. that enable the control of gas flow. The phrasing including ‘when’ according to adsorbs and desorbs is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device. The device of Kashi includes all structural elements to perform opening and closing an inlet and the computer control to carryout the processing.
Regarding the claimed “transfer unit” (line 17), Kashi discloses the use of pumps which the instant specification indicates as a transfer unit (see PGPub [0070]). Although Kashi does not explicitly disclose the pump for sucking carbon dioxide from the electrochemical cell, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a pump would be used to transfer CO2 or other gas material from one location to another to conduct the process. Regarding any duplication of unit controllers for example of each of a plurality of recovery units, Kashi discloses the use of multiple controllers and multiple electrochemical cells stacked and connected in parallel. Additionally, Kashi discloses the use of controllers for subsets of the electrolysis device therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized and/or find obvious that the electrochemical cells of Kashi would be inclusive of a controller to control the operation of each electrochemical cell.
Regarding claim 19, the claim language of claim 19 appears to be similar to claim 1 except for the use of ‘a holding unit group’ (claim 19) in place of ‘a recovery unit group’ (claim 1). Additionally, claim 19 refers to a pump whereas claim 1 refers to a transfer unit, which has been addressed above. The difference in naming does not appear to arise in a difference in structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3a of US 2023/0175146.
PNG
media_image2.png
412
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of US 2023/0175146.
Regarding claim 2, Kashi discloses the use of controllers comprising processors with software or firmware that execute instructions provided from another source, integrated with electronics for controlling operation of the electrolytic cell before, during and after reducing a carbon oxide and configured to control the process parameters and therefore reads on the claimed configured to provide a controller with commands [0171]-[0172]. The controller of Kashi controls various components and subparts of the system. It is noted that the instant claim along with subsequent claims 3-18 and 20 are directed to controller claim language inclusive of functional language. The functional claim language does not appear to be limited to a specific structure beyond the controller and processor of the device of Kashi. Implementing known function (e.g. stop command, determining, calculating, etc.) on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purposed computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kashi discloses a device configured to monitor the electrolysis operation, examine a history of past electrolysis operations, examine trends or performance metrics and to change parameters of current processing and/or change a new process [0173]. Selection of duration as a process parameter is an obvious engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed configured to provide a command is disclosed by Kashi since Kashi includes controllers that include processors communicating with the electrolysis device for controlling an operation which intrinsically includes stop/start of the device.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim appears to require a command for stopping the operation. The controllers of Kashi start/stop the operation and include a user interface which is capable of starting and stopping electrolysis [0173]. The claimed device is not limited by the external environment.
Regarding claim 7, the device of Kashi is inclusive of controllers that are monitoring the electrolysis operation and therefore monitoring normal/abnormal operations [0162]. The controllers of Kashi are communicating with power supplies and are therefore capable of determining conditions of supply energy [0164]. It is unclear what is required by the claimed occurrence of disaster and condition of supply energy as stated above. The claimed device is not limited by the external environment.
Regarding claim 8, the device of Kashi includes a user interface whereby a user is enabled to provide entry of programming of parameters and/or settings [0173]. Selection of the priority of process parameters is an obvious engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is indefinite as described above. The device of Kashi includes sensors that are capable of sensing temperature, pressure etc. [0167] and therefore can monitor the atmospheric gas that is captured. The controllers and user interface of the device of Kashi allows the user to enter process parameters.
Regarding claim 10, the device of Kashi includes controllers configured to monitor the current process of the electrolysis operations [0173]. The processor of Kashi analyzes the amount of intake and output of the materials such as carbon dioxide [0026], [0187]. Kashi also discloses monitoring each cell in regards to CO2 flow rate and comparing the levels to critical levels [0126], [0130].
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim language appears to be directed towards the controller as a processing unit capable of calculating and entering process parameters. Since Kashi discloses measuring the amount of output and entry and/or programming of process parameters based on a history of processes, the device of Kashi is capable of performing such functional claim language.
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim appears to be directed towards functional claim language of the claimed controller. The device of Kashi is capable of performing such functional claim language since the controller of Kashi is inclusive of processing parameters which would include process duration. The claimed “in the case” is conditional claim language and does not appear to further structurally limit the claimed controller or device.
Regarding claims 13-18, the claim language is directed towards functional language of a controller while using the phrase “configured to”. The device of Kashi is capable of performing the claimed functional language given the controller including a processor and user interface as described above. The claims appear to describe a communication between the device elements and controller. Kashi discloses the controller in communication with the device elements as described above. The claimed “in the case” is directed towards conditional claim language. Transmitting or notice of a request would be performed by a user which is disclosed by Kashi.
Regarding claim 20, the device of Kashi includes controlled pumps which are capable of varying suction force since the flow is controlled and/or varied [0034], [0167]. The claimed “in the case” is conditional claim language not requiring further structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR101995325 – CO2 recovery
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