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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “n oxidation bath”, in line 3, should read “an oxidation bath”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0395907) in view of von Olshausen et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0175277).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a carbon dioxide reduction device (abstract) comprising:
an oxidation electrode (2a; figure 1) that receives light from the outside (via light source 11 - paragraphs 6-7),
an oxidation bath (3) that holds an electrolytic solution in which the oxidation electrode (2a) is immersed (paragraph 4),
an electrolyte membrane (6) that constitutes a part of one surface of the oxidation bath (3) excluding a surface on which the light is incident (paragraphs 5-7),
a reduction electrode (5) that is connected to an outer surface of the electrolyte membrane (6; figure 1; paragraph 4),
a reduction unit (4) in which the reduction electrode (5) is disposed and to which a gas containing carbon dioxide is supplied from the outside (via input port 12).
While Sato discloses that carbon dioxide was supplied to the reduction tank 4 from the gas input port 12 at a desired flow rate and pressure (paragraphs 62, 71), Sato fails to teach a blower that generates an airflow toward the reduction electrode inside the reduction unit.
Von Olshausen discloses an electrolytic cell for the reduction of carbon dioxide (paragraphs 4, 31) wherein an inert fluid, i.e. air, which does not chemically interact with product gas formed at the reduction electrode/cathode is flowed through the cathode chamber in order to flush the electrode chamber to prevent corrosion at the flushed electrode, reduce power consumption and unwanted chemical reactions at the respective flushed electrode, as a result of which the service life of the cell can be increased and maintenance and investment costs reduced (paragraphs 22, 76, 92). A blower or a fan can be used for this purpose (paragraphs 34, 55, 100, 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to generate an airflow toward the reduction electrode of Sato, as taught by von Olshausen, in order to flush the electrode chamber which prevents corrosion at the electrode, as well as to reduce power consumption and unwanted chemical reactions at the respective flushed electrode. As a result, the service life of the cell can be increased and maintenance and investment costs reduced.
Regarding claim 2, the reduction electrode (5) of Sato has a plate shape, and one surface of the reduction electrode (5) is in contact with the electrolyte membrane (6; figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the blower of von Olshausen is configured with a propeller fan that is provided in front of an inside of a supply port to which pressurized gas is supplied (paragraphs 34, 94).
Regarding claim 4, the blower of von Olshausen is configured with a mass flow controller that is provided at a tip portion of an inside of a supply port to which pressurized gas is supplied (paragraphs 53, 94). Sato also discloses that a gas was supplied to the reduction tank (4) from the gas input port (12) at a desired flow rate and pressure (paragraphs 62, 71).
Regarding claim 5, even though the modified Sato fails to explicitly teach wherein the blower is intermittently operated, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the blower of von Olshausen is capable of being intermittently operated and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the blower of von Olshausen is capable of changing a flow rate of the airflow (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 7, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the blower of von Olshausen is configured with a propeller fan that is provided in front of an inside of a supply port to which pressurized gas is supplied (paragraphs 34, 94).
Regarding claim 9, the blower of von Olshausen is configured with a mass flow controller that is provided at a tip portion of an inside of a supply port to which pressurized gas is supplied (paragraphs 53, 94). Sato also discloses that a gas was supplied to the reduction tank (4) from the gas input port (12) at a desired flow rate and pressure (paragraphs 62, 71).
Regarding claim 10, even though the modified Sato fails to explicitly teach wherein the blower is intermittently operated, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the blower of von Olshausen is capable of being intermittently operated and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claims 11-12, the blower of von Olshausen is capable of changing a flow rate of the airflow (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 13, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the electrolyte membrane (6) and the reduction electrode (5) of Sato are integrally formed (as shown in figure 1).
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