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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Combes (EP 3670705 A1).
As to claim 1, Combes discloses a carbon dioxide conversion device (Title Fig. 1), comprising:
a carbon dioxide supply unit that supplies carbon dioxide (#100/102 [0085], [0089] “CO2 feed stream”);
a carbon dioxide electrolysis unit (“W” electrocatalytic cell”) that includes a cathode chamber where carbon dioxide is supplied from the carbon dioxide supply unit and reduces and converts the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (“C” [0090] [0092]) and an anode chamber that oxidizes substances to be oxidized to produce oxides (“A” [0090] [0101]);
a fuel supply unit that supplies fuel (#300 to 305);
an oxygen combustion power generation unit to which oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit is supplied, the fuel is supplied from the fuel supply unit, and that combusts the oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas (#”K” Combustor [0103]);
a condenser that cools and condenses water vapor-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the oxygen combustion power generation unit (“HX1” and “HX2” interchange [0105]) ; and
a gas-liquid separator that separates a water-carbon dioxide two-phase fluid discharged from the condenser into water and carbon dioxide (“L” [0109]).
The recitations of “to which oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit is supplied” is further interpreted as an intended use of the apparatus and particular reactions taking place, where the reactants, etc. are not claimed but merely the capability of performing the claimed function of receiving as gas. Thus, the limitation is deemed to not necessarily further structurally differentiate the instant claims from the prior are. See MPEP 2114.
As to the limitation “to which oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit is supplied”, it is noted that Combes discloses that the gas discharged from the anode chamber comprises water vapor and oxygen ([0101]). Combes further discloses carbon dioxide is added to this gas discharged from the anode chamber ([0103]). The claim does not require that carbon dioxide be exiting from the actual anode chamber, just that the gas line contains oxygen and carbon dioxide, where the general term “gas discharged” includes the oxygen expressly discharged via the anode chamber, to which carbon dioxide is added thereto, thus anticipating the instant claim language.
Alternatively, Combes discloses the same electrochemical process as disclosed in the instant application, feeding make up water with carbon dioxide into the cathode chamber of an electrochemical cell that are dosed with salt to create an electrolyte – [0090] which is the same type of make up solution discloses, See [0013] as disclosed. While Combes does not expressly disclose the explicit chemical reaction, Combes does disclose the formation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen as a result of electrolysis, see [0092] of Combes which is the same reaction products as disclosed – [0015] of the as filed specification. Notably, Combes also is silent as to the particular structure of the electrocatalytic cells, but they are described as a stack of cells in parallel or series – [0077]. Thus, assuming Combes does not use a membrane, the formation of the carbonate ion which necessarily migrates to the anode due to its charge would result in the recombination reaction which would form carbon dioxide with oxygen at the anode and result in carbon dioxide in the anode stream exiting the chamber. Such a result is considered an inherent part of the process based on the explicit methods instantly disclosed and of the prior art in Combes. Furthermore, Combes expressly wants carbon dioxide to be mixed with oxygen, the prevention of the carbonate reaction in Combed would not be favored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that carbon dioxide was concurrently provided with the oxygen exiting the anode chamber based on the desire to have carbon dioxide mixed with oxygen and the inherent nature of the reactions of the prior art and the disclosure of the instant claims. See MPEP 2112 III. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 I. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) See MPEP 2112.02 I.
As to claim 2, Combes discloses the gas-liquid separator is configured to supply carbon dioxide separated from the water-carbon dioxide two-phase fluid to the cathode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit (Fig. 1 via line 101 [0089]).
As to claim 3, Combes further discloses the gas-liquid separator is configured to supply at least some of the separated water to the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit as part of an electrolytic solution (Fig. 1 #325 [0109]).
As to claim 4, Combes further discloses the oxygen combustion power generation unit includes a closed-cycle gas turbine, turbine combined cycle power generation, oxy-combustion cycle ([0110], [0119]).
As to claim 5, Combes further discloses at least one of water and carbon dioxide produced by combustion and carbon dioxide in the oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas is supplied as a circulating medium for the oxygen combustion power generation unit (#313 [0120], [0109]).
As to claim 6, Combes further discloses at least one of water and carbon dioxide discharged from the gas-liquid separator is supplied as a circulating medium for the oxygen combustion power generation unit (#313 [0120], [0109]).
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 2025/0084541 A1) in view of Combes.
As to claims 1-3, Matsumoto discloses a carbon dioxide conversion device (Title Fig. 1), comprising:
a carbon dioxide supply unit that supplies carbon dioxide (#27);
a carbon dioxide electrolysis unit (“2” electrolytic reduction evice”) that includes a cathode chamber where carbon dioxide is supplied from the carbon dioxide supply unit and reduces and converts the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (#11 Fig. 2 [0056]) and an anode chamber that oxidizes substances to be oxidized to produce oxides (#12 Fig. 2 [0057]);
a fuel supply unit that supplies fuel (#149);
an oxygen combustion power generation unit to which oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit is supplied ([0064] via outlet passage), the fuel is supplied from the fuel supply unit, and that combusts the oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas (#6 combustion furnace see connection from 149 to #6.
Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose the condenser and gas-liquid separator as instantly claimed.
Combes discloses a carbon dioxide conversion device (Title Fig. 1), comprising:
a carbon dioxide supply unit that supplies carbon dioxide (#100/102 [0085], [0089] “CO2 feed stream”);
a carbon dioxide electrolysis unit (“W” electrocatalytic cell”) that includes a cathode chamber where carbon dioxide is supplied from the carbon dioxide supply unit and reduces and converts the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (“C” [0090] [0092]) and an anode chamber that oxidizes substances to be oxidized to produce oxides (“A” [0090] [0101]);
a fuel supply unit that supplies fuel (#300 to 305);
an oxygen combustion power generation unit to which oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit is supplied, the fuel is supplied from the fuel supply unit, and that combusts the oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas (#”K” Combustor [0103]);
a condenser that cools and condenses water vapor-carbon dioxide-containing gas discharged from the oxygen combustion power generation unit (“HX1” and “HX2” interchange [0105]) ; and
a gas-liquid separator that separates a water-carbon dioxide two-phase fluid discharged from the condenser into water and carbon dioxide (“L” [0109]).
the gas-liquid separator is configured to supply carbon dioxide separated from the water-carbon dioxide two-phase fluid to the cathode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit (Fig. 1 via line 101 [0089] as required by instant claim 2)
the gas-liquid separator is configured to supply at least some of the separated water to the anode chamber of the carbon dioxide electrolysis unit as part of an electrolytic solution (Fig. 1 #325 [0109] as required by instant claim 3).
at least one of water and carbon dioxide discharged from the gas-liquid separator is supplied as a circulating medium for the oxygen combustion power generation unit (#313 [0120], [0109] as required by instant claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a condenser and gas/liquid separation device on the gas discharged from the combustion power generator as taught by Combes in the apparatus of Matsumoto because it allows for the separate recovery of the water and gaseous CO2 for recycling to the electrolytic device ([0109], [0119] Combes).
As to claim 4, Matsumoto further discloses the oxygen combustion power generation unit includes oxy-combustion cycle ([0101]).
As to claim 5, Matsumoto further carbon dioxide in the oxygen-carbon dioxide-containing gas is supplied as a circulating medium for the oxygen combustion power generation unit (see line 142 to combustion furnace).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0292925 A1 discloses an electrolytic cell which directly outputs carbon dioxide and oxygen concurrently from an anode stream (See Fig. 2 and associated description [0020]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights