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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (iii), sub-species (c), claims 2, 4-7 and 16-22, in the reply filed on November 3, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
page 8, line 10, recites “FIG. 3A”. There is no Fig. 3A.
page 8, line 11, recites “FIG. 3B”. There is no Fig. 3B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 28, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7
line 2, please amend “CO2” to -- CO2 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
I. Claim(s) 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Skarlos teaches a method for the production of oxalic acid, the method comprising:
• providing a feedstock of carbon dioxide (= introducing carbon dioxide) [col. 2, line 8];
• electrochemically reducing the feedstock of carbon dioxide to an oxalate salt (= the
cationic reduction of carbon dioxide in an electrolytic cell whereby it is converted to an oxalate salt) [col. 1, lines 46-48] ; and
• converting the oxalate salt to oxalic acid (= the oxalate salt may be converted to oxalic acid by contacting the salt with an acid to produce a salt of the acid and oxalic acid) [col. 2, lines 18-20].
The method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the carbon dioxide is purified carbon dioxide, the feedstock of purified carbon dioxide derived from a captured carbon dioxide from an emissions source.
Skarlos teaches introducing carbon dioxide into the cathode compartment of the electrolytic cell (col. 2, lines 8-9).
Pletcher teaches that:
In addition, there would need to be units (a) to extract pure CO2 (or at least a concentrated CO2 stream) from the atmosphere as feed to the electrolysis cells and (b) to isolate the product in marketable form (if a market on an appropriate scale exists; see below) or convert all the cell products it into a safe form prior to discharge into the environment (page 97, right column, lines 6-8)).
The economics of a process such as that in Fig. 1 is apparently improved if (a) the CO2 is available in a more concentrated stream, e.g., flue gas (page 98, right column, lines 1-3).
Bush teaches capturing carbon dioxide from dilute sources such as ambient air or from flue gas streams (page 1, [0002]).
We now return to FIG. 1A to describe the operation of carbon dioxide evolution device 188. Carbon dioxide evolution device 188 is an acid-base reactor akin to ones for reacting baking soda and vinegar. The reaction proceeds to near completion to drive off pure stream M of carbon dioxide 102’ from carbonates and bicarbonates 174 of alkali metal 116A (see FIG. 1B), which in the present case is sodium (Na). We thus have:
NaHCO3 + CH3COOH → NaCH2COO + H2O + CO2 (8)
where NaHCO3 is sodium bicarbonate 174BC, CH3COOH is acetic acid (vinegar) and NaCH3COO is sodium acetate (page 8, [0093]).
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 Skarlos with wherein the carbon dioxide is purified carbon dioxide, the feedstock of purified carbon dioxide derived from a captured carbon dioxide from an emissions source because feeding pure CO2 to an electrolysis cell improves the economics of electrolytically reducing CO2 where a pure stream of CO2 is derived from a captured carbon dioxide from an emissions source:
PNG
media_image1.png
435
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Bush, Fig. 4).
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 4, Bush teaches wherein the feedstock of purified carbon dioxide comprises industrial grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.5%, medical grade CO2 having a
purity of at least 99.5%, bone dry grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.8%, food grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.9%, beverage grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.9%, anaerobic grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.95%, or research grade CO2 having a purity of at least 99.999% (= a pure stream of carbon dioxide M from flue gas according to NaHCO3 + CH3COOH → NaCH2COO + H2O + CO2) [page 8, [0093]; and Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 6, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the captured CO2 is captured from a flue gas and has undergone further processing to provide a purity of at least 99.5%.
Pletcher teaches that in addition, there would need to be units (a) to extract pure CO2 (or at least a concentrated CO2 stream) from the atmosphere as feed to the electrolysis cells (page 97, right column, lines 6-8).
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 captured CO2 described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the captured CO2 is captured from a flue gas and has undergone further processing to provide a purity of at least 99.5% because units are used to extract pure CO2 as a feed to the electrolysis cells.
Furthermore, the repetition of steps to provide the same results is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. The concept of duplication is not patentable. St. Regis
Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). While this decision relates to the duplication of parts, there is no reason why such duplication cannot be extended to a process step.
II. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Carbon Capture from Flue Gas and the Atmosphere: A Perspective,” Frontiers in Energy Research (2020 Dec 15), Vol. 8, pp. 1-24).
Skarlos, Pletcher and Bush are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the emissions source is a flue gas resulting from combustion of a fossil fuel, wood, or a renewable power source.
Pletcher teaches flue gas (page 98, right column, line 3).
Bush teaches that the electrochemical system can be used for carbon dioxide capture from either ambient air or from carbon dioxide entrained within a combustion flue or other high concentration source (page 3, [0028]).
Wang teaches that to mitigate CO2 emissions, the research and development efforts in
CO2 capture and separation both from the stationary sources with high CO2 concentrations
(e.g., coal-fired power plant flue gas) and directly from the atmosphere have grown significantly
(page 1, abstract).
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 emissions source described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the emissions source is a flue gas resulting from combustion of a fossil fuel, wood, or a renewable power source because a coal-fired power plant flue gas is a stationary source with high CO2 concentrations for CO2 capture and separation.
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. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
III. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (“A Mass Transfer Model of Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in a Bubble Column Reactor by Using Magnesium
Hydroxide Slurry,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013 Sep 1), Vol. 17, pp.
240-249).
Skarlos, Pletcher and Bush are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the captured CO2 has been captured from the flue gas using a chemical absorption capture of CO2 using a scrubbing absorption column having a slurry scrubbing solution that is capable of capturing CO2 from the flue gas.
Cheng teaches that a bubble column reactor was tested and evaluated for carbon dioxide removal from flue gases by using magnesium hydroxide slurry. The study showed that a high CO2 removal efficiency could be achieved (page 240, abstract).
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 captured CO2 has been captured from the flue gas described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the captured CO2 has been captured from the flue gas using a chemical absorption capture of CO2 using a scrubbing absorption column having a slurry scrubbing solution that is capable of capturing CO2 from the flue gas because a high CO2 removal efficiency could be achieved using a bubble column reactor using magnesium hydroxide slurry.
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.
IV. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (“A Mass Transfer Model of Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in a Bubble Column Reactor by Using Magnesium Hydroxide Slurry,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013 Sep 1), Vol. 17, pp. 240-249) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CA 2732002 (‘002) and SU 937444 (‘444).
Skarlos, Pletcher, Bush and Cheng are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the slurry scrubbing solution comprises a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, the captured CO2 is in the form of a metal bicarbonate solution comprising a sodium bicarbonate solution, wherein the metal bicarbonate solution is reacted with an acid reagent in a reaction tank to form the purified carbon dioxide and a resultant salt solution, the acid reagent comprising sulfuric acid, and the resultant salt solution comprising a sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) solution.
Cheng teaches that NaOH has been used as the solution in a bubble column (page 242, Table 1).
CA ‘002 teaches capturing carbon dioxide from a source of carbon dioxide by reacting the carbon dioxide with the sodium hydroxide to form sodium bicarbonate and/or disodium
carbonate (page 1, line 32 to page 2, line 2).
SU ‘444 teaches that unreacted acid (11 g) is separated by filtration, the sulfuric acid is neutralized with 3 g of sodium bicarbonate, the sodium sulfate was separated by filtration and the remaining mass is subjected to oxidation (page 3, lines 4-6).
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 slurry scrubbing solution described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the slurry scrubbing solution comprises a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, the captured CO2 is in the form of a metal bicarbonate solution comprising a sodium bicarbonate solution, wherein the metal bicarbonate solution is reacted with an acid reagent in a reaction tank to form the purified carbon dioxide and a resultant salt solution, the acid reagent comprising sulfuric acid, and the resultant salt solution comprising a sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) solution because using NaOH as the solution in a bubble column where the carbon dioxide reacts with the sodium hydroxide to form sodium bicarbonate can produce sodium sulfate by neutralizing sulfuric acid with the sodium bicarbonate.
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. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known
material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
V. Claim(s) 17, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (“A Mass Transfer Model of Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in a Bubble Column Reactor by Using Magnesium Hydroxide Slurry,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013 Sep 1), Vol. 17, pp. 240-249) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CA 2732002 (‘002) and SU 937444 (‘444) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Paleologou et al. (“Enhancement of the Current Efficiency for Sodium Hydroxide Production from Sodium Sulphate in a Two-Compartment Bipolar Membrane Electrodialysis System,” Separation and Purification Technology (1997 Jul 3), Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 159-171).
Skarlos, Pletcher, Bush, Cheng, CA ‘002 and SU ‘444 are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the resultant salt solution is subjected to electrodialysis with bipolar membrane separation for separation of the resultant salt solution into an acid and a base, wherein the electrochemical reduction employs an electrolysis cell having a cathode and an anode,
wherein the acid from electrodialysis comprises a regenerated acid reagent and wherein the base from electrodialysis comprises a regenerated slurry scrubbing solution, the regenerated acid reagent comprising sulfuric acid, and the regenerated slurry scrubbing solution comprising sodium hydroxide.
SU ‘444 teaches that unreacted acid (11 g) is separated by filtration, the sulfuric acid is neutralized with 3 g of sodium bicarbonate, the sodium sulfate was separated by filtration and the remaining mass is subjected to oxidation (page 3, lines 4-6).
Paleologou teaches a two-compartment bipolar membrane electrodialysis unit cell for generating a mixture of acid and salt (sulphuric acid and sodium sulphate) and base (sodium hydroxide) from salt (sodium sulphate) [page 161, Fig. 1].
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 slurry scrubbing solution described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the resultant salt solution is subjected to electrodialysis with bipolar membrane separation for separation of the resultant salt solution into an acid and a base, wherein the electrochemical reduction employs an electrolysis cell having a cathode and an anode, wherein the acid from electrodialysis comprises a regenerated acid reagent and wherein the base from electrodialysis comprises a regenerated slurry scrubbing solution, the regenerated acid reagent comprising sulfuric acid, and the regenerated slurry scrubbing
solution comprising sodium hydroxide because neutralizing sulfuric acid with sodium bicarbonate with produces sodium sulfate and electrodialyzing the sodium sulfate produces
sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide.
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. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 19, Skarlos teaches wherein the electrolysis cell is devoid of a membrane between a catholyte region and an anolyte region (= in one embodiment the cell may comprise a single compartment divided by a wall) [col. 2, lines 58-60].
Regarding claim 22, Skarlos teaches wherein the cathode has a modified cathode surface comprising a metal coating comprising lead, zinc, steel, silver, iron or copper (= copper or lead amalgamated cathodes as well as mercury, lead, or stainless steel cathodes produce the desired results) [col. 2, lines 42-44].
VI. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (“A Mass Transfer Model of Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in a Bubble Column Reactor by Using Magnesium
Hydroxide Slurry,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013 Sep 1), Vol. 17, pp. 240-249) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CA 2732002 (‘002) and SU 937444 (‘444) as applied to claims 16 above, and further in view of Paleologou et al. (“Enhancement of the Current Efficiency for Sodium Hydroxide Production from Sodium Sulphate in a Two-Compartment Bipolar Membrane Electrodialysis System,” Separation and Purification Technology (1997 Jul 3), Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 159-171) as applied to claims 17, 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Eastman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0283411 A1).
Skarlos, Pletcher, Bush, Cheng, CA ‘002, SU ‘444 and Paleologou are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the cathode is wrapped at least partially around the anode in a cylindrical configuration.
Skarlos teaches that in another design the half-cell compartments may comprise concentrically positioned chambers with the porous membrane located in the wall of the inner chamber (col. 2, lines 62-65).
Eastman teaches that:
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary physical configuration of an electro-hydrocarbon device. In FIG. 3, the electro-hydrocarbon device 300 is configured as a cylindrical unit. The cylinder wall has three layers--the exterior anode 310, the electrolyte 320, and the interior cathode 330. An electrical power source 340 is connected to the anode 310 and cathode 330 by external circuit wiring 350, cathodic electro-contact 351, and anodic electro-contact 352. A gaseous influent 360 comprising at least one of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide flows through the interior of the cylinder, thus contacting the cathode 330. Water 380 in the form of a vapor, steam, or liquid travels across the exterior of the cylinder, thus contacting the anode 310. The electrical power source 340 creates an electrical potential between the cathode 330 and the anode 310 that drives the electrolysis of water to create hydrogen ions and liberate oxygen in effluent 390. The
hydrogen ions travel from the anode 310 through the electrolyte 320 to reach the cathode 330, where they react with carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide to create hydrocarbons in effluent 370 (page 10, [0245]).
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 cathode described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the cathode is wrapped at least partially around the anode in a cylindrical configuration because a cylindrical unit where the cylinder wall has three layers - the exterior anode, the electrolyte (= membrane) [Eastman: page 8, [0180] et seq.], and the interior cathode is a device where carbon dioxide flows and is electrolyzed.
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.
VII. Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarlos (US Patent No. 3,720,591) in view of Pletcher (“The Cathodic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide -What Can It Realistically Achieve? A Mini Review,” Electrochemistry Communications (2015 Dec 1), Vol. 61, pp. 97–101) and Bush et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0126394 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (“A Mass Transfer Model of Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in a Bubble Column Reactor by Using Magnesium Hydroxide Slurry,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2013 Sep 1),
Vol. 17, pp. 240-249) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CA 2732002 (‘002) and SU 937444 (‘444) as applied to claims 16 above, and further in view of Paleologou et al. (“Enhancement of the Current Efficiency for Sodium Hydroxide Production from Sodium Sulphate in a Two-Compartment Bipolar Membrane Electrodialysis System,” Separation and Purification Technology (1997 Jul 3), Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 159-171) as applied to claims 17, 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Salama et al. (US Patent Application Publication Application No. 2009/0120863 A1).
Skarlos, Pletcher, Bush, Cheng, CA ‘002, SU ‘444 and Paleologou are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the cathode has a metal coating on a cathode surface that has an increased absorbing and conversion of the captured CO2 into oxalate salt compared to the cathode without the metal coating.
Salama teaches that the production of ozone and other oxidative compounds is increased due to the roughness or dendrite plating of the anodes and cathodes, which increase the effective surface area of the electrodes (page 4, [0089]).
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 cathode described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the cathode has a metal coating on a cathode surface that has an increased absorbing and conversion of the captured CO2 into oxalate salt compared to the cathode without the metal coating because due to the roughness plating of cathodes which
increases the effective surface area of the electrodes, an increase in the reaction sites for the electrochemical reduction would occur.
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 21, the method of Skarlos differs from the instant invention because Skarlos does not disclose wherein the cathode has a modified cathode surface comprising a metal coating that provides a rough surface area compared to the cathode without the metal coating, the metal coating increasing the surface area of the cathode surface compared to the cathode surface without the metal coating.
Salama teaches that the production of ozone and other oxidative compounds is increased due to the roughness or dendrite plating of the anodes and cathodes, which increase the effective surface area of the electrodes (page 4, [0089]).
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 cathode described by the Skarlos combination with wherein the cathode has a modified cathode surface comprising a metal coating that provides a rough surface area compared to the cathode without the metal coating, the metal coating increasing the surface area of the cathode surface compared to the cathode surface without the metal coating because due to the roughness plating of cathodes which
increases the effective surface area of the electrodes, an increase in the reaction sites for the electrochemical reduction would occur.
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.
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 November 26, 2025