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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I to claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that by not examining both distinct inventions, it would impede the examination process, not be a burden on the examiner and go against current USPTO policy. This is not found persuasive because while there is overlap, there is serious burden on the examiner as distinct inventions require different search parameters, thought processes for examination, determination of relevant subject matter, let alone relevant prior art. The restriction is specifically due to USPTO policy and thus is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
If it is determined that there is allowable subject matter in the elected claims, the Examiner will make every effort to rejoinder claims as long as the method claims contain the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/24/2026.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the methanol or methanol-rich stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for the duplication of the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed this is “the methane or methanol-rich stream,” as per claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,655,074 of Aasberg-Petersen et al (herein Petersen).
As to claim 1, Petersen teaches of a system, comprising:
a first electrochemical reactor configured to accept a feed comprising steam and CO2 and to produce a CO-rich stream or a methane-rich stream and a first O2-rich stream (Petersen, col 3 lines 20-36, col 4 lines 36-47, col 5 lines 1-17, col 6 lines 1-20 and Fig. 1);
a second electrochemical reactor configured to produce a second O2-rich stream and a H2 stream (Petersen, col 3 lines 47-64, col 4 lines 36-47, col 4 line 65 thru col 5 line 17, col 6 lines 1-20 and Fig. 1); and
a Fischer-Tropsch process configured to accept a feed comprising the CO-rich stream from the first electrochemical reactor mixed with the H2 stream from the second electrochemical reactor and to produce a liquid hydrocarbon fuel stream (Petersen, col 3 lines 9-19, col 5 lines 3-16, col 6 lines 54-62 and col 10 line 25-55 and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As described in Petersen, a first electrochemical reactor (20b) accepts a feed comprising steam (i.e. water in the gas phase) and CO2 to produce a CO-rich stream or a methane-rich stream (i.e. stream that contains methane) and a O2-rich stream due to the reactor being a SOE reactor, thus generating each stream on opposite sides of the membrane. The system additionally includes a second electrochemical reactor (20c) to accept water and produce H2 and O2 and a Fischer-Tropsch reactor (30) to receive a feed stream of the mixed CO and H2 streams to produce a hydrocarbon fuel stream (31).
As to claim 2, this is towards the use of the fuel, and thus does not differentiate it from other products produced. With that said, Petersen teaches hydrocarbon fuel streams can be used in aviation, thus disclosing the use of the fuel (Petersen, col 1 lines 41-45).
As to claims 3 and 4, this is towards how the CO2 was captured, it does not further define the structure of the apparatus at hand. With that said, Petersen teaches that CO2- can be captured from power plant exhaust or directly from air to be used as a CO2 source for the system (Petersen, col 3 lines 27-34).
As to claim 6, Petersen teaches that the CO2 is captured from atmospheric air or a process (such as a power plant), thus disclosing a CO2 capture assembly prior to the first electrochemical reactor to produce the CO2 stream (Petersen, col 3 lines 21-36).
As to claim 8, Petersen teaches the produced stream is configured to be utilized in an additional conversion process including taking the tail gas stream and converting it additionally into fuel (Petersen, col 6 lines 54-62, col 7 lines 1-42, col 8 line 50 thru col 9 line 32 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Petersen teaches that the second electrochemical reactor can be a solid oxide fuel electrolyzer (SOE) (Petersen, col 4 line 64 thru col 5 line 1 and col 6 lines 1-2).
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.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,284,651 of Pedersen et al.
As to claims 7 and 10, Petersen teaches to the system of claim 1.
Petersen does not specifically teach the first electrochemical reactor, however, it does state that known embodiments of the solid oxide electrolysis unit used for the CO2 reactor is from WO2013/131778 which is US 9,284,651 (Petersen, col 6 lines 1-12).
Pedersen teaches of an electrolysis system for producing CO from CO2 (Pedersen, Abstract).
Pedersen teaches that within the CO2 electrolyzer, the CO-rich steam and O2 stream are produced separately from each other, thus allowing for high purity CO to be produced (Pedersen, col 1 lines 4-12, col 1 lines 54-60, col 4 lines 44-58, col 5 lines 24-31 and Figs. 6, 7 and 10).
Pedersen also teaches that the CO2 electrochemical reactor contains a Ni/YSZ fuel side electrode, thus containing a catalyst that includes nickel (Pedersen, col 8 lines 23-25), which avoids metal dusting and carbon formation in poisoning the electrochemical system (Petersen, col 5 lines 32-55, col 8 lines 1-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petersen as per Pedersen so as to utilize the desired electrochemical cell configuration/compositions in order to produce high purity CO while maintaining productivity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0194539 of Hammad et al.
As to claim 5, Petersen teaches to the system of claim 1.
Petersen does not teach the specific temperature that the first electrochemical cell is configured to be operated at, however, they state the system is a solid oxide electrolyzer (Petersen, col 6 lines 1-12).
Hammad teaches of electrolytic cells for carbon dioxide conversion to hydrocarbon fuels (Hammad, Abstract).
Hammad additionally teaches that solid oxide electrolyzers can be operated at between 500 - 1000 °C to help drive the electrochemical reactions (Hammad, [0017], [0030] and [0046]), see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petersen as per Hammad so as to operate the first electrochemical reactor at the desired temperature in order to help drive the electrochemical reactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights