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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the corresponding claim number is missing. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adzic et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0056359) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0146446).
Regarding claim 1, Adzic discloses a device comprising:
(a) an electrode (12, 13, 18; figure 1; paragraph 55), and
(b) an electrolyte solution (14) comprising a plurality of microparticles free floating or suspended in the electrolyte solution (paragraphs 13, 47-48, 50, 55 – the particles may be dispersed or suspended in a solution).
Adzic fails to teach wherein the microparticles comprise indium.
Wang discloses a membrane reactor comprising catalyst particles in the electrode compartments, wherein the particles can be indium, tin and/or bismuth, among others (paragraphs 16-17, 33, 35, 37 – the catalyst particles flow through the electrodes in a trickle bed structure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use particles comprising indium in the electrochemical reactor of Adzic because as taught by Wang, particles made of these metals are well known to act as catalysts to accelerate electrochemical reactions at electrode surfaces, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Adzic further teaches wherein the electrolyte solution comprises tin or bismuth microparticles suspended in the electrolyte solution (paragraphs 13, 50, 67).
Regarding claim 3, Adzic discloses wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a Sn microparticle and bismuth microparticles suspended in the electrolyte solution (paragraphs 13, 50, 67).
Regarding claim 4, the electrode of Adzic comprises a plurality of microparticles on a surface of the electrode, wherein the microparticles comprise Sn microparticles, Bi microparticle, or any combination thereof (paragraphs 13, 67).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses an electrode comprising a plurality of Sn microparticles and In microparticles on the surface of the electrode (paragraphs 16-17, 19, 33, 35, 37 – the catalyst particles flow through the electrode in a trickle bed structure).
Regarding claim 6, Wang further teaches wherein the device comprises a reactor configuration comprising a sandwich-type electrosynthesis cell comprising of two compartments (anodic 24 and cathodic 22) interconnected with an ionic exchange membrane (260; figure 1; abstract; paragraphs 15, 17, 24).
Regarding claim 8, the electrode of Adzic comprises a plurality of Sn microparticles and Bi microparticles on the surface of the electrode (paragraphs 13, 47-48, 50, 55 - the electrolyte contains a solution comprised of microparticles in contact with the surface of the electrode).
Regarding claim 9, the electrode of Wang comprises a plurality of In microparticles and Bi microparticles on the surface of the electrode (paragraphs 16-17, 33, 35, 37 – the catalyst particles flow through the electrode in a trickle bed structure).
Regarding claim 10, the electrode of Adzic comprises Sn microparticles on the surface of the electrode (paragraphs 13, 47-48, 50, 55).
Regarding claim 11, while Adzic in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device comprises a cathode having an about 5% to 10% particle load each of Sn microparticles, In microparticles, or Bi microparticles, or any combination thereof, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine a workable or optimal particle load % to create an electrode with enhanced catalytic activity. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the device comprises a cathode comprising a mesh (paragraphs 18, 21, 42).
Regarding claim 15, the device of Wang is configured to have carbon dioxide bubbling/fed through the electrolyte solution (paragraph 18).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adzic and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gyenge (US Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0219240).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Adzic discloses all the features discussed above but fails to teach wherein the device comprises a fluidized bed cathode.
Gyenge discloses an electrochemical device comprising a negative electrode (12), a positive electrode (14) separated by a membrane (16). From an electrochemical engineering design point of view, those skilled in the art will recognize that the negative electrode can be any one of a trickle-bed type electrode, and a particulate bed electrode (either packed or fluidized bed), among others (paragraph 8).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to select the optimum type of electrode because as taught by Gyenge, from an electrochemical engineering design point of view, those skilled in the art will recognize that the negative electrode can be any one of a trickle-bed type electrode, and a particulate bed electrode (either packed or fluidized bed), and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 13, while Adzic in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device comprises a cathode having an about 5% to 10% particle load each of Sn microparticles, In microparticles, or Bi microparticles, or any combination thereof, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine a workable or optimal particle load % to create an electrode with enhanced catalytic activity. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that neither Adzic nor Wang, either alone or combined, teach or suggest “a plurality of indium microparticles free floating or suspended in the electrolyte solution”, as amended.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adzic an electrochemical cell
comprising an electrolyte containing microparticles that may be dispersed or suspended in a solution (paragraphs 13, 50). Wang further teaches a membrane reactor comprising catalyst particles in the electrode compartments, wherein the particles can be indium, tin and/or bismuth, among others flowing through the electrode to accelerate electrochemical reactions at electrode surfaces (paragraphs 16-17, 33, 35, 37).
The rejections in view of Adzic in view of Wang are still deemed proper and are maintained.
Conclusion
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 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