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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
This is in response to the Amendment dated June 11, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 16-18 (product) drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on August 25, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Zou et al. (“A Non-Noble Metal Catalyst-Based Electrolyzer for Efficient CO2-to-Formate
Conversion,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering (2021 Nov 23), Vol. 9, No. 48, pp. 16394-
16402) in view of WO 2015/184388 (‘388), Cofell et al. (“Investigation of Electrolyte-Dependent
Carbonate Formation on Gas Diffusion Electrodes for CO2 Electrolysis,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (2021 Mar 25), Vol. 13, No. 13, pp. 15132-15142, including Supporting Information pages 1-8), CN 106746109 (‘109), WO 2007/041872 (‘872), Pretoro et al. (“Chapter 4 Multiple-Effect Evaporation,” Non-Conventional Unit Operations ©2020, pp. 35-46) and CN 106186185 (‘185).
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. in view of WO 2015/184388 (‘388), Cofell et al., CN 106746109 (‘109), WO 2007/041872 (‘872), Pretoro et al. and CN 106186185 (‘185) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 1
• lines 29-30, “the concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution” lacks
antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
See also claim 1, lines 31-32.
• line 36, “the isolated formate” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 2
lines 1-2, “the isolated formate salt”.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 define over the prior art of record because the prior art does
not contain any language that teaches or suggests a method of producing formate salt from carbon dioxide gas using an electrochemical cell stack, wherein electrochemical cells of the electrochemical cell stack include a dry compartment for receiving the carbon dioxide gas, a first wet compartment with a catholyte solution, where a gas diffusion layer separates the dry compartment and the first wet compartment, and a second wet compartment with an anolyte solution, comprising the steps of receiving, concentration, separating and separating as presently claimed, esp., the step of concentrating the formate and the carbonate by-product in the formate-containing catholyte solution using reverse-osmosis to produce concentrated formate and concentrated carbonate approaching a saturation point of formate-carbonate.
WO 2015/184388 teaches the production of alkali metal formate using carbon dioxide
(ρ [0006]; and Fig. 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
CN 106746109 teaches reverse osmosis (ρ [0010]). CN 106746109 does not teach concentrating the formate and the carbonate by-product in the formate-containing catholyte solution using reverse-osmosis to produce concentrated formate and concentrated carbonate approaching a saturation point of formate-carbonate.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
CN 1443746 is cited to teach using formic acid to react with potassium carbonate to produce potassium formate. After the reaction is complete and potassium formate is produced, it is sent to an evaporator (ρ [0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights