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, claims 6-13, in the reply filed on November 4, 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)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 (method) and 14-20 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 27, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 9-11 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.
Claim 7
lines 1-3, recite “wherein the reacting comprises reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer and H2 in a liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor, thereby producing a liquid hydrocarbon mixture”.
Parent claim 6, lines 10-11, recite “reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer in one or more downstream systems to produce a chemical product”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor and the one or more downstream systems.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the liquid hydrocarbon mixture and the chemical product.
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) 6, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601).
Regarding claim 6, Li-1 teaches a method for producing liquid hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide (CO2), the method comprising:
• providing a CO2 electrolyzer (= at least one electrochemical apparatus 276) [page 11, [0098]], the CO2 electrolyzer comprising an anode (= a positive electrode 280 (e.g., anode)) [page 11, [0098]], a cathode (= a negative electrode 284 (e.g., cathode)) [page 11, [0098]], and a membrane (= for example, the electrolyte may comprise one or more of a perovskite material, a solid acid material, a polybenzimidazole (PBI) material, and a BZCYYb material (e.g., BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.1Yb0.1O3−δ) [page 10, [0092]] disposed between and conductively connecting the anode and the cathode (= an electrolyte 282 between the positive electrode 280 and the negative electrode 284) [page 11, [0098]];
• feeding hydrogen (H2) to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer to undergo hydrogen oxidation reaction at the anode (= directs the H2 stream 292 (e.g., a gaseous H2 stream) from the H2 source 272 into the electrochemical apparatus 276 to interact with the positive electrode 280 of the electrochemical cell 278) [page 11, [0099]]; and
• feeding CO2 to the cathode of the CO2 electrolyzer to undergo a reduction reaction, thereby producing carbon monoxide (CO) [= the formation of CO in the carbon dioxide
hydrogenation system] (page 4, [0059]; and page 8, [0079]:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the cathode (= at the negative electrode 284, CO2 delivered into the electrochemical apparatus 276 from the CO2 stream 296 directed from the CO2 source 274) [page 11, [0099]];
The method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer in one or more downstream systems to produce a chemical product.
Li-1 teaches producing CO by the CO2 electrolyzer (= the formation of CO in the carbon dioxide hydrogenation system) [page 4, [0059]; and page 8, [0079]:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
].
van Bavel teaches that:
The current GTL process consists of the following steps: (1) converting natural gas into synthesis gas, i.e., mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2); (2) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax; and (3) upgrading of Fischer-Tropsch wax into final hydrocarbon products in a hydroprocessing step or steps, which can include hydrocracking, hydro-isomerization, and/or hydrogenation (page 2597, left column, lines 11-18).
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 Li-1 by reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer in one or more downstream systems to produce a chemical product because mixing electrolytically produced carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) produces synthesis gas where conversion of the synthesis gas by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis produces paraffinic wax for upgrading into final hydrocarbon
products.
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 8, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the H2 fed to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer is produced by one or more water electrolyzers.
Li-1 teaches that:
As shown in FIG. 20, the CO2 hydrogenation system 270 may include at least one H2 source 272 (e.g., containment vessel), at least one CO2 source 274 (e.g., containment vessel), and at least one electrochemical apparatus 276 in fluid communication with each of the H2 source 272 (e.g., containment vessel) [page 11, [0098]].
Various hydrogen sources may be used, such as a substantially pure H2 stream, a diluted H2 stream, water, or a hydrocarbon stream (page 11, [0099]).
van Bavel teaches producing H2 from a H2O electrolyzer (=
PNG
media_image2.png
67
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [page 2598, Fig. 2(a)].
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 at least a portion of the H2 fed to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer described by Li-1 with wherein at least a portion of the H2 fed to
the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer is produced by one or more water electrolyzers because Li-1 teaches that various hydrogen sources may be used such as water, where by electrolyzing the
water in a water electrolyzer H2 is produced.
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 12, Li-1 teaches wherein the CO2 fed to the cathode of the CO2 electrolyzer is gaseous CO2 (= the CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in one or more of gaseous phase and a liquid phase) [page 12, [0106]].
II. Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Efficiency, and Cost of Synthetic Fuel Production Using Electrochemical CO2 Conversion and the Fischer-Tropsch Process,” Energy & Fuels (2016 Jul 21), Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 5980-5989) [Li-2].
Li-1 and van Bavel are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, van Bavel teaches wherein the reacting comprises reacting at least a
portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer and H2 in a liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor (=
PNG
media_image3.png
159
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
[page 2598, Fig. 2(a)].
The method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose thereby producing a liquid hydrocarbon mixture.
Li-2 teaches that:
The FT process produces hydrocarbons of varying lengths using CO and H2 as feed stock. The raw product from the FT process includes naphtha, middle distillate, wax, and a gas stream of unreacted syngas, CO2, and light hydrocarbons (page 5983, left column, lines 44-47).
Proposed integrated system for liquid fuel production using CO2 electrolysis coupled with the Fischer-Tropsch process (page 5981, Fig. 1).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the FT process produces a liquid fuel of hydrocarbons of varying lengths using CO and H2 as feed stock.
Regarding claim 9, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1
does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the H2 reacted in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor is produced by one or more water electrolyzers.
van Bavel teaches:
PNG
media_image4.png
255
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 2598, Fig. 2(a)).
Li-2 teaches that the H2 for the FT process is produced onsite by water electrolysis (page 5983, right column, line 3).
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 at least a portion of the H2 reacted in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor described by the Li-1 combination with wherein at
least a portion of the H2 reacted in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor is produced by one or more water electrolyzers because H2 for the FT process is produced onsite by water electrolysis.
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 10, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose transporting at least a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon mixture from the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor to a hydrocarbon cracking reactor.
van Bavel teaches that:
The current GTL process consists of the following steps: (1) converting natural gas into synthesis gas, i.e., mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2); (2) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax; and (3) upgrading of Fischer-Tropsch wax into final hydrocarbon products in a hydroprocessing step or steps, which can include hydrocracking, hydro-isomerization, and/or hydrogenation (page 2597, left column, lines 11-18).
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 at least a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon mixture from the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor described by the Li-1
combination by transporting at least a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon mixture from the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor to a hydrocarbon cracking reactor because hydrocracking the Fischer-Tropsch wax upgrades it into final hydrocarbon products.
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 11, van Bavel teaches wherein the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor is configured to perform a Fischer-Tropsch process (= Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax) [page 2597, left column, lines 14-15].
III. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Kashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0381116 A1).
Li-1 and van Bavel are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1
does not disclose wherein the CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2 electrolyzer is humidified CO2 and/or humidified H2.
Li-1 teaches that the carbon dioxide and hydrogen may be provided from various sources (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, hydrocarbon fuels, etc.) [page 10, [0090]].
Kashi teaches that:
For example, an optional humidifier 704 may be provided on the path and configured to humidify the carbon oxide feed stream. Humidified carbon oxide may moisten one or more polymer layers of an MEA and thereby avoid drying such layers (pages 11-12, [0194]).
CO2 (e.g., humidified or dry gaseous CO2) as a reactant at a cathode 1005 and expel CO as a product (page 17, [0254]).
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 CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2
electrolyzer described by Li-1 with wherein the CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2 electrolyzer is humidified CO2 and/or humidified H2 because Li-1 teaches that the carbon dioxide may be provided from various sources where humidified CO2 moistens one or more polymer layers of an MEA and thereby avoid drying such layers, and also is a reactant at a cathode which expels CO as a product.
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).”
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 December 8, 2025