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 of group II in the reply filed on 19 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-16 are 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.
Each of claims 11, 12, 13 and 15 recite “[t]he system of claim…” but depend from method claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis in these claims for “[t]he system of claim 1”. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected solely for their dependence on claims 13 and 12, respectively.
For purposes of a complete examination the Office will assume that each of these claims are instead dependent from claim 10, reciting “A system …”.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kashi et al (US 2021/0381116 A1).
Kashi et al teach (see fig. 8) a system comprising a gas reduction device (805) having an inlet operable to receive carbon dioxide and the gas reduction device being operable to reduce the gas to generate a product stream (“CO (or other C-based product(s)), H2, CO2, water”) including the gas (CO2), hydrogen (H2) and a chemical (e.g. CO or other C-based product) and a separations unit (809) that functions as a hydrogen removal device that is operable to receive the product stream from an outlet of the gas reduction device, separate the hydrogen gas therein and to return the remaining product stream to the inlet of the gas reduction device.
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 Kashi et al (US 2021/0381116 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, an accumulation chamber is a tank or other compartment capable of storing the product stream. Kashi et al teach (see fig. 8, paragraph [0231) that the separations unit also separated the chemical (e.g. CO or other C-based product) from the product stream. Such separation unit would have inherently possessed an accumulation chamber capable of storing the product stream. However, Kashi et al appears to show the chemical removal device being “upstream” from the hydrogen removal device, although no such distinction is explicitly pointed out by Kashi et al. Absent a showing of unexpected results, transposition of the chemical removal device and the hydrogen removal device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since the two devices would have been expected to continue to perform their same functions and resulted in the same products. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Further, since the product stream of Kashi et al was gaseous, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the accumulation chamber of the chemical removal device to be gas tight to prevent loss of the product chemical.
Regarding claim 13, in an alternative embodiment, Kashi et al teach (see fig. 1) providing a recycled gas from the gas reduction device to be mixed with a fresh carbon dioxide stream. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined this suggestion with the embodiment of fig. 8 of Kashi et al by providing an inlet stream for fresh carbon dioxide to be mixed with the product stream with hydrogen removed to recycle unreacted carbon dioxide and to provide make up carbon dioxide to account for the amount used to form the chemical.
Regarding claim 14, selection of an appropriate valve type for effecting the combination of the two streams into a single stream would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged a three-way valve for combining two inputs into one output.
Regarding claim 15, Kashi et al fail to teach the presence of a pump in describing the embodiment of fig. 8. However, is describing the alternative embodiment of fig. 1, a blower (i.e. a pump for gas) is utilized to help the gases flow through the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a pump (e.g. a blower) to the embodiment of fig. 8 of Kashi et al for the purpose of moving the gases through the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi et al (US 2021/0381116 A1) in view of McElroy et al (US 2008/0241638 A1).
Kashi et al do not teach that the hydrogen removal device was an electrochemical hydrogen pump. Kashi et al fail to describe any suitable mechanism for removing the hydrogen gas, thus leaving the decision on which technology to use to one of ordinary skill in the art.
McElroy et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraph [0008]) utilizing an electrochemical hydrogen pump for the separation of hydrogen gas from a gas mixture also comprising CO-2 and H2O.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the electrochemical hydrogen pump taught by McElroy et al as the hydrogen removal device of Kashi et al because McElroy et al teach that the electrochemical hydrogen pump was useful for separating hydrogen from a similar composition as the product stream of Kashi et al.
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