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 .
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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0195184 A1 to Fleischer et al. (Fleischer) in view of US 2023/0050756 A1 to Kuku et al. (Kuku).
As to claim 1, Fleischer teaches a system for hydrogen generation and carbon dioxide storage, the system comprising an electrolyzer (E1) (a metal-carbon dioxide battery) including an anode (A), a cathode (K) and a separator (M) between the anode (A) and the cathode (K), a first supply unit (P2) to supply a first electrolyte to the anode (A); a second supply unit (P1) configured to supply a second electrolyte to the cathode, the electrolyte comprising hydrogen ions and aqueous alkali bicarbonate solution formed from fresh carbon dioxide dissolution and a recycle stream; a separation unit (G1) configured to separate hydrogen gas from a product discharged from the cathode; an electrolyte circulation unit including a buffer reservoir (PR) located at a rear end of the separation unit (G1) such that the electrolyte circulation unit receives and stores the circulating liquid from the separation unit (G1); and a dissolution unit (CO2-R) disposed downstream of the separation unit (G1) and configured to dissolve carbon dioxide in a stating material received from the electrolyte circulation unit to manufacture an electrolyte precursor solution (Paragraphs 0041, 0052 and 0069-0071; Figure 1).
However, Fleischer fails to teach specifically where the carbon dioxide utilized comes from and thus fails to teach a carbon dioxide purification unit. However, Kuku teaches that a pure carbon dioxide steam can be generated from an impure flue gas stream via a carbon dioxide purification system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0018 and 0023; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Fleischer with the addition of a carbon dioxide purification unit in order to provide pure carbon dioxide, thus eliminating undesirable by products, from an impure available source like flue gas, thus providing beneficial cleaning of flue gas, as taught by Kuku.
As to claim 5, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleisher further teaches that the separator comprising a cation conductive resin, for example Nafion (Paragraphs 0019 and 0073).
As to claim 6, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The remaining limitation of claim 8 are merely narrowing a functional limitation of claim 1, “configured to supply a first electrolyte”; the anolyte side pump and circulation circuit of Fleischer would be capable of supplying any number of electrolytes including sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 7, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the pH of the second electrolyte is, for example, 8 (Paragraph 0043).
As to claim 8, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the bicarbonate is aqueous sodium bicarbonate (Paragraph 0041).
As to claim 9, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of Fleischer would be capable of operating with any number of catholyte compositions, and thus a composition with bicarbonate at 0.5 to 2M, furthermore Fleisher specifically discusses how concentration can be modified for different conditions rendering obvious optimization of this parameter (Paragraphs 0045 and 0088; MPEP 2114).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fleischer and Kuku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0352498 A1 to Raman (Raman).
As to claim 2, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the apparatus comprises a unit (AB) for precipitating and separating, at least indirectly, a portion of the alkali bicarbonate from the precursor fed from the dissolution unit and to supply the second electrolyte to the second supply unit (P1), the unit comprising a cooler for lowering and temperature and precipitating the bicarbonate (Paragraph 0071; Figure 1). However, Fleischer is silent as to specifically how the precipitated bicarbonate is separated after precipitation. However, Raman also discusses the precipitation of carbonate materials and teaches that they can be separated from the remaining solution via a filter (Paragraph 0150). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the unit of Fleischer with a filter, thus a filtration unit, with the reasonable expectation of effectively separating the precipitate form the solution as taught by Raman.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fleischer and Kuku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0069819 A1 to Farrukh et al. (Farrukh).
As to claim 3, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Fleischer fails to teach an anode comprises zinc or aluminum, teaching that an anode side reaction comprises the generation of chlorine, however, further specifically teaching that this is merely an exemplary anode reaction and other reactions for producing other valuable products can be utilized (Paragraph 0067). Farrukh further teaches that a valuable anode reaction in aqueous solutions is the generation of zinc oxide from an anode comprising zinc (Claim 1). Therefore, is would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the anode side reaction by utilizing an anode formed of zinc to generate a different valuable product such as zinc oxide as taught by Farrukh.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fleischer and Kuku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0005911 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claim 4, the combination of Fleischer and Kuku teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fleischer further teaches that the cathode is a porous metal, but fails to specifically teach the formation of this porous metal (Paragraph 0074; Table 1). However, Kim also discusses carbon dioxide utilization at a cathode and teaches that an effective form for providing a metal cathode is as a metal foam (Abstract; Paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the cathode of Fleischer as a metal foam with the reasonable expectation of effectively providing the cathode as taught by Kim.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 3-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/229,723 in view of Fleischer and Kuku. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claim 1 and 3-9 with the exception of a dissolution unit for capturing the carbon dioxide and a carbon dioxide purification unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Fleischer and Kuku.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/229,723 in view of Fleischer and Kuku and further in view of Raman. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claim 2 with the exception of filtration unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Fleischer and Raman.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/143,390 in view of Kuku. The copending claims claim all the limitations of claim 1 and 3-10 with the exception of a carbon dioxide purification unit; however, as discussed above this is rendered obvious by Kuku.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 10-20 is the inclusion of the limitation narrowing the carbon dioxide purification unit such that it includes all of an adsorbent storage, an intake module, a degassing module, an effluent distribution module each configured to operate as claimed, particularly in view of the effluent distribution module connected to discharge to both the electrolyte circulation unit and to the absorbent storage module. While adsorbing and degassing carbon dioxide is known, the additional step of provided this degassed fluid separately to the cell and back as absorbent is not obvious, the prior art teaching that when the same absorbent is utilized as can be flown to the cell to directly flow this absorbent to the cell without a separate step of degassing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0002775 A1 to Matsumoto et al. – General apparatus and external supply means
US 2016/0017503 A1 to Kaczur et al. – KOH and NaOH as anolytes
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
Prosecution Insights