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 .
Status of the Claims
The claims submitted 10/11/2023 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-28 are pending and examined herein.
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 5 and 11-12 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 5 recites the limitation “the carbon source” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 2 recites “a carbon source.” Therefore, for the purpose of this Office action, the instant claim will be treated as if it depends from claim.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “the external circuit” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office action, the limitation will be treated as “an external circuit.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: conveyance member in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 13-15, 17-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0222002 A1 (“Graves ‘002”).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Graves ‘002 discloses a rechargeable battery 1, 15 comprising an electrochemical cell 3, 19 and a holder 9, 14 that performs the Boudouard reaction (“Boudouard reactor”) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; [0089]-[0093]).
The electrochemical cell 3, 19 has a CO/CO2 inlet and a CO/CO2 outlet (Figs. 1, 2; [0089]-[0093]). The CO/CO2 outlet is fluidly connected by a first stream 8, 20 to an inlet of the holder 9, 14. The CO/CO2 inlet is fluidly connected by a second stream 4, 5, 17 to an outlet of the holder 9, 14.
A means for storing CO2 is integrated into the rechargeable battery, e.g. a container for the CO2 may be attached to the outside wall of the stack of electrochemical cells ([0092]). While Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose a CO/CO2 tank fluidly connected to at least one of the first stream or the second stream, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such a CO/CO2 tank because Graves ‘002 discloses a means for storing CO2 and a tank is a well known means of storing a gas such as CO2.
Regarding claim 2, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 further discloses providing solid carbon produced by an external source outside the electrochemical device ([0047], [0050], [0065], [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 further discloses providing solid carbon produced by an external source outside the electrochemical device ([0050], [0065], [0097]). While Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose a conveyance member configured to convey carbon between the Boudouard reactor and the carbon source, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a conveyance member to automate the providing of the solid carbon produced by an external source. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
Regarding claim 4, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 2. The carbon source must necessarily be fluidically connected to the electrochemical cell 3, 19 via at least one of the first stream or the second stream.
Regarding claim 5, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 2. The carbon source must necessarily be fluidically connected to the first stream or the second stream. While Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose the carbon source is fluidically connected to the first stream or the second stream between the Boudouard reactor and at least one of the CO/CO2 inlet and the CO/CO2 outlet of the electrochemical cell, it has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, connecting the carbon source between the Boudouard reactor and at least one of the CO/CO2 inlet and the CO/CO2 outlet would not modify operation of the device and one would be motivated to find the optimum placement in view of factors such as efficiency and ease of production or repair.
Regarding claim 13, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Each electrochemical cell comprises a porous positive electrode and a porous negative electrode that are separated by a dense layer of electrolyte ([0052]). The positive electrode and the negative electrode are necessarily connected to an external circuit through electricity feed 2 and electricity 18 (Figs. 1, 2; [0090], [0092]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 13. Graves ‘002 discloses the electrolyte is a solid oxide electrolyte ([0044], [0059], [0096]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses the electrolyte may be composed of any suitable oxide ion conductor such as yttria/scandia stabilized zirconia, lanthanum strontium gallate magnesite, and rare earth doped ceria, and for certain positive electrode materials, a dense layer of rare-earth doped ceria will be applied between the electrolyte and the positive electrode ([0096]). This reads on the claimed multilayered electrolyte.
Regarding claim 17, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses the batteries are surrounded by an insulation layer 28, 109 (“thermal chamber”) (Figs. 4, 12; [0097], [0127]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses heat is exchanged between the electrochemical cells and the carbon holder ([0058]). Graves ‘002 also discloses the thermal contact is indirect ([0058]). This is taken to read on the claimed heat exchanger. However, even if this were to not read on the claimed heat exchanger, providing a heat exchanger as claimed would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the desire to indirectly exchange heat between the electrochemical cells and the carbon holder as heat exchangers are well known in the art to accomplish this.
Regarding claim 19, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses an embodiment wherein separate thermal chambers are provided within device 101 (Fig. 12; [0127]).
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery of system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses during charging, electricity 2 and CO2 4, 5 are provided electrochemical cell 3 (in the modification above, the CO2 is provided from the CO2 tank), the CO2 is converted to CO 8 and O2 by the electrochemical cell 3 (see reaction 1 at [0040]), the CO 8 is converted to CO2 and carbon in a Boudouard reaction (see reaction 2 at [0040]), and the carbon is stored in a holder 9 (Fig. 1; [0089]-[0090]). Graves ‘002 discloses during discharging, carbon and CO2 are converted in a Boudouard reaction to CO 17 (see reaction 2 in reverse at [0040]), the CO and oxygen 12 are converted to CO2 by the electrochemical cell 19, and in the modification above, the CO2 is added to the CO/CO2 stream to be stored in the CO2 tank (Fig. 2; [0091]-[0092]).
Regarding claims 22-23, Graves ‘002 discloses a rechargeable battery 1, 15 comprising an electrochemical cell 3, 19 and a holder 9, 14 that performs the Boudouard reaction (“Boudouard reactor”) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; [0089]-[0093]).
The electrochemical cell 3, 19 has a CO/CO2 inlet and a CO/CO2 outlet (Figs. 1, 2; [0089]-[0093]). The CO/CO2 outlet is fluidly connected by a first stream 8, 20 to an inlet of the holder 9, 14. The CO/CO2 inlet is fluidly connected by a second stream 4, 5, 17 to an outlet of the holder 9, 14.
A means for storing CO2 is integrated into the rechargeable battery, e.g. a container for the CO2 may be attached to the outside wall of the stack of electrochemical cells ([0092]). While Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose a CO/CO2 tank fluidly connected to at least one of the first stream or the second stream, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such a CO/CO2 tank because Graves ‘002 discloses a means for storing CO2 and a tank is a well known means of storing a gas such as CO2.
Graves ‘002 discloses a method of operating the system wherein during charging, electricity 2 and CO2 4, 5 are provided electrochemical cell 3 (in the modification above, the CO2 is provided from the CO2 tank), the CO2 is converted to CO 8 and O2 by the electrochemical cell 3 (see reaction 1 at [0040]), the CO 8 is converted to CO2 and carbon in a Boudouard reaction (see reaction 2 at [0040]), and the carbon is stored in a holder 9 (Fig. 1; [0089]-[0090]). Graves ‘002 discloses during discharging, carbon and CO2 are converted in a Boudouard reaction to CO 17 (see reaction 2 in reverse at [0040]), the CO and oxygen 12 are converted to CO2 by the electrochemical cell 19, and in the modification above, the CO2 is added to the CO/CO2 stream to be stored in the CO2 tank (Fig. 2; [0091]-[0092]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0222002 A1 (“Graves ‘002”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0105009 A1 (“Harbusch”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose the system further comprises a fuel gauge.
Harbusch discloses the concept of providing a device (“fuel gauge”) for monitoring the fuel supply of a fuel cell system (Abstract). If the flow of fuel is insufficient for supplying fuel to the fuel cell system and/or if the fuel reserve falls below the predetermined value, precautionary measures for protecting the fuel cell system against damage can be initiated ([0014], [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the concept of a sensor to measure the amount of fuel (applicable to CO2 during charging and solid carbon during discharging in the system of Graves ‘002) to monitor if the amount of fuel is a sufficient amount to protect the system against damage as taught by Harbusch.
Regarding claim 7, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 6. It would have been obvious to configure the sensor to measure one or more of mass or volume of the solid carbon as this represents one of finite number of ways in which the amount of a solid may be measured and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 8, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 6. It would have been obvious to configure the sensor to measure one or more of mass or pressure of CO2 as this represents one of finite number of ways in which the amount of a gas may be measured and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claims 9-12, 16, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0222002 A1 (“Graves ‘002”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 10-2017-0012750 A (“Shin” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 9, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 discloses an electrochemical system comprising a plurality of repeating units 86 (i.e. rechargeable batteries) in cylindrical form (Figs. 10; [0125]). Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose at least one electrochemical cell of the plurality of electrochemical cells is a removable electrochemical cell.
Shin discloses an individual control type cylindrical solid oxide battery stack module (Abstract). The system allows for individual replacement of tubular cells 120, which allows for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduces repair and replacement costs ([0010], [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of individual replacement of cells as taught by Shin to allow for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduce repair and replacement costs.
Regarding claim 10, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 9. Shin discloses the replaceable cell can be selectively isolated from the system using valves 116 ([0017], [0023], [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 9. Graves ‘002 discloses each electrochemical cell 3, 19 is in electrical contact with an external circuit through electricity feed 2 and electricity 18 (Figs. 1, 2; [0090], [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 9. Graves ‘002 discloses each electrochemical cell 3, 19 is in electrical contact with an external circuit through electricity feed 2 and electricity 18 (Figs. 1, 2; [0090], [0092]). Graves ‘002 discloses the cells are electrically connected in parallel ([0044]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 9. Shin discloses the replaceable cell can be selectively isolated from the system using valves 116 ([0017], [0023], [0036]). The valve 116 allows for individual replacement without interruption of fuel to adjacent tubular cells ([0052]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose installing a removable electrochemical cell to operate the system.
Shin discloses an individual control type cylindrical solid oxide battery stack module (Abstract). The system allows for individual replacement of tubular cells 120, which allows for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduces repair and replacement costs ([0010], [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of individual replacement of cells as taught by Shin, thereby installing a removable cell, to allow for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduce repair and replacement costs.
Regarding claim 25, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the method of claim 24. Shin discloses the replaceable cell can be selectively isolated from the system ([0017], [0023], [0036]). This allows for individual replacement without interruption of fuel to adjacent tubular cells ([0052]). As the fuel is not interrupted, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the installation while charging or discharging as the system is capable of such operation and doing so would minimize disruption to the charging or discharging of the system.
Regarding claim 26, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the carbon-oxygen battery system of claim 1. Graves ‘002 does not expressly disclose isolating a removable electrochemical cell, wherein the isolating comprises closing a first valve at a position downstream of the CO/CO2 tank and upstream of the removable electrochemical cell, closing a second valve at a position downstream of the Boudouard reactor, and disconnecting the removable electrochemical cell from the external circuit to isolate the removable electrochemical cell to operate the system.
Shin discloses an individual control type cylindrical solid oxide battery stack module (Abstract). The system allows for individual replacement of tubular cells 120, which allows for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduces repair and replacement costs ([0010], [0024]). Shin discloses the replaceable cell can be selectively isolated from the system using valve 116 ([0017], [0023], [0036]) and each cell has a first and second valve 124, 125. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of individual replacement of cells as taught by Shin, thereby installing a removable cell, to allow for easy one-touch-type maintenance and reduce repair and replacement costs. In the replacement of the individual cell, the cell would be isolated using first and second valves as claimed.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0222002 A1 (“Graves ‘002”) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of US 2020/0358123 A1 (“Graves ‘123”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Graves ‘002 discloses the method of claim 27. Graves does not expressly disclose a first valve between the electrochemical cell and the CO/CO2 tank; and disposing a second valve between the electrochemical cell and the Boudouard reactor.
Graves ‘123 discloses a carbon-oxygen battery system (Abstract; Fig. 3). Graves ‘123 discloses that the storage arrangement (for storing CO2) is connected to the cell via one or more valves to facilitate a sufficient gas flow ([0120]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a valve between the electrochemical cell and the CO2 tank to facilitate a sufficient gas flow as taught by Graves ‘123. It would have been further obvious to provide additional valves in other gas streams, such as between the electrochemical cell and the Boudouard reactor as claimed, in view of Graves ‘123 disclosure of valves facilitating a sufficient gas flow. Moreover, Graves ‘002 discloses the solid carbon can be externally supplied and such a second valve would allow for ease of external supply.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights