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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated January 22, 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 Amendment
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 16-18 (product) drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on August 25, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure has been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of the disclosure has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 and 15 have been 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.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-11 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) and CN 106186185 (‘185).
The rejection of claims 1-11 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of WO 2015/184388 (‘388), Cofell et al., CN 106746109 (‘109), WO 2007/041872 (‘872) and CN 106186185 (‘185) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 15 is/are 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).
Regarding claim 1, Zou teaches a method of producing formate salt from carbon dioxide gas (= the CO2 gas was introduced into the cathodic chamber) [page 16395, right column, lines 62-63] using an electrochemical cell (= a home-made flow cell) [page 16395, right column, lines 56-57], wherein the electrochemical cell includes a dry compartment for receiving the carbon dioxide gas (= CO2 →), a first wet compartment with a catholyte solution (= 1M KOH →), where a gas diffusion layer separates the dry compartment and the first wet compartment (= GDL), and a second wet compartment with an anolyte solution (= 1M KOH →) [page 16398, Fig. 4(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
323
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
],
comprising:
• receiving the carbon dioxide gas in the dry compartment, wherein the carbon dioxide gas diffuses from the dry compartment into the catholyte solution of the first wet compartment
through the gas diffusion layer (= the CO2 gas flows through the mesoporous carbon layers in the GDL to reach the Bi NPs catalyst) [page 16397, right column, lines 19-21], and at least part of the carbon dioxide gas is transformed into formate by an electrochemical reaction, resulting in a formate-containing catholyte solution (= the formate product dissolved in the catholyte was detected and quantified) [page 16398, left column, lines 3-5].
The method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose the following:
a. Wherein the electrochemical cell is of an electrochemical cell stack.
WO ‘388 teaches that:
Operating electrochemical cell 110 at a higher operating pressure in the catholyte
region may allow more dissolved CO2 to dissolve in the aqueous electrolyte. Typically, electrochemical cells may operate at pressures up to about 20 to 30 psig in multi-cell stack designs, although with modifications, they could operate at up to 100 psig. The electrochemical cell 110 anolyte may also be operated in the same pressure range to minimize the pressure differential on the membrane separating the two electrode regions. Special electrochemical designs may be required to operate electrochemical units at higher operating pressures up to about 60 to 100 atmospheres or greater, which may be in the liquid CO2 and supercritical CO2 operating range (ρ [00170]).
The electrochemical cell 110 and the electrochemical acidification electrolyzer 140 may be zero gap, flow-through electrolyzers with a recirculating catholyte electrolyte with various high surface area cathode materials. For example, flooded co-current packed and trickle bed designs with various high surface area cathode materials may be employed. The stack cell design may be bipolar and/or monopolar (ρ [00173]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell described by Zou
with wherein the electrochemical cell is of an electrochemical cell stack because electrochemical cells can operate at pressures up to about 20 to 30 psig in multi-cell stack designs, although with modifications, they could operate at up to 100 psig, where operating an electrochemical cell at a higher operating pressure in the catholyte region allows more dissolved CO2 to dissolve in the aqueous electrolyte and the electrochemical cell anolyte would have operated in the same pressure range to minimize the pressure differential on the membrane separating the two electrode regions.
b. Whereby a carbonate by-product is also produced1 from the carbon dioxide gas, remaining in the formate-containing catholyte solution.
Zou teaches that the CO2 gas was introduced into the cathodic chamber (page 16395, right column, lines 62-63) and a solution of 1 M KOH was employed as the catholyte (200 mL) [page 16395, right column, lines 58-59].
Cofell teaches the electrochemical reduction of CO2 (ECO2R) [page 15132, abstract]. In an alkaline environment, CO2 will react to form carbonate and bicarbonate compounds in an alkaline solution via reactions 1 and 2: first, CO2 reacts with OH− to form bicarbonate (HCO3−); second, bicarbonate is deprotonated by a hydroxide to form a carbonate (CO32−) and water
CO2 + OH- ↔ HCO3- (aq) (1)
HCO3- (aq) + OH- ↔ CO32- (aq) +H2O (2)
(page 15133, left column, line 33 to page 15133, right column, line 4).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Zou teaches all of the limitations of the electrochemical reaction as presently claimed. The CO2 gas was introduced into the catholyte chamber where it would have reacted with the solution of 1 M KOH that was employed as the catholyte, where CO2 will react to form carbonate and bicarbonate compounds in an alkaline solution via first, CO2 reacts with OH− to form bicarbonate (HCO3−); and second, bicarbonate is deprotonated by a hydroxide to form a carbonate (CO32−) and water as taught by Cofell.
c. Concentrating the formate and the carbonate by-product in the formate-containing catholyte solution using reverse-osmosis to produce concentrated formate and concentrated carbonate.
CN ‘109 teaches that the formate in the mother liquor is purified, concentrated and recovered in the second-level nanofiltration unit, the reverse osmosis unit, and the evaporation crystallization unit, and finally a formate by-product with very high purity is obtained (ρ [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by Zou by
concentrating the formate and the carbonate by-product in the formate-containing catholyte
solution using reverse-osmosis to produce concentrated formate and concentrated carbonate because by purifying, concentrating and recovering in a nanofiltration unit, a reverse osmosis unit, and an evaporation crystallization unit the formate in a mother liquor a formate by-
product with very high purity is obtained2.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
d. Separating the concentrated formate and the concentrated carbonate from water found in the formate-containing catholyte solution by using an evaporator to result in a further concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution with further concentrated carbonate and further concentrated formate.
e. Separating the further concentrated carbonate from the further concentrated formate
found in the further concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution through one or more of: acidification of potassium carbonate, generated from the further concentrated carbonate, that is reacted to a salt; and evaporation using a multiple-effect evaporator to remove additional water found in the further concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution.
CN ‘109 teaches that the formate in the mother liquor is purified, concentrated and recovered
in the second-level nanofiltration unit, the reverse osmosis unit, and the evaporation crystallization
unit, and finally a formate by-product with very high purity is obtained (ρ [0010]).
WO ‘872 teaches the electrochemical reduction of CO2 (ρ [0001]).
Based on the concept of Figure 5 this process (Figure 6) converts CO2 to NaHCO2 (sodium formate) and NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) with a byproduct of H2 (hydrogen) and co-
product of O2 (oxygen). The feed plus recycle CO2 is compressed to about 300 kPa(abs) and delivered to the cathode of the electrochemical reactor along with the recycling catholyte, an aqueous solution of NaHCO2 and NaHCO3. The cathode outlet goes to a gas/liquid separator from which the liquid is divided into a direct recycle and a stream from which NaHCO2 and NaHCO3 are separated by evaporation and fractional crystallization to give the main cathode products (NaHCO2 and NaHCO3). The cathode outlet gas goes to a gas separation system (e.g. pressure swing adsorption) that recovers H2 and delivers the unconverted CO2 to recycle. The anode side of this process involves a feed of NaOH (sodium hydroxide) whose sodium content (Na+) is transported across the cation membrane while the hydroxide is converted to oxygen that is recovered as the co-product from a gas/liquid separator. The recycle streams in this process include the necessary compressors and pumps along with heat exchangers (e.g. C1, C2, C3) to control the reactor temperature in the range of about 300 to 350 K (ρ [0072]).
Pretoro teaches that:
The multiple-effect evaporator principle is based on splitting the solvent vaporization in several steps, recovering this way the otherwise wasted enthalpy of the vapor phase leaving each step to provide the heat duty required by the next one, considerably reducing the system energy consumption (page 35, lines 12-15).
Thus, by adding more effects, a higher COP and a decrease of the operating costs
can be achieved at the expenses of the investment costs (page 35, lines 16-17).
Multiple-effect evaporation is the most simple and widespread unit operation aimed
either to concentrate a solution or to recover the solvent. In the former case, if the desired product is the pure solute, it could be used as a method to enhance crystallization (page 41, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by Zou by
separating the concentrated formate and the concentrated carbonate from water found in the formate-containing catholyte solution by using an evaporator to result in a further
concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution with further concentrated carbonate and further concentrated formate; and separating the further concentrated carbonate from the further concentrated formate found in the further concentrated formate-containing catholyte
solution through one or more of: acidification of potassium carbonate, generated from the further concentrated carbonate, that is reacted to a salt; and evaporation using a multiple-effect evaporator to remove additional water found in the further concentrated formate-containing catholyte solution because by purifying, concentrating and recovering in a nanofiltration unit, a reverse osmosis unit, and an evaporation crystallization unit the formate in a mother liquor a formate by-product with very high purity is obtained where using multiple-effect evaporation as the evaporation would have reduced the system energy consumption and
achieved a higher COP and a decrease of the operating costs at the expenses of the investment costs and is the most simple and widespread unit operation aimed at either to concentrate a solution or to recover the solvent. In the former case, if the desired product is the pure solute, it could be used as a method to enhance crystallization.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
f. And a filter press to separate the carbonate salt from the further concentrated formate, to result in isolated formate salt.
Cofell (page 15133, left column, line 33 to page 15133, right column, line 4) and CN ‘109 (ρ [0010]) teach using a crystallizer to precipitate a carbonate salt.
CN ‘185 teaches a solid-liquid separation: the mother liquor of crystallization is discharged by
filter pressing and transferred to the nickel salt solution collection tank; the nickel salt crystals are collected in a clean container and transferred to the production line for use (ρ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by Zou by using a filter press to separate the carbonate salt from the further concentrated formate, to result in isolated formate salt because filter pressing the mother liquor of crystallization would have collected salt crystals in a clean container for transfer to a production line for later use.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou
does not disclose storing the isolated formate salt.
CN ‘185 teaches a solid-liquid separation: the mother liquor of crystallization is discharged by filter pressing and transferred to the nickel salt solution collection tank; the nickel salt crystals are collected in a clean container and transferred to the production line for use (ρ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by modified Zou by storing the isolated formate salt because collecting salt crystals in a clean container would have
transferred them to a production line for later use.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose wherein the carbon dioxide is pressurized prior to the receiving.
WO ‘388 teaches that:
In another embodiment, a portion of the catholyte recycle stream may be separately pressurized using a flow restriction with back pressure or using a pump 390 with CO2 injection such that the pressurized stream may be then injected into the catholyte region of the electrochemical cell 110, and potentially increasing the amount of dissolved CO2 in the aqueous solution to improve the conversion yield (ρ [00171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon dioxide described by modified Zou with wherein the carbon dioxide is pressurized prior to the receiving because injecting a pressurized stream of CO2 into the catholyte region of the electrochemical cell would have increased the amount of dissolved CO2 in the aqueous solution to improve the conversion yield.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose wherein the concentrating further comprises reintroducing the formate-containing catholyte solution into the cell stack, thereby permitting additional carbon dioxide to react with the catholyte solution through an electrochemical reaction of the formate-containing catholyte solution to generate additional formate in the formate-containing catholyte solution.
WO ‘388 teaches that:
Solution stream 530 including mainly sodium formate and sodium bicarbonate may then be split
into recycle stream 532, which may be recycled back to electrochemical cell 502 catholyte compartment, and product stream 531 which may go to evaporator-crystallizer 550. Recycle stream 532 may have several input streams, including the introduction of carbon dioxide stream 534, optionally a sodium bicarbonate stream 536 from reactor-dissolver unit 560, a side stream 538 leaving stream 532 which may go into an optional electrochemical acidification cell 540 and may have an acidified product stream 546 back into stream 532, and may have the addition of water to the stream as needed to prevent precipitation in stream 532 and catholyte compartment 506, and having all of the inputs/outputs into stream 532 ending up as solution stream 548 which may be sent into catholyte compartment 506 (ρ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrating described by modified Zou with wherein the concentrating further comprises reintroducing the formate-containing catholyte solution into the cell stack, thereby permitting additional carbon dioxide to react with the catholyte solution through an electrochemical reaction of the formate-containing catholyte
solution to generate additional formate in the formate-containing catholyte solution because WO ‘388 teaches splitting a solution stream into a recycling stream which may be recycled back to the electrochemical cell catholyte compartment in [0051]. It is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to recycle the output stream in order to minimize the amount of waste produced for ecological and economic reasons because it has been held that changing ecological and economic considerations do not make an obvious expedient into an unobvious improvement. Ex parte Fuller 172 USPQ 317.
Recycling minimizes and/or eliminates its purchase.
Regarding claim 6, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose after the concentrating, detecting a concentration of one or more solutes in the formate-containing catholyte solution, indicative of a concentration of the concentrated formate in the formate-containing catholyte solution.
CN ‘109 teaches that:
The concentrated liquid of the reverse osmosis unit 50 enters the evaporation and crystallization unit 60 for evaporation, concentration, and crystallization. The evaporated condensed water 63 and the reverse osmosis filtrate in the reverse osmosis unit 50 can be connected to the production reuse water pipeline. The crystallization process ultimately obtains a formate by-product with a purity of more than 99.95% (ρ [0014]).
WO ‘872 teaches that liquid product was withdrawn from the sampling point and analyzed for formate concentration (ρ [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by modified Zou with after the concentrating, detecting a concentration of one or more solutes in the formate-containing catholyte solution, indicative of a concentration of the concentrated formate in the formate-containing catholyte solution because to analyze the formate concentration in
the concentrated liquid of a reverse osmosis unit, one would have withdrawn a liquid product from a sampling point.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose wherein a concentration of the concentrated formate is detected in the formate-containing catholyte solution.
WO ‘872 teaches that liquid product was withdrawn from the sampling point and
analyzed for formate concentration (ρ [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by modified Zou
with wherein a concentration of the concentrated formate is detected in the formate-containing catholyte solution because to analyze the formate concentration in the
concentrated liquid of a reverse osmosis unit, one would have withdrawn a liquid product from a sampling point.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Zou teaches where the catholyte solution and the anolyte solution
contain hydroxide salt (= a solution of 1 M KOH was employed as the catholyte (200 mL) and
anolyte (20 mL)) [page 16395, right column, lines 58-60].
Regarding claim 9, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose wherein an anolyte solution leaving the cell stack is degassed to remove oxygen resulting from an electrochemical reaction of the anolyte solution occurring in the second wet compartment, and passed through a heat exchanger to remove heat prior to reintroduction into the cell stack.
WO ‘388 teaches that:
As shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A, feeding anolyte region 320 may be stream 310 which may include anolyte, the anolyte including an aqueous sulfuric acid electrolyte solution. Stream
310 may enter the anolyte region 320 and flow by the face of anode 322 through folded anode screen 332. Anode reactions may include splitting of water into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen ions (H+) or protons. The gases and liquid mixture from anolyte region 320 may leave as stream 350, which flows by temperature sensor 352 monitoring a solution temperature in the stream, and
into anolyte gas/liquid disengager 354. In disengager 354, the gas may be vented as stream 356, and excess anolyte overflow leaves as stream 358. Stream 360 may be a gas-depleted exit stream from the anolyte disengager 354, with a deionized water feed stream 362 and a sulfuric acid make-up feed stream 364 added to the recirculation stream to maintain anolyte acid strength and volume. Stream 360 with added streams 362 and 364 may then pass through an optional heat exchanger 370 with a cooling water supply 372, and then becomes stream 310 feeding into the anolyte region 320 (ρ [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by modified Zou with wherein an anolyte solution leaving the cell stack is degassed to remove oxygen resulting from an electrochemical reaction of the anolyte solution occurring in the second wet compartment, and passed through a heat exchanger to remove heat prior to reintroduction into the cell stack because flowing the gases and liquid mixture from the anolyte region into an anolyte gas/liquid disengager and passing a gas-depleted exit stream from the anolyte
disengager through an optional heat exchanger which is added to a recirculation stream becomes a stream feeding into the anolyte region for maintaining anolyte acid strength and volume.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou
does not disclose wherein a concentration of the anolyte solution is verified and adjusted prior
to the reintroduction.
WO ‘872 teaches maintaining the anolyte composition with respect to acid and salt to
provide cation transport across the membrane in the correct ratio (e.g. HTNH4+) that balances the rates of cathode reactions 1 and 2 and holds the catholyte pH in the desired range (page 22, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anolyte solution described by modified
Zou with wherein a concentration of the anolyte solution is verified and adjusted prior to the reintroduction because maintaining the anolyte composition with respect to acid and salt would have provided ion transport across a membrane in the correct ratio that balances the rates of cathode reactions and holds the catholyte pH in the desired range.
Regarding claim 15, the method of Zou differs from the instant invention because Zou does not disclose wherein unreacted carbon dioxide of the carbon dioxide is recirculated in the cell stack.
WO ‘388 teaches that:
Catholyte compartment stream 730 may then pass by pH monitoring sensor 731 (and temperature sensor - not shown), which may be used to monitor and control the catholyte stream pH value, and then enter catholyte disengager 732, where the various gases may be separated from the solution stream as stream 734, including mainly excess CO2 and hydrogen, in addition to any other cathode reduction side reaction gas products, such as ethylene, CO, methane, and the like. These gases may be separated, collected, and recycled to the process as needed (ρ [0073]).
Catholyte disengager stream 738 may then be recycled back to catholyte compartment 704
(ρ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method by modified Zou with wherein unreacted carbon dioxide of the carbon dioxide is recirculated in the cell stack because WO ‘388 teaches that excess CO2 separated from the catholyte compartment stream is recycled
back to catholyte compartment in [0073] and [0074]. It is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to recycle the output stream in order to minimize the amount of waste produced for ecological and economic reasons because it has been held that changing ecological and economic considerations do not make an obvious expedient into an unobvious improvement. Ex parte Fuller 172 USPQ 317.
Recycling minimizes and/or eliminates its purchase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS
from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of
the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 This is where Applicant claims a method in terms of function and the method of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
2 Concentrating one material would have concentrated the other.