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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 16 January 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 21 and 23 are currently pending of which claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21 and 23 are currently amended. Claims 8, 18-20 and 22 have been cancelled.
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 1, 2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0087233 A1 to Ono et al. (Ono) in view of US 2020/0220185 A1 to Ma et al. (Ma) and further in view of US 2020/0240023 A1 to Cave et al. (Cave) and further in view of US 2023/0160293 to Nguyen et al. (Nguyen).
As to claims 1 and 2, Ono teaches a method for carbon oxide electrolysis comprising a carbon oxide reduction reactor comprising a MEA comprising a cathode and an anode separated by an ion exchange membrane, inputting a source of gaseous carbon oxide, carbon dioxide (301), to the cathode (22) of a carbon oxide reduction reactor (2), inputting anolyte solution (102) from an anode solution circulation system (100) to the anode (11) of the reactor (2), inputting electrical power to the carbon oxide reduction reactor and reducing the carbon dioxide to produce a carbon-containing species such as carbon monoxide (Paragraphs 0025 and 0043-0047; Figure 1).
Ono further teaches that the apparatus comprises a control system (500) for controlling the system including controller the pressure and the flow rate of the anolyte solution (Paragraph 0045). However, Ono fails to specifically discuss controlling the temperature of the anolyte or the system as a whole.
However, Ma also discusses the electrolytic reduction of carbon dioxide and teaches that temperature plays a critical role in the electrolytic process (Paragraph 0059) and that the temperature of the cell should be controlled via heating and cooling (105) of the anolyte solution including a first heating step during startup wherein the anolyte is heated to, for example, 40°C prior to input into the cell, and subsequent cooling steps during a phase after startup, in order to optimize the reduction (Paragraphs 0059 and 0086; Figure 1D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Ono with temperature control as in Ma, in order to optimize the electrolytic reduction process as taught by Ma and thus a method in which all of the temperature, pressure and flow rate of the anolyte solution is controlled, and thus a method in which the temperature differential of the anolyte across the anode is controlled.
However, Ono fails to further teach that the carbon oxide reduction reactor comprises a stack of cells. However, Ma further teaches that carbon oxide reactors can be provided in plurality in a stack (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of the cells of Ono in a stack, thus increasing capacity of the reactor, as taught by Ma.
However, the combination fails to further teach removing dissolved metal ions from the anolyte prior to input to the anode. However, Cave also discussed the reduction of carbon dioxide with a water containing anolyte (Figure 1A) and teaches that prior to delivery of the water to the carbon dioxide reducing cell unwanted ions and other impurities should be removed through use of, for example, a particulate filter and a purifying resin bed, such as a CR11 resin, a cation selective resin, to generate ultra-high purity water (Paragraph 0124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to send the anolyte to a particulate filter and a cation exchange resin bed, thus a step which would remove dissolved metal ions and particulates, in order to ensure pure water provision as taught by Cave.
However, the combination fails to further teach that the cation exchange resin bed, the particulate filter and the reduction reactors are located on a skid. However, Nguyen also discusses electrolytic carbon dioxide reduction and teaches that the system components, such as the reaction apparatus and filtering apparatus, should be provided on a skid in order to provide the system as a whole to a desired location (Paragraph 0043). 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 by providing the process units, including the particulate filter, the resin bed and the plurality of reduction reactors on a skid in order to allow for the provision of the system as a whole to a desired locations as taught by Nguyen.
As to claim 4, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 1. Ono further teaches that the method comprises introducing a reduction product stream from the reactor (2) to a catholyte separator (401) to produce a liquid stream enriched in water (returned to cathode solution tank (202)) and a gaseous product stream enriched in the carbon containing species (sent to product collection unit (402)) (Paragraphs 0046-0047; Figure 1).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 4. However, Ono fails to further teach that at least a portion of the liquid stream is recycled to the anolyte circulation system. However, Ma also discusses the separation of a liquid stream from the cathode product and teaches that this liquid component can be recycled to the anolyte (Paragraph 0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Ono to recycle a portion of the liquid component from the cathode side product to the anolyte in order to provide additional means for supplying the anolyte component as taught by Ma.
As to claim 6, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 1. Ono further teaches that the ion exchange membrane comprises a catalyst layer for facilitating the reduction of the carbon dioxide to the carbon monoxide (Paragraphs 0038 and 0042).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 1. Ono further teaches that the method comprises introducing an oxidation product stream produced form the reactor to an anolyte separator unit (102) and separating the oxidation product stream to produce a liquid stream enriched in water and a gaseous stream enriched in molecular oxygen (Paragraph 0045; Figure 1).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 1. Ono further teaches that the method comprises mixing a salt in with the water to form the anolyte solution, thus controlling ion conductivity of the anolyte solution (Paragraph 0043).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0064808 to Ono et al. (Ono ‘808).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ono, Ma, Cave and Nguyen teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, the combination teaches that the temperature differential is controlled. However, the combination fails to teach that the temperature differential is controlled to not more than 5°C. However, Ono ‘808 also discusses temperatures during operation of carbon dioxide reduction electrolysis and teaches that as cell temperature increases the cell output and performance is likely to decrease (Paragraphs 0005 and 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature differential across the anode to as small as possible in order to prevent cell heating during operation in order to optimize the cell output and performance.
Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono ‘808.
As to claims 10, 11 and 16, Ono ‘808 teaches a method for carbon oxide electrolysis comprising inputting anolyte solution from an anolyte circulation system (200) to an anode inlet of a carbon reduction reactor (100) at a first rate, the anolyte solution serving as both an anolyte and as a coolant for the carbon oxide reduction reactor, the carbon oxide reduction reactor having a plurality of electrolyzer cells, each cell having an anode flow field (112) that is fluidically connected with the anode inlet of the carbon oxide reduction reactor and configured to provide the anolyte solution to a corresponding anode of that electrolyzer cell, inputting a source of gaseous carbon dioxide (301) to a cathode of the reactor, inputting electrical power to the carbon oxide reduction reactor and electrochemically reducing the gaseous carbon dioxide to produce a carbon containing species (Paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0032, 0033, 0063, 0121; Figures 1 and 2).
Ono ‘808 further teaches that the temperature of the cell is critical, that an effective operating temperature is 25°C, and that the temperature of the anolyte within the cell should be controlled so that there is minimal temperature rise within the cell as temperature increase decreases cell output, thus minimal temperature differential, wherein the minimal temperature differential occurs via using the anolyte as the coolant (Paragraphs 0057-0062, 0075 and 0082; Figure 1). Minimal temperature rise rendering obvious maintaining the temperature differential to 10°C or less. Ono ‘808 further teaches that this temperature control is achieved via control of the flow rate and ratio of the anolyte (Paragraph 0076, 0084, 0087 and 0100).
Ono ‘808 teaches throughout that a plurality of cells are utilized in a stack, but only once discusses a specific number of cell, ten cells (Paragraph 0121). However, the duplication of parts is not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 VI B), thus rendering obvious examples wherein the stack comprises up to 200 cells. The specific examples of Ono ‘808 teach a lower flow rate through the anode flow path than claimed at a certain cell catalyst area (Paragraphs 121 and 123); however, changes in size and proportion are not patentably significant, thus rendering obvious larger cells and larger corresponding flow rates and the optimization of these larger flow rates to optimize the temperature control.
As to claim 12, Ono ‘808 teaches the method of claim 10. Ono ‘808 further teaches that effective separation comprises introducing a reduction product stream from the cell to a catholyte separator (401) to separate a reduction product stream to produce a liquid stream enriched in water and a gaseous stream (402) enriched in carbon containing species produced from the cell (Paragraph 0074; Figure 1).
As to claim 14, Ono ‘808 teaches the method of claim 10. Ono ‘808 further teaches that the reduction reactor (100) comprises an MEA comprising an ion conductive polymer layer (131) and a cathode catalyst layer for facilitating the reaction (Paragraphs 0028 and 0044).
As to claim 15, Ono ‘808 teaches the method of claim 10. Ono ‘808 further teaches the method further comprises introducing an oxidation product stream from the cell to an anolyte separator (201) to separate a reduction product stream to produce a liquid stream enriched in water and a gaseous stream enriched in molecular oxygen produced from the cell (Paragraph 0056; Figure 1).
As to claim 17, Ono ‘808 teaches the method of claim 10. Ono ‘808 further teaches that a salt is introduced into the anolyte, thus controlling a salt concentration and ion conductivity of the anolyte solution introduced into the carbon oxide reduction reactor (Paragraph 0118).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono ‘808 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ma.
As to claim 13, Ono ‘808 teaches the method of claim 12. However, Ono ‘808 fails to further teach that at least a portion of the liquid stream is recycled to the anolyte circulation system. However, Ma also discusses the separation of a liquid stream from the cathode product and teaches that this liquid component can be recycled to the anolyte (Paragraph 0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Ono ‘808 to recycle a portion of the liquid component from the cathode side product to the anolyte in order to provide additional means for supplying the anolyte component as taught by Ma.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Cave and further in view of Nguyen.
As to claims 21 and 23, Ma teaches a method of operating a carbon oxide reduction system comprising a plurality of carbon oxide reduction reactors each comprising a cathode and an anode separated by an ion exchange membrane, the method comprising inputting a source of carbon oxide, such as carbon dioxide, to the cathodes, inputting anolyte solution, for example water with salt, to the anodes, controlling the temperature of the anolyte and the flow rate of the anolyte, and thus controlling the temperature differential of the anolyte across the anodes, inputting electrical power to the reduction system, electrochemically reducing the carbon dioxide to produce a carbon containing species, such as carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons, removing a stream from the cathodes comprising the reduction product, hydrogen, water and unreacted carbon dioxide, separating the water (thus a water knockout system) for return to the anolyte, separating the reduction product and the hydrogen for downstream product usage, and separating unreacted carbon dioxide for return to the cathode of the reduction system (Paragraphs 0018, 0059, 0079, 0080, 0083, 0084, 0086, 0099 and 0100; Figures 1D and 12).
However, Ma fails to further teach that recycling the water from the cathode side separation to the anolyte includes removing dissolved metal ions from the anolyte recycle prior to input to the anode.
However, Cave also discussed the reduction of carbon dioxide wherein water is recycled from the cathode side to the anolyte (Figure 1A) and teaches that prior to delivery of the water to the carbon dioxide reducing cell unwanted ions and other impurities should be removed through use of, for example, a particulate filter and a purifying resin bed, such as a CR11 resin, a cation selective resin, to generate ultra-high purity water (Paragraph 0124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to send the combined recycle anolyte of Ma to a particulate filter and a cation exchange resin bed, thus a step which would remove dissolved metal ions and particulates, in order to ensure pure water provision as taught by Cave.
However, the combination fails to further teach that the cation exchange resin bed, the particulate filter and the reduction reactors are located on a skid. However, Nguyen also discusses electrolytic carbon dioxide reduction and teaches that the system components, such as the reaction apparatus and filtering apparatus, should be provided on a skid in order to provide the system as a whole to a desired location (Paragraph 0043). 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 by providing the process units, including the particulate filter, the resin bed and the plurality of reduction reactors on a skid in order to allow for the provision of the system as a whole to a desired locations as taught by Nguyen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the claims as amended are not taught by the prior art; however, as discussed above, the Examiner disagrees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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