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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-151516, filed on 09/19/2023.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikoshiba et al. (US 20210079543 A1).
Considering claims 1-3, Mikoshiba discloses an electrolysis device comprising an electrolysis cell, the electrolysis cell comprising: a cathode chamber (first room 3) in which a reduction electrode (8) is arranged and to which a gaseous substance to be reduced is supplied [0013]; an anode chamber (second room 5) in which an oxidation electrode (9) is arranged and to which a substance to be oxidized in a liquid state is supplied [0013]; and a diaphragm (6) provided between the cathode chamber and the anode chamber, wherein the diaphragm includes a composite containing at least an inorganic oxide fine particle and an organic polymer material which binds the inorganic oxide fine particle [0033].
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji et al. (WO 2014181498 A1).
Considering claims 1-3, Fuji discloses an electrolysis device comprising an electrolysis cell, the electrolysis cell comprising: a cathode chamber in which a reduction electrode (cathode) is arranged and to which a gaseous substance to be reduced is supplied (page 1 last paragraph); an anode chamber in which an oxidation electrode (anode) is arranged and to which a substance to be oxidized in a liquid state is supplied (page 2, lines 1-7); and a diaphragm provided between the cathode chamber and the anode chamber (page 2, lines 1-7), wherein the reduction electrode (cathode) includes a composite containing at least an inorganic oxide fine particle (SiO2) (page 3, 2nd paragraph) and an organic polymer material (ionomer having proton conductivity) which binds the inorganic oxide fine particle (page 2, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Considering claims 4 and 5, Fuji discloses the composite included in the reduction electrode further contains a reduction catalyst which reduces the substance to be reduced and the mixing ratio of the conductive material 14 (the mass of the conductive material 14 / (the mass of the metal oxide particles 11 + the mass of the conductive material 14)) is preferably 5 to 95% (page 3, last paragraph), and The mixing ratio of the ionomer 15 and the metal oxide particles 11 is preferably 1% to 1000%, more preferably 5% to 100% (page 4, 2nd paragraph). The ranges of Fuji overlap the claimed ranges because for example for the first ratio of 50% the corresponding claimed ratio is 1, and for the second ratio of Fuji of 50%, the claimed ratio will be 0.5.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawa et al. (WO 2023127933 A1, using US 20250118863 A1 as English equivalent).
Considering claims 1 and 2, Sawa discloses an electrolysis device comprising an electrolysis cell, the electrolysis cell comprising: a cathode chamber in which a reduction electrode is arranged and to which a gaseous substance to be reduced is supplied; an anode chamber in which an oxidation electrode is arranged and to which a substance to be oxidized in a liquid state is supplied (Fig. 4); and a diaphragm provided between the cathode chamber and the anode chamber, wherein the diaphragm includes a composite containing at least an inorganic oxide fine particle and an organic polymer material which binds the inorganic oxide fine particle [0037].
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al. (US 20230295818 A1) in view of Mikoshiba et al. (US 20210079543 A1).
Considering claims 1-3, Nishibayashi discloses an electrolysis device comprising an electrolysis cell, the electrolysis cell comprising: a cathode chamber (105) with a reduction electrode (108) and to which a gaseous substance to be reduced is supplied ([0171] and Fig. 1); an anode chamber (115) with an oxidation electrode (118) and to which a substance to be oxidized in a liquid state is supplied [0173]; and a diaphragm (102) provided between the cathode chamber and the anode chamber, wherein the reduction electrode (cathode) includes a composite containing at least an inorganic oxide fine particle (zinc oxide) [0116] and an organic polymer (electrolyte) [0121], such as Nafion (ion exchange resin) [0122] material which binds the inorganic oxide fine particle [0119].
Nishibayashi does not disclose the electrodes arranged in the cathode chamber and anode chamber, but adjacent in fluid communication with the chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrodes in the chambers when the chambers sandwich the membrane and are in contact with the membrane as common in fuel cells or electrolyzers as depicted in Mikoshiba, as this would not change the operation of the electrolysis device of Nishibayashi and is commonly practiced.
Considering claim 4, Nishibayashi discloses the composite included in the reduction electrode further contains a reduction catalyst which reduces the substance to be reduced and a porous carbon material [0120] which supports the reduction catalyst, and the porous carbon material which supports the reduction catalyst is bound together with the inorganic oxide fine particle by the organic polymer material [0118].
Considering claim 8, Nishibayashi discloses the electrolysis device is a nitrogen electrolysis device configured to reduce nitrogen to manufacture ammonia (Fig. 1); and the reduction electrode contains a molybdenum complex as a reduction catalyst (Abstract).
Considering claim 9, Nishibayashi discloses a nitrogen supply unit (122) including a nitrogen supplier configured to introduce gaseous nitrogen into the cathode chamber (Fig. 2); an ammonia collection unit including an ammonia collector configured to collect ammonia contained in a discharged product from the cathode chamber (Fig. 2); and an ammonia separation unit including an ammonia separator configured to separate ammonia from the electrolytic solution discharged from the anode chamber (Fig. 2).
Considering claim 10, Nishibayashi discloses an electrolytic solution circulation unit including a circulation pipe configured to circulate the electrolytic solution accommodated in the anode chamber outside the anode chamber, and an electrolytic solution storage tank arranged in the circulation pipe and configured to store the electrolytic solution (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa et al. (WO 2023127933 A1, using US 20250118863 A1 as English equivalent).
Considering claim 6, Fuji discloses metal oxide powder in the composition is from 0.5 parts by mass to 4 parts by mass relative to 1 part by mass of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin [0167], which overlaps the claimed range of a mass of the organic polymer material in the composite included in the diaphragm to a mass of the inorganic oxide fine particle is in a range of 0.1 or more and 0.7 or less.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibayashi et al. and Mikoshiba et al., as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Treptow et al. (US 4219400 A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (US 20230295818 A1).
Considering claim 7, Fuji discloses the thickness of the diaphragm is 5 to 300 μm (page 7, last paragraph), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 μm or more and 500 μm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights