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.
Claim 2 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.
The term “strong” in line 3 of claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the degree of alkalinity has been rendered indefinite.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. (US Patent Application no. 2021/0381116) in view of Yamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0247804).
Regarding claim 1, Kashi discloses a carbon dioxide treatment device (paragraphs 6-10), comprising:
a collection device that collects carbon dioxide (CO2 capture subsystem; paragraphs 57, 216);
a first electrochemical reaction part having a first electrolysis cell that electrochemically reduces the carbon dioxide collected with the collection device to carbon monoxide (figure 5 shows a two-stage system comprising a first electrolyzer configured to reduce CO2 to CO; paragraph 184);
a second electrochemical reaction part having a second electrolysis cell that electrochemically reduces the carbon monoxide generated in the first electrochemical reaction part to ethylene (figure 5 – the output of the first electrolyzer is fed to a second electrolyzer to produce ethylene; paragraph 184).
Kashi fails to teach a microbubble generation part that supplies the carbon monoxide generated in the first electrochemical reaction part to the second electrochemical reaction part as microbubbles.
Yamada discloses an electrochemical reaction device for the reduction of carbon dioxide into carbon compounds, the device comprising a bubble generating part (51) which generates fine bubbles containing the gas to be fed into the electrochemical cell. The particle size of the fine bubbles is 50 μm or less. Consequently, the fine bubbles containing gas have a large specific surface area with respect to the electrolytic solution (2A) and stay long in the electrolytic solution. This improves a dissolution velocity of the gas in the electrolytic solution which increases the gas concentration in the electrolytic solution, leading to improved total efficiency (paragraphs 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to supply the carbon monoxide to the second electrolyzer of Kashi using a microbubble generation part because as taught by Yamada, fine bubbles containing gas have a large specific surface area with respect to the electrolytic solution and stay long in the electrolyte. This improves a dissolution velocity of the gas in the solution which increases the gas concentration in the electrolyte, leading to improved total efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, the collection device of Kashi includes a carbon dioxide absorption part that dissolves and absorbs carbon dioxide in a strong alkaline electrolytic solution, and the carbon dioxide dissolved in the electrolytic solution in the carbon dioxide absorption part is supplied to the first electrochemical reaction part (paragraphs 184, 218; figure 5 shows CO2 fed into the first electrolyzer).
Regarding claim 3, the first electrolysis cell of Kashi includes a cathode, an anode, an ion exchange membrane provided between the cathode and the anode, a cathode-side liquid flow path that is provided adjacent to the cathode and through which the electrolytic solution containing the dissolved carbon dioxide flows, and an anode-side liquid flow path that is provided adjacent to the anode and through which the electrolytic solution flows (paragraphs 6-7, 14; figure 3b), and
the second electrolysis cell includes a cathode, an anode, an ion exchange membrane provided between the cathode and the anode, a cathode-side gas flow path that is provided adjacent to the cathode and through which a gas flows, a cathode-side liquid flow path that is provided adjacent to the cathode and through which the electrolytic solution flows, and an anode-side liquid flow path that is provided adjacent to the anode and through which the electrolytic solution flows (paragraphs 184-188).
Regarding claim 4, Kashi discloses a carbon dioxide treatment method for electrochemically reducing carbon dioxide (paragraphs 6-10), the method comprising:
a first step of electrochemically reducing carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide with a first electrolysis cell (figure 5 shows a two-stage method comprising a first electrolyzer configured to reduce CO2 to CO; paragraph 184); and
a second step of supplying the carbon monoxide generated by the first step to a second electrolysis cell (the output of the first electrolyzer is fed to a second electrolyzer; paragraph 184);
and a third step of electrochemically reducing the carbon monoxide generated by the second step to ethylene (paragraph 184; also shown in figure 5).
Kashi fails to teach that the CO is generated/fed as microbubbles.
Yamada discloses an electrochemical reaction method and device for the reduction of carbon dioxide into carbon compounds, the device comprising a bubble generating part (51) which generates fine bubbles containing the gas to be fed into the electrochemical cell. The particle size of the fine bubbles is 50 μm or less. Consequently, the fine bubbles containing gas have a large specific surface area with respect to the electrolytic solution (2A) and stay long in the electrolytic solution. This improves a dissolution velocity of the gas in the electrolytic solution which increases the gas concentration in the electrolytic solution, leading to improved total efficiency (paragraphs 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to supply the carbon monoxide as microbubbles, in the method of Kashi because as taught by Yamada, fine bubbles/microbubbles containing gas have a large specific surface area with respect to the electrolytic solution and stay long in the electrolyte. This improves a dissolution velocity of the gas in the solution which increases the gas concentration in the electrolyte, leading to improved total efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Kashi discloses an ethylene production method for producing ethylene by reducing carbon dioxide by the carbon dioxide treatment method according to claim 4 (discussed in detail above, paragraph 184 of Kashi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights