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 6 and 16 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.
The term “soluble” in claims 6 and 16 is used by the claims to mean “a gas dissolving a gaseous or liquid product,” while the accepted meaning is “'degree to which a substance dissolves in a solvent' according to encyclopedia Brittanica while a solvent is 'A liquid or solid phase containing more than one substance, when for convenience one (or more) substance, which is called the solvent, is treated differently from the other substances, which are called solutes' according to the IUPAC Gold Book.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For the sake of examination, the sections of the claims involving a product being soluble in a gas, any gaseous substance present in the cathode fluid will be treated as satisfying the claimed solubility requirement.
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, 4, 6, 8, 11-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/080943 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Van Der Schaaf").
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Schaaf teaches:
An electrolysis cell (claim 1, item 1) comprising
An anode (claim 1 item 11) which by definition is configured to oxidize a material;
A cathode (claim 1 item 12) which by definition is configured to reduce a material;
A diaphragm (claim 1 item 2). Van Der Schaaf defines “separator disc” as a diaphragm on page 3, lines 21-22;
A flow path plate having an anode flow path (claim 1 “anolyte space”);
A flow path plate having a cathode flow path (claim 1 “ catholyte space”);
Van Der Schaaf Fig. 1 shows the anode, cathode, diaphragm, anode flow path plate, and cathode flow path plate being stacked, with items 11, 2, and 12 stacked
a rotary shaft disposed on the opposite side of the cathode from the diaphragm and extending along a second direction intersecting with the first direction (claim 6 item 13 where the two discs are the anode and cathode channels); and
a driving device (claim 1 “stator” items 6 and 7 and a drive such as an electric motor configured to rotate around the stator on page 10 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 6 lines 25-30 the electrochemical cell being used to electrolyze water and generate oxygen at the anode.
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 7 lines 3-6 using the cell to convert acrylonitrile to adiponitrile (i.e., where the cathode product includes a nitrogen compound).
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 6 lines 9-12 the use of an oxygen depolarized electrode and explicitly talks about unreacted oxygen in the cathode outlet stream. Therefore, Van Der Schaaf is considered to teach a cathode fluid containing a gaseous substance involved in neither the oxidation nor the reduction.
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 5 lines 24-31 that the cell can be symmetrical discs encasing each other and around a central shaft. This is considered to meet the claimed cylinder.
Regarding claim 11, Van Der Schaaf teaches in addition to the anode, cathode, diaphragm, flow path plates, and stacking explained in claim 1:
supplying the oxidizable material to the anode (Page 9 lines 14-16 item 19, “annular outer channel”);
supplying the reducible material to the cathode (claim 3, item 18 “ catholyte inlet”);
applying a voltage between the anode and the cathode, to oxidize the oxidizable material and thus produce an anode product and to reduce the reducible material and thus produce a cathode product on page 6 lines 26-30 when they describe using the cell for electrolysis; and
rotating the electrolysis cell around a rotary shaft disposed on the opposite side of the cathode from the diaphragm and extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction on page 10 lines 15-18 where they describe the rotation axis being perpendicular to the stacking arrangement.
Regarding claim 12, Van Der Schaaf teaches the cell being rotated to discharge the generated gasses on page 10 lines 30-31 and page 11 lines 1-3. Where it is taught that the cell is rotated to discharge the generated gases, this is considered to meet the claimed rotating the cell after the cell stops producing the anode product and the cathode product (which are gasses).
Regarding claim 13, Van Der Schaaf teaches the cell being rotated to discharge the generated gasses on page 10 lines 30-31 and page 11 lines 1-3. Where it is taught that the cell is rotated to discharge the generated gases, this is considered to meet the claimed rotating the cell while the cell produces the anode product and the cathode product (which are gasses).
Regarding claim 15, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 7 lines 3-6 using the cell to convert acrylonitrile to adiponitrile (a nitrogen compound).
Regarding claim 16, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 6 lines 9-12 the use of an oxygen depolarized electrode and explicitly talks about unreacted oxygen in the cathode outlet stream. Therefore, Van Der Schaaf is considered to teach a cathode fluid containing a gaseous substance involved in neither the oxidation nor the reduction.
Regarding claim 18, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 5 lines 24-31 that the cell can be symmetrical discs encasing each other and around a central shaft. This is considered to meet the claimed cylinder.
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 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Schaaf.
Regarding claim 7, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 10 lines 15-18 that the device can be oriented in any direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the second direction along the direction of gravitational force as Van Der Schaaf does not disclose a criticality associated with the direction.
Regarding claim 17, Van Der Schaaf teaches on page 10 lines 15-18 that the device can be oriented in any direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the second direction along the direction of gravitational force as Van Der Schaaf does not disclose a criticality associated with the direction.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Schaaf as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20220274829 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Tozawa").
Regarding claims 3 and 14,Van Der Schaaf teaches an electrolysis system and method of driving an electrolysis system as detailed above with regard to claims 1 and 11.
Van der Schaaf fails to teach the reducible material being carbon dioxide and the cathode product including a carbon product.
Tozawa similarly teaches in [0257] electrolytic cells which rotate. Tozawa teaches in [0281] that their cells may be used to generate an organic compound from carbon dioxide in the air. Electrolysis of carbon dioxide results in carbon monoxide, a useful synthesis gas.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use carbon dioxide in the air as a reducible material to produce carbon products in Van Der Schaaf’s cells. The obviousness is due to the abundance of CO2 in the air and the improved mass transfer and lower cell potential offered by Van der Schaaf’s cells as described on their page 3 lines 15-16.
Regarding claim 5, Van der Schaaf teaches an electrolysis system as detailed above with regard to claim 1.
Van der Schaaf fails to teach the system having a plurality of cells.
Tozawa’s cells are similar to Van der Schaaf’s in that they are rotatable electrochemical cells that react with fluid+gas inputs and outputs. Tozawa teaches in [0031] that having a plurality of their cells allows for more effective decomposition of the reaction fluid, in other terms, increasing the effectiveness of the reaction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of Van Der Schaaf’s cells to similarly increase the effectiveness of reaction as taught by Tozawa.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Van der Schaaf teaches an electrolysis system and method of driving an electrolysis system as detailed above with regard to claims 1 and 11. They further teach a cathode fluid outlet connected to the cathode flow path on page 4 lines 8-16 and in claim 3 calling it a "catholyte outlet" and depicting it on figure 1 as item 17. They further teach an anode fluid outlet connected to the anode flow path on page 4 lines 8-16 and in claim 2 calling it an "anolyte outlet" and depicting it on figure 1 as item 16.
Van der Schaaf fails to teach a collector for the catholyte or anolyte fluids.
Tozawa teaches in [0037] an anode collector that collects both the products and the decomposition liquid (unreacted reactant solution). They further teach in [0242]-[0247] that they use the collected decomposition liquid as an oxidant liquid for other useful processes, in this case disinfection. Tozawa teaches in [0043] a cathode collector that is configured to collect the hydrogen gas (a cathode fluid) and in [0044] they teach the preferred embodiment that the cathode collector deliquors and collects the hydrogen then supplies it to a hydrogen tank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up an anode/cathode collector attached to the anolyte/catholyte outlets of Van Der Schaff to collect valuable or useful reaction products as Tozawa did.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Schaaf as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of US 20200002823 A1 (henceforth referred to as "Ono").
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Van der Schaaf teaches an electrolysis system and method of driving an electrolysis system as detailed above with regard to claims 1 and 11. They further teach a cathode fluid outlet connected to the cathode flow path on page 4 lines 8-16 and in claim 3 calling it a "catholyte outlet" and depicting it on figure 1 as item 17. They further teach an anode fluid outlet connected to the anode flow path on page 4 lines 8-16 and in claim 2 calling it an "anolyte outlet" and depicting it on figure 1 as item 16.
Van der Schaaf fails to teach the connection of the inlets and outlets, not teaching the recirculation of anolyte or catholyte.
Ono teaches in [0052]-[0053] an electrochemical cell in which the anode solution and cathode solution circulates.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the anolyte and catholyte inlets and outlets to a circulating solution supply to reduce the rate of waste buildup and more completely form desired products from solution feedstock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights