DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28-31, 35, 36, 38 and 39 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 9, 20 and 35 have been amended. Claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25-27, 32-34 and 37 have been canceled. Claim 39 have been added.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28-31, 35, 36, 38 and 39 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 28-31, 35-36 and 38 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kashi et al. (US 20210381116 A1).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 19, 22, 24, 28-30, 35, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. (US 20210381116 A1) in view of Rahaman et al. (ACS Catal. 2017, 7, 7946−7956).
Considering claim 1, Kashi discloses a system comprising: a composition of a catalyst and electrolytes for substantially continuous CO2 capture and reduction to one or more value-added products ([0020], [0226] and Fig. 8). With respect to the limitation reciting the rate of CO2 captured is substantially equal to the rate of CO2 reduction, Kashi discloses the system configured for continuous operation of carbon capture and CO2 reduction [0226], therefore it would have been obvious that the rate of capture and reduction would be kept substantially equal in order to have the process running continuously.
Kashi does not disclose the catalyst consists of mesh electrodes consisting of Cu, at least one copper oxide, a Cu-Al alloy, or any combination thereof.
However, Rahaman discloses copper mesh catalyst electrode for reduction of CO2 into multicarbon hydrocarbons, showing a remarkably high resistance against degradation with alcohol efficiencies that can be maintained on a high level (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon mesh catalyst electrode of Rahaman in the system of Kashi, because Rahaman discloses copper mesh catalyst electrode for reduction of CO2 into multicarbon hydrocarbons, showing a remarkably high resistance against degradation with alcohol efficiencies that can be maintained on a high level.
Considering claim 9, Kashi discloses a membrane separating an anodic side from a cathodic side in the system [0006], wherein the copper comprising electrodes are present on the cathodic side in the system [0012].
Considering claim 11, Kashi discloses the membrane prevents one or more solutes from crossing from the anodic side to the cathodic side, from the cathodic side to the anodic side, or both [0259].
Considering claim 13, the bipolar membrane of Kashi [0007] will be capable of reducing Cl2 production relative to an otherwise identical membrane-less system, due to ohmic losses, as explained in the instant specification [0136].
Considering claim 15, Kashi discloses the system capable of operating at current density of 600 mA/cm2 [0073].
Considering claim 16, with respect to the system having partial current density of ethylene production, the claim is to a system not a method, the system as claimed is capable of the claimed current density [0073].
Considering claim 17, in the system of Kashi as modified by Rahaman, Rahaman discloses Cu(111) facets (Fig. 2).
Considering claim 24, Kashi discloses an integrated CO2 capture and conversion device [0223].
Considering claims 28 and 29, Kashi discloses manufacturing the system and operating the system using a solar-powered electrochemical reactor and a dilute CO2 feedstock (air) [0228].
Considering claims 30 and 31, in Kashi as modified by Rahaman, Rahaman discloses the one or more value-added products comprise C2H4, where CH4 is not present (Fig. 11b), therefore it can be inferred that the ratio of C2H4 to CH4 is at least 200:1.
Considering claims 35 and 36, Kashi discloses liquid or gas fed electrochemical reactor [0179] operated at 300 mA/cm2 [0227].
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. and Rahaman et al., as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hashiba et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 3719−3726).
Considering claims 19, 20 and 22, Kashi discloses alkali bicarbonate [0190].
Kashi does not disclose the electrolyte composition comprises from about 0.5 M to about 1 M of alkali chloride and from about 0.01 M to about 0.03 M of alkali bicarbonate.
However, Hashiba teaches that electrolyte composition is known to be an important factor and potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) and potassium chloride (KCl) solutions are the most commonly used aqueous electrolytes. It is evident that the selectivity of CO2R is extremely sensitive to the local conditions and concentrations, properties of the ionic electrolytes where KHCO3 is a buffered electrolyte but KCl is not. The buffered electrolyte could compensate for the hydroxide ions (OH−) produced by CO2R and HER and maintain the electrode surface pH close to the bulk value during the electrolysis minimizing the pH difference between the surface and the bulk can minimize polarization losses as well as affect the product distribution. Hashiba investigates an electrolyte mixture of potassium bicarbonate and potassium chloride at 0.5 M each (page 3719, Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use and optimize the concentration of KHCO3 and KCl in the electrolyte of Kashi, because Hashiba teaches using both potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) and potassium chloride (KCl), the selectivity of CO2R is extremely sensitive to the local conditions and concentrations, where buffered electrolyte helps minimizing the pH difference between the surface and the bulk can minimize polarization losses as well as affect the product distribution. Furthermore, Hashiba teaches that pH profile within the boundary layer can also be impacted by overall buffer concentrations and kinetics, where equilibrium is not achieved next to the electrode surface (page 3725. conclusions).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. and Rahaman et al., as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kolla et al. (US 20230126907 A1).
Considering claim 38, Kashi does not disclose an electrodialysis unite.
However, Kolla teaches many direct-air CO2 capture technologies have been developed such as liquid or solid-based sorbent systems, fuel cell or dialysis-based electrochemical systems [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrodialysis unite in the system of Kashi, because Kolla teaches that an electrodialysis capture electrochemical system is known, therefore it would be obvious to substitute the electrochemical capture system of Kashi for an electrodialysis unite, because Kolla teaches electrodialysis as known functional equivalent for the same purpose. With respect to the limitation reciting at less than 120 kJ/mol of energy using an electrodialysis unit, the does not disclose any particular electrodialysis unite, therefore one would expect the energy usage not novel and conventional.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al. and Rahaman et al., as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heldebrant et al. (US 20130056676 A1).
Considering claim 39, Kashi discloses the anodic side of the system comprises a CO2 binding liquid (absorbent) [0218].
Kashi is silent about the details of the liquid absorbent.
However, Heldebrant trenches gas-binding organic liquids for carbon capture [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gas-binding organic liquids for carbon capture of Heldebrant, because Kashi is silent about the details of the liquid absorbent and Heldebrant trenches gas-binding organic liquids for carbon capture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 28-31, 35-36 and 38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights