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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated August 18, 2025. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 11 and 13-16 (species) drawn to species nonelected without traverse and claims 17-20 (method) drawn to an invention nonelected with traverse in the reply filed on October 15, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9-10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Wang et al. (“Copper Oxide Derived Nanostructured Self-Supporting Cu Electrodes for
Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Dec 20), Vol. 328, pp. 1-11) in view of Zhong et al. (“Coupling of Cu (100) and (110) Facets Promotes Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Hydrocarbons and Alcohols,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2021 Feb 23), Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 4879-4885) and MTX Labs (“All About H Type Electrochemical Cell (H-cell),” Sept. 18, 2023, pp. 1-7).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of reducing carbon dioxide to form one or more hydrocarbon products, the method comprising:
• providing an electrochemical cell (= a three electrode electrochemical H-type cell)
[page 2, right column, lines 50-51] comprising:
۰ a working electrode comprising a copper composite comprising a copper nanosheet array comprising a plurality of copper nanosheets, wherein the plurality of copper nanosheets comprise copper facets (= in this study, three kinds of nanostructured self-supporting Cu based-electrodes with nanowire, nanosheet and nanoflower morphologies were in-situ prepared from Cu foam) [page 2, right column, lines 15-17], the copper nanosheet array is disposed on a surface of a modified copper substrate, the copper nanosheet array is chemically bonded to the modified copper substrate (= the schematic diagram is given in Fig. 3 and the reaction equations could be as (3) to (6)) [page 3, right column, lines 49-54], and the copper composite is prepared by:
۰ contacting a copper substrate (= the copper foam) [page 2, right column, line 29] with an oxidizing agent (= K2S2O8 (0.68g) and NaOH (2.50g) were separately
dissolved in deionized water and finally mixed with each other to make up a 50.0mL
solution as the oxidizing agent) [page 2, right column, lines 32-35] thereby forming an oxidized copper composite comprising the modified copper substrate and an oxidized copper nanosheet array (= when the oxidation time continues to increase to 20-120 min, the blue film gradually changes into a uniform grey-black film, indicating the formation of CuNS) [page 3, right column, lines 4-6], wherein the oxidized copper
nanosheet array is disposed on the surface of the modified copper substrate and the oxidized copper nanosheet array is chemically bonded to the modified copper substrate
(=
PNG
media_image1.png
67
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) [page 5, Fig. 3], and
۰ electrochemically reducing the oxidized copper composite at a potential (= in this study, three kinds of nanostructured self-supporting Cu-based-electrodes with nanowire, nanosheet and nanoflower morphologies were in-situ prepared from Cu foam by the impregnation method and in-situ reduced to metallic Cu by cyclic voltammetry (CV))
[page 2, right column, lines 15-19] thereby forming the copper composite (= through this CV treatment, Cu(II) can be in-situ converted into Cu(0); so that only Cu(0) species exist at the Cu foam surface after CV treatment, which act as the active sites for ERCD) [page 3, right column, lines 58-60];
۰ a counter electrode (= while a Pt sheet was adopted as the counter electrode) [page 3,
left column, lines 8-9];
۰ optionally a reference electrode (= Ag/AgCl (saturated KCl aqueous solution) was used
as the reference electrode) [page 3, left column, lines 7-8]; and
۰ an electrolyte solution comprising an electrolyte and CO2 (= these three electrolytes (KHCO3, KCl and KH2PO4) after saturated with CO2) [page 3, left column, lines 2-3]; and
• applying an electric current (= Current density (mA/cm2)) at a voltage of -1.0 to -1.2V (versus a reversible hydrogen electrode) [= Potential (V vs. RHE)] (page 6, Fig. 5(c)) between the
working electrode and the counter electrode resulting in electrolytic reduction of the CO2 (= each product at each electrode can also be found from Fig. 6) [page 6, right column, lines 17-
18].
The method of Wang differs from the instant invention because Wang does not disclose the following:
a. Wherein the copper facets are copper(100) facets.
Wang teaches that:
Before potentiostatic tests, all nanostructured Cu electrodes were treated by CV method in the potential range from -1.0 to 0.1 V until the electrodes were stable. What’s more, through this CV treatment, Cu(II) can be in-situ converted into Cu(0); so that only Cu(0) species exist at the Cu foam surface after CV treatment, which act as the active sites for ERCD (page 3, right column, lines 55-60).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the copper foam having only Cu(0) species existing at the Cu foam surface naturally has copper facets. Although not disclosed by Wang, the copper foam is deemed to be comprised of copper(100) facets because when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or
only slightly different than a product claim in a product-by-process limitation, the burden is on the Applicants to present evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. In re Brown 459 F. 2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972); In re Fessman 489 F. 2d 742, 180 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) [MPEP § 2113].
b. At a potential not exceeding a range of from -1.1 V to -0.2 V.
Wang teaches that:
Before potentiostatic tests, all nanostructured Cu electrodes were treated by CV method in the potential range from -1.0 to 0.1 V until the electrodes were stable. What’s more, through this CV treatment, Cu(II) can be in-situ converted into Cu(0); so that only Cu(0) species exist at the Cu foam surface after CV treatment, which act as the active sites for ERCD (page 3, right column, lines 55-60).
Like Wang, Zhong teaches the electrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide (page 4879, abstract).
Herein a Cu catalyst is described with abundant stepped Cu(110) and highly active Cu(100) sites for CO2RR to C2+ products (page 4879, right column, lines 34-36).
To prepare the designed catalysts, the Cu(OH)2/Cu, CuO/Cu, and Cu2O/Cu foils were placed in
a CO2-saturated 0.1 M KHCO3 aqueous solution and reduced under the bias potential of −0.5 V versus
the reversible hydrogen electrode (vs. RHE) for ≈800 s (Figure 1 a). The obtained samples were
denoted as Cu(OH)2-D/Cu foil, CuO-D/Cu foil, and Cu2O-D/Cu foil, respectively. Time-dependent current density curves for the reduction of Cu(OH)2/Cu foil, CuO/Cu foil, and Cu2O/Cu foil
(Supporting Information, Figure S2) are in agreement with the reduction of Cu hydroxide/oxide to metallic Cu.[4e] In situ Raman was employed to investigate the reduction process (Figure 1 b–d). The Raman spectra of these samples collected in the open circuit are similar to the spectra of precursors measured ex situ (Supporting Information, Figure S1b). After several minutes of reduction in the CO2-saturated 0.1 M KHCO3 aqueous solution at −0.5 V vs. RHE, all of the characteristic Raman bands associated with Cu(OH)2, CuO, and Cu2O disappear. These results demonstrate that all three samples are reduced to metallic copper, agreeing well with the thermodynamics equilibria displayed in the Cu-Pourbaix diagram.[13] Moreover, other than Cu peaks, no other peaks attributed to Cu hydroxide/oxide are observed in XRD patterns, further confirming that all the Cu hydroxide/oxide have been reduced to metallic Cu (Supporting Information, Figure S3). XPS analysis (Supporting Information, Figure S4) reveals that Cu mainly
presents a metallic state. Only a small amount of Cu2+ is detected, probably due to the surface oxidation during sample transfer. It should be noted that we could not exclude the possible presence of Cu+ (with the binding energy very closed to CuO) due to the oxidation in air. High resolution TEM images also demonstrate the precursors were converted to metallic Cu, where they exhibit lattice fringes of Cu(200) and (111) (Supporting Information, Figure S5) [page 4880, bridging paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the potential described by Wang with
at a potential not exceeding a range of from -1.1 V to -0.2 V because Wang teaches converting
the copper oxide species (CuO) of the copper nanosheets (CuNS) coated on the surface of the copper foam into active sites of metallic copper (Cu(0)) for ERCD. Placing CuO/Cu in a CO2-saturated 0.1 M KHCO3 aqueous solution and reducing under the bias potential of −0.5 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (vs. RHE) for ≈800 s reduces copper oxide species to metallic copper having Cu(100) sites which are highly active for CO2RR to form C2+ products.
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different field based on the function or property of the known work if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2141 and § 2141.03).
The motivation to combine prior art references can arise from the expectation that the
prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when
combined for their commonly known purpose (MPEP § 2141 and § 2144.07).
c. Wherein the electrolyte solution is between and in contact with the working
electrode, the counter electrode, and optionally the reference electrode.
Wang teaches a three electrode electrochemical H-type cell (page 2, right column, lines
50-51).
MTX Labs teaches a H-type electrochemical cell:
PNG
media_image2.png
214
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [page 2].
In the utilization of an H-cell, it is a fundamental requirement to have three essential
components: a counter electrode, a working electrode, and a reference electrode, all immersed in an electrolyte solution (page 4, lines 9-11).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because in the utilization of an H-cell, it is a fundamental requirement to have three essential components: a counter electrode, a working electrode, and a reference electrode, all immersed in an electrolyte solution.
d. Thereby forming the one or more hydrocarbon products.
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the one or more hydrocarbon products are the products produced by the method. The Wang combination teaches method in a similar manner as presently claimed. Similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties. In re Spada 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ 2d
1655 (CAFC 1990); In re DeBlauwe 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (CAFC 1984); In re Wiegand 182
F.2d 633, 86 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1950).
A process yielding an unobvious product may nonetheless be obvious where Applicant
claims a process in terms of function, property or characteristic and the process of the prior art is the same or similar as that of the claim but the function, property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference (MPEP § 2116.01).
Furthermore, the Applicant has a different reason for, or advantage resulting from doing what the prior art relied upon has suggested, it is noted that it is well settled that this is not
demonstrative of nonobviousness. In re Kronig 190 USPQ 425, 428 (CCPA 1976); In re Linter 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The prior art motivation or advantage may be different than that of Applicant’s while still supporting a conclusion of obviousness. In re Wiseman 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979); Ex parte Obiaya 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. of App. 1985) [MPEP § 2144].
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the plurality of copper nanosheets have an
average thickness of 20-30 nm (= as for CuNS (Fig. 1d), the length of the nanosheet is about 30 mm and the thickness about 20 nm) [page 3, left column, lines 49-50].
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a metal carbonate, a metal bicarbonate, a metal hydroxide, a metal oxide, or a mixture thereof (= these three electrolytes (KHCO3, KCl and KH2PO4) after saturated with CO2) [page 3, left column, lines 2-3].
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the copper substrate is a copper foil, a copper foam, or a copper mesh (= the copper foam) [page 2, right column, line 29].
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the oxidizing agent is potassium persulfate (= K2S2O8 (0.68g) and NaOH (2.50g) were separately dissolved in deionized water and finally
mixed with each other to make up a 50.0mL solution as the oxidizing agent) [page 2, right column, lines 32-35].
Regarding claim 12, the method of Wang differs from the instant invention because Wang does not disclose wherein the one or more hydrocarbon products comprise formic acid,
methanol, methane, ethylene, ethanol, or n-propanol.
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the one or more hydrocarbon
products comprised of formic acid, methanol, methane, ethylene, ethanol, or n-propanol are the products produced by the method. The Wang combination teaches method in a similar manner as presently claimed. Similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties. In re Spada 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (CAFC 1990); In re DeBlauwe 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (CAFC 1984); In re Wiegand 182 F.2d 633, 86 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1950).
A process yielding an unobvious product may nonetheless be obvious where Applicant
claims a process in terms of function, property or characteristic and the process of the prior art is the same or similar as that of the claim but the function, property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference (MPEP § 2116.01).
Furthermore, the Applicant has a different reason for, or advantage resulting from doing what the prior art relied upon has suggested, it is noted that it is well settled that this is not demonstrative of nonobviousness. In re Kronig 190 USPQ 425, 428 (CCPA 1976); In re Linter 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The prior art motivation or advantage may be different than that of
Applicant’s while still supporting a conclusion of obviousness. In re Wiseman 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979); Ex parte Obiaya 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. of App. 1985) [MPEP § 2144].
II. Claim(s) 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Copper Oxide Derived Nanostructured Self-Supporting Cu Electrodes for Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Dec 20), Vol. 328, pp. 1-11) in view of
Zhong et al. (“Coupling of Cu (100) and (110) Facets Promotes Carbon Dioxide Conversion to
Hydrocarbons and Alcohols,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2021 Feb 23), Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 4879-4885) and MTX Labs (“All About H Type Electrochemical Cell (H-cell),” Sept. 18, 2023, pp. 1-7) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Thi et al. (“Potassium-Doped Copper Oxide Nanoparticles Synthesized by a Solvothermal Method as an Anode Material for High-Performance Lithium Ion Secondary Battery,” Applied Surface Science (2014 Jun 30), Vol. 305, pp. 617-625).
Wang, Zhong and MTX Labs are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, the method of Wang differs from the instant invention because Wang does not disclose wherein the copper composite further comprises potassium ions disposed on at least one surface of the copper nanosheet array.
Thi teaches that in the present work, a unique strategy to improve the electrochemical performance of CuO nanostructure by novel potassium ion (K+) doping is reported (page 617,
right column, lines 22-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper composite described by Wang with wherein the copper composite further comprises potassium ions disposed on at least one surface of the copper nanosheet array because potassium ion (K+) doping a CuO nanostructure improves the electrochemical performance.
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different field based on the function or property of the known work if the
variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2141 and § 2141.03).
The motivation to combine prior art references can arise from the expectation that the prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when combined for their commonly known purpose (MPEP § 2141 and § 2144.07).
III. Claim(s) 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Copper Oxide Derived Nanostructured Self-Supporting Cu Electrodes for Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Dec 20), Vol. 328, pp. 1-11) in view of Zhong et al. (“Coupling of Cu (100) and (110) Facets Promotes Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Hydrocarbons and Alcohols,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2021 Feb 23), Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 4879-4885) and MTX Labs (“All About H Type Electrochemical Cell (H-cell),” Sept. 18, 2023, pp. 1-7) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Han et al. (“A Reconstructed Porous Copper Surface Promotes Selectivity and Efficiency Toward C2 Products by Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction,” Chemical Science (2020), Vol. 11, No. 39, pp. 10698-10704).
Wang, Zhong and MTX Labs are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the step of reducing the oxidized copper composite is conducted in situ in the electrochemical cell (= in this study, three kinds of nanostructured self-supporting Cu-based-electrodes with nanowire, nanosheet and nanoflower morphologies were in-situ prepared from Cu foam by the impregnation method and in-situ reduced to metallic Cu by cyclic voltammetry (CV)) [page 2, right column, lines 15-19].
Furthermore, Han teaches that the surface of the polycrystalline electropolished Cu (EP-
Cu) electrode is reconstructed by electrochemical oxidative-reductive cycling in 0.1 M KHCO3 aqueous solution with the help of halide anions (Fig. 1a) [page 10699, left column, lines 1-4; and Fig. 1a:
PNG
media_image3.png
133
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
].
All of the results highlight that the surface reconstruction by electrochemical oxidation-
reduction cycling in the presence of halide anions significantly promotes C2 product formation
and Re-Cu–I exhibits the best performance (page 10701, left column, lines 21-24).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the surface reconstruction by
electrochemical oxidation-reduction cycling in the presence of halide anions significantly promotes C2 product formation.
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different field based on the function or property of the known work if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2141 and § 2141.03).
The motivation to combine prior art references can arise from the expectation that the
prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when
combined for their commonly known purpose (MPEP § 2141 and § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive. The standing prior art rejections have been maintained for the following reasons:
• Applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Wang in view of the teachings of Zhong, because Zhong discloses a different nanostructure of Cu electrode from Wang.
In response, the rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150 USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
Wang teaches that:
As clearly seen from the SEM images (Fig. 1), along with the different oxidation time in the electrodes preparation process, the three electrodes present different morphologies, i.e. nanowires (CuNW) (20 min) (Fig. 1a-b), nanosheets (CuNS) (120 min) (Fig. 1c-d), and nanoflowers (CuNF) (720 min) (Fig. 1e-f), respectively. Moreover, obviously these three nanostructured Cu oxide species are all uniformly coated on the surface of Cu foam. From the higher magnification SEM images (Fig. 1b), it can be clearly seen that in the case of CuNW, the length of nanowires is about 20 mm with a diameter of ~120 nm. As for CuNS (Fig. 1d), the length of the nanosheet is about 30 mm and the thickness about 20 nm. Furthermore, CuNF resembles a pinball structure (Fig. 1f), which is a cluster of nanosheets that grow in a certain direction at certain locations (page 3, left column, lines 40-52).
These results indicate that the morphology of the nanostructured self-supporting Cu electrodes is heavily dependent on the oxidation time of Cu foams in the alkaline oxidizing agent. When the reaction time is no more than 10 min, the surface color of the Cu foam gradually becomes dim and the metallic luster disappears. As the oxidation time extends to 10-20 min, a uniform blue film can be gradually formed on the surface of Cu foam, indicating the formation of CuNW, which has also been previously reported [34].
When the oxidation time continues to increase to 20-120 min, the blue film gradually changes into a uniform grey-black film, indicating the formation of CuNS, as verified by SEM results (Fig. 1e and f). Along with the further increment in the oxidation time for Cu foam, the grey black gradually deepens, indicating the further assemblage of nanoflowers. The above described color change can be seen in Fig. S2 (page 3, right column, lines 4-10).
Oxidizing a copper foam in the alkaline oxidizing agent for 120 minutes forms copper
nanosheets on the surface of the Cu foam. It is deemed that this nanostructured Cu oxide species uniformly coated on the surface of the Cu foam is electrochemically reduced at a voltage of -0.5 V vs. RHE because at a voltage of -0.5 V vs. RHE, Cu-(OH)2, CuO, and Cu2O species disappear, resulting in the reduction to metallic copper (Zhong: page 4480, left column, lines 13-31).
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different field based on the function or property of the known work if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2141 and § 2141.03).
The motivation to combine prior art references can arise from the expectation that the
prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when
combined for their commonly known purpose (MPEP § 2141 and § 2144.07).
Furthermore, Wang teaches that before potentiostatic tests, all nanostructured Cu electrodes were treated by CV method in the potential range from -1.0 to 0.1 V until the electrodes were stable. What’s more, through this CV treatment, Cu(II) can be in-situ converted into Cu(0); so that only Cu(0) species exist at the Cu foam surface after CV treatment, which act as the active sites for ERCD (page 3, right column, lines 55-60).
The voltage of -0.5 V of Zhong lies within the potential range of from -1.0 to 0.1 V of
Wang. Thus, the voltage of -0.5 V is a reducing voltage.
• Applicant states that since the copper composite of the claimed method prepared in accordance with the recited steps exhibits substantially higher FE of C2+ hydrocarbon products than the CuNS of Wang and CuNW of Zhong, then the chemical composition of the electrodes cannot be identical.
In response, present claim 1, lines 8-9 and 13-15, recite that “the copper composite is prepared by contacting a copper substrate with an oxidizing agent” and “electrochemically reducing the oxidized copper composite at a potential not exceeding a range of from -1.1 V to -0.2 V”.
The method as presently claimed can produce the copper composite of the Wang combination because similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties. In re Spada 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (CAFC 1990); In re DeBlauwe 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (CAFC 1984); In re Wiegand 182 F.2d 633, 86 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1950).
Since all of the elements of the claimed method were accounted for in the prior art, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning does not render it patentably new to the discoverer (MPEP § 2112).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claim in a product-by-process limitation, the burden is on the Applicants to present evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably
conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. In re Brown 459 F. 2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972); In re Fessman 489 F. 2d 742, 180 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) [MPEP § 2113].
• Applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have predicted the markedly improved yield of C2H4 and C2+ hydrocarbon products of the claimed method based
on the teachings of Wang in view of Zhong and MTX Labs, which further evidences the non-
obviousness of claim 1.
In response, the testing of the method described for its ability to achieve an improved
yield of C2H4 and C2+ hydrocarbon products is not commensurate in scope with the present claims. The present claims are more generic than what was tested and what was tested was not representative of the overall broadness of what is presently claimed, i.e., the ability to achieve an improved yield of C2H4 and C2+ hydrocarbon products only works for what was specifically tested.
Furthermore, the Applicant has a different reason for, or advantage, resulting from doing what the prior art relied upon has suggested, it is noted that it is well settled that this is not demonstrative of nonobviousness. The prior art motivation or advantage may be different
than that of Applicant’s while still supporting a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP § 2144).
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Jang et al. (“Facile Design of Oxide‐Derived Cu Nanosheet Electrocatalyst for CO2 Reduction Reaction,” EcoMat. (2023 May), Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 1-9) is cited to teach overall
faradaic efficiencies at a potential of -1.1 V vs. RHE, partial faradaic efficiency (FE) for (C) C2H4 and (D) C2+ products (page 5, Fig. 3(B)).
Qu et al. (“Creating Interfaces of Cu0/Cu+ in Oxide-Derived Copper Catalysts for
Electrochemical CO2 Reduction to Multi-Carbon Products,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science (2023 Sep 1), Vol. 645, pp. 735-742) is cited to teach CuO-ER (Cu/Cu2O) catalyst was
obtained by in-situ electrochemical reduction of CuO NS electrode in a CO2-saturated 0.1 M KHCO3 solution at 1.0 V for 600 s (page 737, right column, lines 13-15).
Liu et al. (“Electrochemical CO2 Reduction to Ethylene by Ultrathin CuO Nanoplate Arrays,” Nature Communications (2022 Apr 6), Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-12) is cited to teach the preparation and characterization of CuO-NPs (page 3, Fig. 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS
from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a))
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 September 22, 2025