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 1-9 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.
As to claims 1 and 4, at lines 8, 11, 13 and 20 of claim 1 and at line 2 of claim 4, the claims recites the limitation “CR2”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if these limitation intend to refer to the same feature or separate features. If they intend to refer to the same feature “the” or “said” should be utilized.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites the limitations "the deployed surface of the electrodes" and “the electrodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 3, the claim recites the limitations of “at least one cathode” and “at least one anode”. However, claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, already introduces these limitation. Therefore, it is unclear as to if these limitation intends to refer back to those of claim 1 or to new and separate limitations. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
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.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/181794 A1 to Ito (Ito), in view of US 2025/0178933 A1 to Gadikota et al. (Gadikota) and further in view of US 2010/0074836 A1 to Brix et al. (Brix).
As to claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, Ito teaches a method of producing calcium rich-based aggregates, precipitates, the method comprising filtering an aqueous salt solution (seawater) to produce an aqueous salt solution free or organic debris and pollutants, providing the solution to an electrolysis reactor (20) separated by a cation exchanger (23) to form an anode compartment comprising an anode (22a) and a cathode compartment comprising a cathode (22b), the anode and the cathode connected to a DC power supply, injecting carbon dioxide in contact with the aqueous solution, applying a voltage to the electrode and recovering calcium-rich based aggregates, calcium carbonate precipitates from the bottom of the electrolysis reactor (Paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0029, 0031, 0034, 0036 and 0047; Figures 4 and 5).
However, Ito is silent as to if the electrolysis reactor is continuous or batch. However, Gadikota also discusses the electrolytic reaction of seawater in the presence of carbon dioxide to generate calcium carbonate precipitates and teaches that the process is preferably performed continuously (Paragraph 0090; Figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the electrolysis reactor of Ito as a continuous reactor with a continuous flux of aqueous solution with the reasonable expectation of forming the calcium carbonate as taught by Gadikota. The combination fails to further teach the specific desired flow rate of the aqueous solution in the continuous process; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that this flow rate would determine a number of process conditions including residence time and pH values associated therewith and the availability/refresh of reactants in view of the overall size of the cathode compartment and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the velocity of the aqueous solution in order to optimize the electrolysis conditions as desired.
However, Ito fails to further teach the specific desired voltage to be applied to the anode and the cathode. However, Gadikota further teaches that appropriate cell voltages for achieving the calcium carbonate precipitate from seawater comprises for example, 2 to 3.5 volts (Paragraph 0093). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a voltage of 2 to 3.5 volts to the anode and cathode of Ito with the reasonable expectation of performing the desired reactions as taught by Gadikota.
Ito further teaches that the pH and corresponding temperature are important conditions relating to the specific precipitate available and formed and teaches a temperature of 25°C is and a pH of, for example, 8, for achieving a precipitate with approximately 30% calcium carbonate (Paragraphs 0038, 0039 and 0057; Figures 2 and 6). However, Ito fails to further teach that the aqueous salt solution is brought into a conditioning reactor for bringing the pH and temperature to the desired level.
However, Brix also discusses electrolytic processes utilizing seawater in which specific pH and temperature requirements are desired and teaches that these conditions can be achieved prior to the provision of the seawater to the electrolysis cell by the provision of a conditioning reactor (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of the combination with the addition of a conditioning reactor upstream of the electrolysis reactor in order to ensure specifically desired operating parameters are achieved prior to electrolysis as taught by Brix.
As to claim 5, the combination of Ito, Gadikota and Brix teaches the method of claim 1. The combination fails to further teach the specific desired flow rate of the carbon dioxide in the continuous process; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that this flow rate would determine a number of process conditions including residence time and pH values associated therewith and the availability/refresh of reactants in view of the overall size of the cathode compartment and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the velocity of the carbon dioxide in order to optimize the electrolysis conditions as desired.
As to claim 9, the combination of Ito, Gadikota and Brix teaches the method of claim 1. Ito is silent as to the specific size of the final precipitates formed by the method. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final size of the precipitates could be altered by altering the reaction conditions and time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the reaction conditions and time in order to optimize the size to a final desired size depending on desired usage. Thus, rendering obvious average sized rom 0.1mm to 15mm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ito, Gadikota and Brix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2023/195712 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ito, Gadikota and Brix teaches the method of claim 1. However, Ito fails to further teach that the carbon dioxide is recirculated. However, Kim also discusses the supply of carbon dioxide to an electrolysis cell and teaches that carbon dioxide gas that does not dissolve into the solution should be recycled (Paragraph 0137). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Ito by recirculating any non-dissolved carbon dioxide back to the electrolysis reactor for reuse as taught by Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights