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 .
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 11-14 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the hydrophobic polymer" and “the catalyst layer” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume claim 11 to be dependent upon claim 2 instead of claim 1 as such assumption provides the proper antecedent basis for these limitations. Note that claims 12-14 are rejected for depending upon claim 11 without resolving the indefinite claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al (US 5,645,700 A), with evidence from Liu et al (“Morphological Properties and Electrochemical Performance for Compressed Carbon-fiber Electrodes in Redox Flow Batteries”).
White et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, col. 5, line 55 to col. 6, line 13 and col. 7, lines 1-20) a method comprising mixing a liquid (11) and a gas (13) to form a two-phase solution; flowing the two-phase solution over and/or through an electrode (cathode 4, including catalyst layer 5 and current collector/electrically conductive material 9) comprising a substrate (current collector/electrically conductive material 9) made from carbon paper; and applying a voltage to the electrode wherein at least a portion of the gas participated in a reaction to electrochemically generate a compound at the electrode.
Note that White et al do not teach that the carbon paper included non-woven fibers.
Liu et al is cited as evidence showing the structure of carbon materials referred to as carbon cloth, carbon paper, and carbon felt. See Fig. 2 and Table 1. Carbon paper is a non-woven carbon material.
Thus, the evidence of record shows that the carbon paper material of White et al inherently included non-woven carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 2, the cathode of White et al included a catalyst layer (5) on the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, White et al teach the method producing hydrogen peroxide (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, White et al teach the gas was oxygen (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, White et al teach the electrode being the cathode (fig. 1, col. 5, lines 58-60).
Claims 15-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porta et al (US 4,319,973 A).
Porta et al teach (see abstract, fig. 2, and col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 42) a method comprising flowing a solution (16) over a least a portion of a surface area of an electrode (6) in a compartment (7), electrochemically generating a compound (hydrogen peroxide) in the solution at the electrode, flowing a solution from the electrode through an outlet (7b) of the compartment, and recirculating at least a portion of the solution from the outlet of the compartment to the inlet (7a) of the compartment. Porta et al teach that the recirculation may be performed until a desired concentration of the compound was achieved, such as between 0.1 and 10 g/L, which range falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 wt%. 10 g/L is approximately 1 wt%.
Regarding claim 16, the method of Porta et al included flowing the solution over at least a portion of the surface area of the electrode.
Regarding claim 17, the method of Porta et al also included withdrawing at least a portion (18) of the solution comprising the compound, wherein the compound is hydrogen peroxide (abstract, fig. 2).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the method of Porta et al included an electrode (6) made from carbon felt impregnated with a hydrophobic polymer (“teflon [sic] suspension”) (col. 7, lines 38-42).
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 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 5,645,700 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to have performed routine experimentation to determine workable ranges for the flow rate of the liquid and the gas in order to achieve the desired production of hydrogen peroxide within the method of White et al. Additionally, the size of the electrochemical cell, absent a showing of criticality is considered to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to have performed routine experimentation to determine workable ranges for the flow rate of the liquid and the gas in order to achieve the desired production of hydrogen peroxide within the method of White et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 5,645,700 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carles et al (FR 2493878 A1).
White et al teach the liquid being water, thus failing to teach the liquid also including an alkali hydroxide. Note that White et al desired to produce a neutral hydrogen peroxide solution.
In the same electrolytic production of hydrogen peroxide field, Carles et al teach that sometimes it was desirable to produce an alkaline (pH>7) hydrogen peroxide solution and that having an alkali metal hydroxide dissolved in the liquid in combination with oxygen gas exposure at the cathode resulted in production of an alkaline hydrogen peroxide solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of White et al according to the suggestion of Carles et al to produce an alkaline hydrogen peroxide solution instead of a neutral hydrogen peroxide solution when needed by adding an alkali metal hydroxide to the liquid.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 5,645,700 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gopal (US 2003/0019758 A1).
White et al teach the catalyst layer being formed on a portion of the non-woven substrate (col. 6, lines 45-60 and col. 7, lines 1-10).
White et al fail to teach the electrode including a hydrophobic polymer, the catalyst layer comprising a hydrophobic polymer or the active material comprising carbon.
Gopal teaches (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0041]-[0042]) alternative cathode electrode designs for an electrolytic cell used for production of a hydrogen peroxide solution, wherein the cathode included a substrate (12), such as carbon felt, along with a catalyst coated thereon, wherein the catalyst included an organic compound such as quinone compounds, that comprised carbon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the cathode design of Gopal including a carbon felt with a catalyst layer comprising carbon in the method of White et al because Gopal teaches that the catalyst was effective for catalyzing the electrolytic production of hydrogen peroxide.
Regarding claim 12, Gopal teaches (see paragraph [0044]) an alternative substrate comprising high surface area activated carbon powder within the catalyst layer. Gopal defined “high surface area” (paragraph [0041]) as having a surface area in the range of 20-2000 m2/g.
Regarding claim 13, Gopal teaches (see paragraph [0045]) mixing Teflon® (a tradename for polytetrafluoroethylene) into the catalyst layer.
Regarding claim 14, the quinone catalyst of Gopal included substantially no metal. Alternatively, the activated carbon substrate (paragraph [0044], discussed above with respect to claim 12) constituted a catalyst layer comprising essentially no metal.
Claim 19 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porta et al (US 4,319,973 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of White et al (US 5,645,700 A).
Porta et al teach providing the oxygen gas by flowing the gas through a porous cathode, and the system including a gas manifold (connected to inlet 8a) and a liquid inlet (connected to inlet 7a).
Thus, Porta et al do not teach that the gas manifold and the liquid manifold feeding only one intersection of a gas and liquid inlet within a cathode flow plate/flow frame.
White et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, col. 5, line 55 to col. 6, line 13) an alternative electrolytic cell design for production of hydrogen peroxide, wherein instead of the oxygen gas being fed through a porous cathode, oxygen gas is provided to a single intersection with a flow of water to dissolve the oxygen into the water prior to entry into the electrolytic cell. The oxygen gas became dissolved and/or emulsified into the liquid thereby creating the conditions suitable for hydrogen peroxide formation at the cathode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the single intersection mixing of oxygen and water prior to entry to the electrolytic cell taught by White et al with the recirculation of the solution until a desired concentration of hydrogen peroxide was achieved as taught by Porta et al. Each element was known in the prior art and has the same effect in the combination as it did in the prior art. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claim 27 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 5,645,700 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frimann (US 2019/0390354 A1).
White et al teach providing the oxygen at increased pressure (col. 6, lines 2-5).
White et al fail to teach how the oxygen is pressurized.
Within the broader field of electrochemistry, as opposed to hydrogen peroxide electrochemistry, Frimann teaches (see abstract, paragraphs [0025] and [0080]-[0082]) that various known commercially available gas compressors are suitable for use with system including an electrochemical cell. Among those known gas compressors were liquid ring compressors.
Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a known commercially available gas compressor as taught by Frimann, such as a liquid ring compressor, for increasing the pressure of the oxygen gas of White et al. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuiphoff et al (US 8,641,874 B2) teaches a method that meets every limitation of claim 15 except for the solution containing the compound in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.2 wt%. Since the above rejection grounds more adequately address Applicant’s invention, no obviousness rejection is made using Kuiphoff et al to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
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
Prosecution Insights