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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 6 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the restriction requirement between groups II and III is hereby withdrawn. Although the common technical features of groups II and III were shown as not providing a contribution over the prior art, the difference in claim scope is merely the presence of “system comprising” at the start of claim 11, which is insufficient to justify a serious burden upon the Office to search both groups. Claim 26 is no longer considered withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coker et al (US 4,561,945 A).
Coker et al teach (see abstract, fig. 3, col. 1, line 26 to col. 2, line 37 and col. 5, lines 29-55) a system comprising an electrolyzer (40) comprising a cathode compartment (46) comprising a catholyte and a cathode (49), an anode compartment comprising an anolyte compartment (47) comprising an anolyte and an anode-containing compartment (45) comprising an anode (48). The cathode compartment (46) was separated from the anode compartment (47) by a first ion-selective barrier (43) and the anolyte compartment (47) was separated from the anode-containing compartment (45) by a second ion-selective barrier (42). The cathode compartment was configured to generate hydrogen gas (which exited the cathode compartment at 57). The anode-containing compartment was configured to receive the hydrogen gas and oxidize the hydrogen gas to protons (see fig. 3, abstract, paragraph spanning cols. 1 and 2). The anolyte compartment (47) received the protons through the second ion-selective barrier and generated an acid. Although Coker et al show in the figures using sodium sulfate, it is clear from col. 1, lines 26-52 of Coker et al, that other alkali metal salts were contemplated, including at least one pH buffer, sodium citrate. Coker et al recited sufficiently few alkali metal salts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered each to be specifically taught.
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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker et al (US 4,561,945 A) in view of Traini et al (US 5,595,641 A).
Regarding claim 12, Coker et al fail to teach the system further comprising a dissolution reactor receiving the acid from the anolyte compartment.
In the same field of endeavor of electrolytically producing acids and bases while using cathodically generated hydrogen gas to reduce voltage by feeding the hydrogen gas to the anode compartment, Traini et al teach (see fig. 3, see col. 8, line 19 to col. 9, line 18) feeding the acid produced in the anolyte compartment (41) to a dissolution reactor (15) where a feedstock material (e.g. sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate) was dissolved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the dissolution reactor of Traini et al to the system of Coker et al to utilize the acid produced by the system of Coker et al to perform the dissolution reaction of Traini et al. See MPEP § 2143.I.A.
Regarding claim 13, Traini et al further teach that the solution leaving the dissolution tank (15) was subsequently sent to a second reactor (18) where precipitation and filtration of the precipitate occurred.
Regarding claim 14, Coker et al fail to teach providing a separate gas-liquid separation tank for separating the cathode products, i.e. hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide solution, from each other. Instead Coker et al separated the two products from each other in the cathode compartment.
In the same field of endeavor of electrolytically producing acids and bases while using cathodically generated hydrogen gas to reduce voltage by feeding the hydrogen gas to the anode compartment, Traini et al teach (see fig. 3, paragraph spanning cols. 8 and 9) providing a separate gas-liquid separator (gas disengager 7) for separating the hydrogen gas from the basic solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the elements of the Coker et al and Traini et al according to known techniques, i.e. - by modifying the system of Coker et al by providing a single outlet to the cathode chamber and a distinct gas-liquid separator with a gas outlet and solution outlet as suggested by Traini et al, for the purpose of providing enhanced separation of the cathode products from each other.
Regarding claim 15, Coker et al teach sending the hydrogen gas product of the cathode chamber to the anode chamber. Traini et al teach sending the hydrogen gas from the gas-liquid separator to the anode chamber.
Regarding claim 16, Traini et al suggest (see fig. 1, paragraph spanning cols. 8 and 9) recycling of the caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) solution leaving the gas-liquid separator the anode-containing compartment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that doing so allowed the concentration of sodium hydroxide to build up over time.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker et al (US 4,561,945 A) in view of Traini et al (US 5,595,641 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gilliam et al (US 2010/0084280 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Coker et al and Traini et al fail to teach sending at least a portion of the caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) solution from the catholyte to a precipitation reactor to precipitate a target element from a dissolved feedstock material.
In the same field of endeavor of electrolytically producing acids and bases while using cathodically generated hydrogen gas to reduce voltage by feeding the hydrogen gas to the anode compartment, Gilliam et al teach (see figs. 1 and 9) providing the caustic soda catholyte product from the electrolyzer (902) to a precipitation reactor (912), wherein a target element, either Mg or Ca) is precipitated from a dissolved feedstock material (906).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the elements of Gilliam et al with the system of Coker et al and Traini et al to have utilized both the acid product from the anolyte compartment as taught by Traini et al and the basic product from the catholyte compartment as taught by Gilliam et al to avoid wasting one of the products.
Regarding claim 18, Coker et al and Traini et al fail to teach providing an absorber receiving a portion of the basic catholyte and an acid gas, wherein the catholyte captures in the acid gas in the catholyte.
In the same field of endeavor of electrolytically producing acids and bases while using cathodically generated hydrogen gas to reduce voltage by feeding the hydrogen gas to the anode compartment, Gilliam et al teach (see figs. 1 and 9) providing the caustic soda catholyte product from the electrolyzer (100) to an absorber (128) wherein an acid gas (CO2, 107A) is captured into the catholyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the elements of Gilliam et al with the system of Coker et al and Traini et al to have utilized both the basic product from the system of Coker et al to capture acid gas (i.e. known greenhouse gas CO2) to prevent the release of the acid gas to the environment.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker et al (US 4,561,945 A) in view of Traini et al (US 5,595,641 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Torres et al (US 2019/0240621 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Coker et al and Traini et al fail to teach providing an absorber receiving a portion of the basic catholyte and an acid gas, wherein the catholyte captures in the acid gas in the catholyte.
In the same field of endeavor of electrolytically producing acids and bases, Torres et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2) providing a basifying stream catholyte product (54) from the electrolyzer to an absorber (42) wherein an acid gas (CO2) is captured into the catholyte before the solution is returned to the anolyte chamber of the electrolyzer for acidification to cause the acid gas to be separated from the solution. The system functioned (see paragraph [0018]) to absorb the acid gas from air or from an exhaust stream with subsequent release of the acid gas for isolation or use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the acid gas absorber elements of Torres et al with the system of Coker et al and Traini et al for the purpose of capturing carbon dioxide from air or an exhaust stream utilizing both the acidic and basic products from the system of Coker et al to isolate CO2 from air or an exhaust stream.
Regarding claim 19, Torres et al teach providing the solution comprising the catholyte with absorbed CO2 to the anolyte chamber of the electrolysis cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights