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 Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: each preamble of the respective claims refers to “A electrolyzer assembly” instead of “An electrolyzer assembly”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2024/0076785 to Zhang et al., (hereinafter referred to as “ZHANG”).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches an electrolyzer (see generally ZHANG at Abstract and Fig. 3 & Fig. 4), comprising:
a cathode configured to receive a bicarbonate (HCO3-) solution (see ZHANG at ¶114 discussing cathode 106 in Fig. 3 which as depicted is configured to receive bicarbonate through inlet 124 as claimed);
an anode configured to receive an anolyte (see ZHANG at ¶114 discussing anode 108 in Fig. 3 which as depicted is configured to receive an anolyte through inlet 130 as claimed); and
a cation exchange membrane disposed between the cathode and the anode (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 depicting ion exchange membrane 110 and see also Fig. 4 depicting an ion exchange membrane which ZHANG teaches at ¶113 to be a cation exchange membrane “CEM”),
wherein the electrolyzer is configured to convert the bicarbonate (HCO3-) solution to a formate (OOCH-) solution by movement of cations from the anode to the cathode via the cation exchange membrane (see ZHANG at ¶2 teaching the apparatus for converting bicarbonate to useful products; see also ZHANG at ¶3 teaching an example of those useful products including formate).
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the bicarbonate (HCO3-) solution is capable of comprising potassium bicarbonate, sodium bicarbonate, or calcium bicarbonate (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 teaching the electrolyzer having inlet 124 capable of having a bicarbonate solution as claimed; Fig. 3 also teaches the use of potassium bicarbonate).
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the formate (OOCH-) solution comprises potassium formate, sodium formate, or calcium formate (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 teaching the electrolyzer having outlet 128 capable of having a formate solution as claimed; see also ZHANG at ¶3 teaching one of the useful products being formate which with the use of potassium bicarbonate would result in the formation of potassium formate).
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer capable of having the bicarbonate solution and formate solution as claimed (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 5-6, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the cathode chamber is capable of being pressurized and is sealed from an external air as claimed and which is capable of having CO2 in the headspace and at the partial pressure as claimed (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 depicting an electrolytic flow cell having housings and flow channels such that the cathode chamber is sealed from external air; see also ZHANG at ¶13 teaching the pressure of the bicarbonate being from 1.1 to 40 atmospheres such that the cathode chamber would be capable of being pressurized as claimed with CO2 gas).
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the anolyte has a specific initial pH and the bicarbonate solution has a specific initial pH (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 teaching an electrolyzer which is to hold an anolyte and catholyte; see also ZHANG at ¶16 and ¶103 teaching the bicarbonate catholyte having a pH at or greater than 4 and the anolyte being sulfuric, hydrochloric or phosphoric acid such that the electrolyzer is capable of operating under conditions as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, ZHANG teaches an electrolyzer assembly (see generally ZHANG at Abstract and Fig. 3 & Fig. 4), comprising:
a cathode disposed in a cathode chamber having ports for receiving a bicarbonate (HCO3-) solution (see ZHANG at ¶114 discussing cathode 106 in Fig. 3 which as depicted is configured to receive bicarbonate through inlet 124 as claimed);
an anode disposed in an anode chamber having ports for receiving an anolyte (see ZHANG at ¶114 discussing anode 108 in Fig. 3 which as depicted is configured to receive an anolyte through inlet 130 as claimed);
a cation exchange membrane disposed between the cathode chamber and the anode chamber (see ZHANG at Fig. 3 depicting ion exchange membrane 110 and see also Fig. 4 depicting an ion exchange membrane which ZHANG teaches at ¶113 to be a cation exchange membrane “CEM”); and
a buffer layer disposed between the cathode chamber and the cation exchange membrane (see ZHANG at ¶26),
wherein the electrolyzer is configured to convert the bicarbonate (HCO3-) solution to a formate (OOCH-) solution by movement of cations from the anode to the cathode via the cation exchange membrane (see ZHANG at ¶2 teaching the apparatus for converting bicarbonate to useful products; see also ZHANG at ¶3 teaching an example of those useful products including formate).
Regarding claim 12, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer assembly as claimed (see rejections of claims 2-4 above which is incorporated herein).
Regarding claims 13-14, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer assembly as claimed (see rejections of claims 5-6 above which is incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 16, ZHANG teaches the electrolyzer assembly as claimed (see rejection of claim 8 above which is incorporated herein).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of US Pat. No. 6,309,531 to Murray (hereinafter referred to as “MURRAY”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, while ZHANG teaches maintaining the temperature between 60-80 degrees Celsius (see ZHANG at ¶16), ZHANG fails to teach the use of a heating pad as claimed.
However, MURRAY teaches that it is known to heat an electrolytic cell using heating pads (see MURRAY at Example 9 in column 11 teaching the use of heating pads to adjust the temperature of the cell).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in order to maintain the temperature of the cell as desired that some heating device would be needed. Moreover, as taught by MURRAY, one such known method for doing so is through the use of heating pads as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used heating pads as taught by MURRAY to provide the temperature control in the electrolyzer of ZHANG.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of “Engineering Aspects for the Design of a Bicarbonate Zero-Gap Flow Electrolyzer for the Conversion of CO2 to Formate” by Sanchez et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 14, pages 30760-30771 (2022) (hereinafter referred to as “SANCHEZ”).
Regarding claim 9, while ZHANG teaches the use of any cathode catalyst material for forming the desired product (see ZHANG at ¶86), ZHANG fails to explicitly teach the use of tin nanoparticles loaded on the cathode as claimed.
However, SANCHEZ teaches that it is known in the art to form formate when using nanoparticle tin as the cathode catalyst material (see SANCHEZ at page 30763, section 3.1). Moreover, SANCHEZ teaches tin nanoparticles as being a preferred catalyst for the formation of formate (see SANCHEZ at page 30763, section 3.1).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in the electrolyzer of ZHANG to have employed as the catalyst material nanoparticle tin when attempting to form formate from the bicarbonate solution since, as taught by SANCHEZ, it was known to be used for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included nanoparticle tin on the cathode of ZHANG to provide a catalyst material that would assist in the formation of formate as taught by SANCHEZ.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of “Design of an Electrochemical Cell Making Syngas (CO + H2) from CO2 and H2O Reduction at Room Temperature” by Delacourt et al., J. Electrochem. Soc. 155, B42 (2008) (hereinafter referred to as “DELACOURT”).
Regarding claim 10, while ZHANG teaches the use of a buffer layer positioned as claimed (see ZHANG at ¶26), ZHANG fails to explicitly teach the buffer layer being one or more glass fibers impregnated with bicarbonate as claimed.
However, DELACOURT teaches an electrolytic cell having a buffer layer in which the buffer layer is formed of glass fibers impregnated with potassium bicarbonate as claimed (see DELACOURT at page B45, right-hand column, para. 2 and also the last para.).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art was aware that a buffer layer could be provided using glass fibers impregnated as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used as the buffer layer in the electrolyzer of ZHANG the bicarbonate impregnated glass fibers of DELACOURT since it was recognized as a suitable buffer layer.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of MURRAY.
Regarding claim 17, ZHANG in view of MURRAY teaches the electrolyzer as claimed. See teachings of ZHANG as applied to claims 11 and 13 above which are incorporated herein and also the 103 rejection of claim 7 as to the modification of ZHANG with MURRAY also incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, see teachings of ZHANG as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, see teachings of ZHANG as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, see teachings of ZHANG as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights