DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 09/24/2024 and 08/20/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 03/28/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at least one porous diaphragm or ion exchange membrane, and the claim also positively recites porous which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In clam 6, it is not clear what kind of species pH difference promotes across.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
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.
Claims 1,35, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2017 /0137951 to Xie (Xie).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Xie discloses a flow electrochemical cell device (Title) comprising :a pair of opposed electrodes including: a negative electrode configured to be in fluid communication with an alkaline negative electrolyte Fig. 2, para 40,17) for producing CO2-bearing anions (para 60); and a positive electrode configured to be in fluid communication with an acidic positive electrolyte (cathode, para17), the alkaline negative electrolyte and the acidic positive electrolyte further comprising redox active molecules that participate in redox reactions to store electrical energy (para 7) , at least one porous diaphragm or ion exchange membrane in contact with an opposed electrode of the pair of opposed electrodes (Fig. 1) and an intermediate neutralyte layer adjacent the porous diaphragm and between the pair of opposed electrodes, the porous diaphragm and the neutralyte layer (para 6,7) configured to maintain a pH differential between the negative electrode and the positive electrode based on the redox reactions (claim 1). As such instant claim 1 is anticipated by Xie.
Regarding claim 3, Xie discloses wherein the porous diaphragm further comprises an ion-exchange membrane adapted for selective diffusion (para 54).
Regarding claim 5, Xie discloses a second ion-exchange membrane (Fig. 1 ).
Regarding claim 6, Xie discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since all structural limitations of Xie are substantially similar to that as claimed, the claimed limitation: he pH differential forms across the neutralyte layer is inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 9, Xie discloses a connection from the positive and negative electrodes to an electric load, wherein the pH differential results in a difference in potential between the positive electrode and the negative electrode for forming a current flow to the electric load (para 59, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Xie discloses wherein the neutralyte layer further comprises a porous catalytic material, the porous catalytic material selected based on an ability to react with at least one of the alkaline negative electrolyte or acidic positive electrolyte (para 12,13).
Regarding claim 14, Xie discloses wherein he negative electrolyte and the neutralyte comprise different substances and the negative electrolyte is in communication with a waste CO2 source (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Xie discloses a fluidic connection supplying and circulating the alkaline negative electrolyte; and a fluidic connection supplying and circulating the acidic positive electrolyte (Fig. 2,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2, 4, 7 and 8 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2017 /0137951 to Xie (Xie) in view of WO 2015/026393 to Tolmachev (Tolmachev).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 7-9, Xie discloses the invention as discussed above an applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Xie does not expressly disclose wherein the neutralyte layer is porous.
Tolmachev discloses a flow electrochemical cell comprising : a negative electrode configured to be in fluid communication with alkaline negative electrolyte, a positive electrode configured to be in fluid communication with acidic positive electrolyte, ion exchange membranes comprising a positive side ion exchange membrane and a negative side ion exchange membrane positioned parallel to each other a second ion-exchange membrane in contact with the positive electrode(Claim 96), Fig.1); and inert intermediate neutralyte layer between the first ion-exchange membrane and the second ion-exchange membrane (205c, para 133, reads on porous diaphragm).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow electrochemical cell of Xie with the porous polymer or ceramic neutralyte layer , as taught by Tolmachev, because The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious and would prevent impurity crossover.. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding the limitations:” ion exchange membrane is disposed between the neutralyte layer and the negative electrode”, ‘wherein the ion exchange membrane is disposed between the neutralyte layer and the negative electrode” and “wherein the ion exchange membrane is disposed between the neutralyte layer and the positive electrode”: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rearrange the porous and ion-exchange layers, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0137951 to Xie in view of US 2009/0127127 to Jones (Jones).
Regarding claim 11, Xie discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 10 and incorporated therein. Xie does not expressly disclose wherein the CO2 -bearing anions are transported to the neutralyte layer where they react with protons and thereby release the captured CO2 as a pure gas.
Jones teaches apparatuses and methods for removing carbon dioxide and other pollutants from a gas stream (Abstract). Jones also teaches that can CO2 -bearing anions can be absorbed and neutralized to produce and produce and release about 100% pure CO2, which can be concentrated and used for further sequestration techniques (para 150-154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Xie with the apparatuses and process for removing CO2 as a pure gas , as taught by Jones because such modification allow to use obtained pure CO2 further sequestration techniques.
Regarding claim 13, Xie discloses wherein the CO2-bearing anions are transported to the neutralyte layer either via ion migration through the first ion-exchange membrane, or by transport of the alkaline negative electrolyte via a pump (para 40, 56).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0137951 to Xie in view of WO 2019/160413 to Coetheer
Regarding claim 14, Xie discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Xie does not expressly disclose wherein a CO2 gas absorber in fluid communication with the alkaline negative electrolyte.
Coetheer teaches method for electrochemically reducing carbon dioxide, and an apparatus for performing the method (Abstract). In addition, Coetheer teaches that a carbon dioxide-containing gas stream is brought in contact with a capture solvent (i.e. different substance. This process may be performed in a unit, such as an absorber unit. The capture solvent may selectively absorb and/or chemically react with carbon dioxide (p.11, ln.5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tolmachev with the absorber in a fluid communication with alkaline negative electrolyte as taught by Coetheer, in order to completely remove CO2
Double Patenting
Claims 1and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 11949139 Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in that the abovementioned claims of US Patent No. 11949139 contain all the limitations of above mentioned claims of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 and rejection of the base claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) will overcome .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights