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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated July 14, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Specification
The disclosure has been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of the disclosure has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 has been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of claim 26 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0119542 A1).
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0119542 A1) as applied to claims
1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 above, and further in view of Botte (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0148846 A1).
The rejection of claims 5-6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 above, and further in view of Botte has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 28 and 30 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0119542 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 above, and further in view of WO 2013/148216 (‘216).
The rejection of claims 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-27 and 29 above, and further in view of WO 2013/148216 (‘216) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
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) 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller et al. (“Displacement of Ethene and Cyclohexene from Polycrystalline Pt and Pt(110) Electrodes,” J. Phys. Chem. B (22 June 2000) Vol. 104, No. 24, pp. 5762–5767) [Muller I].
Regarding claim 1, Muller I teaches a method of dehydrogenating a chemical reactant comprising one or more C-H bonds to yield a dehydrogenated product (= cyclohexene is dehydrogenated during adsorption) [page 5762, abstract], the method comprising:
• introducing the chemical reactant (= cyclohexene) [page 5763, left column, line 18] to an electrode (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11] of an electrochemical cell (= the thin layer cell) [page 5763, left column, line 21];
• adsorbing at least a portion of the chemical reactant to the electrode (= cyclohexene
adsorbed at the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11] by applying an adsorption potential to the electrode (= at 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21] to thereby yield adsorbed chemical reactant comprising one or more C-H bonds (= cyclohexene was adsorbed) [page 5763, left column, line 18];
• dehydrogenating at least a portion of the adsorbed chemical reactant (= cyclohexene is dehydrogenated during adsorption) [page 5762, abstract] by applying a dehydrogenation potential which is the same as or different from the adsorption potential (= at 0.4 V) [page 5763, right column, line 12] to the electrode (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11] for a time effective to break at least one of the C-H bonds in the portion of the adsorbed chemical reactant to thereby yield adsorbed dehydrogenated product (= for 2 min) [page 5763, left column, line 21]; and
• desorbing at least a portion of the adsorbed dehydrogenated product from the electrode (= cyclohexene adsorbed at the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11] by applying a desorption potential to the electrode to thereby yield the dehydrogenated product (= cathodic desorption after adsorption of benzene and cyclohexene) [page 5764, Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 2, Muller I teaches wherein at least one species of the adsorbed chemical reactant comprises one or more C-C bonds (= cyclohexene was adsorbed) [page 5763, left column, line 18].
Regarding claim 3, Muller I teaches wherein the dehydrogenating breaks at least one of the C-H bonds without breaking any of the C-C bonds in at least 0.01% by number of the at least
one species of the adsorbed chemical reactant (= since it desorbs as benzene, cyclohexene is dehydrogenated during adsorption) [page 5762, abstract].
Regarding claim 4, Muller I teaches wherein the dehydrogenation potential is other than a potential that maximizes a ratio of C-C bond breakage to C-H bond breakage in the at least one
species (= 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21].1
Regarding claim 5, Muller I teaches wherein the dehydrogenation potential is not within +/- 0.05 V relative to a standard hydrogen electrode of a potential that maximizes a ratio of C-C bond breakage to C-H bond breakage in the at least one species (= 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21].2
Regarding claim 6, Muller I teaches wherein the dehydrogenation potential is a potential within +/- 0.05 V relative to a standard hydrogen electrode of a potential that maximizes a ratio of C-H bond breakage to C-C bond breakage in the at least one species (= 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21].3
Regarding claim 7, Muller I teaches wherein the dehydrogenation potential is a potential that maximizes a ratio of C-H bond breakage to C-C bond breakage in the at least one species (= 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21].4
Regarding claim 9, Muller I teaches wherein the adsorption potential and the
dehydrogenation potential (= the thin layer cell at 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21] are greater than a potential of zero charge of the electrode (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11].5
Regarding claim 11, Muller I teaches wherein the desorption potential is less than the adsorption potential and the dehydrogenation potential (= additional potential sweeps were performed between 0.4 and 0.25 V to achieve a more complete desorption) [page 5763, right column, lines 14-15].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desorption potential taught by Muller I with wherein the desorption potential is less than the adsorption potential
and the dehydrogenation potential. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to make this modification because a negative shift is necessary to convert an
attractive interface (positively charged or neutral) into a repulsive one (negatively charged) for the adsorbed species.
Regarding claim 12, Muller I teaches wherein the desorption potential (= the cell at 0.4 V) [page 5763, right column, lines 11-12] is less than a potential of zero charge of the electrode (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11].6
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desorption potential taught by Muller I with wherein the desorption potential is less than a potential of zero charge of the electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
this modification because one having ordinary skill in the art can determine7 the electric potential required to unbind or release the desired species previously adsorbed onto the surface after the electrocatalytic conversion by routine experimentation where the desorption potential is lower than the potential of zero charge because a negative shift is necessary to convert an attractive interface (positively charged or neutral) into a repulsive one (negatively charged) for the adsorbed species.
Regarding claim 13, Muller I teaches wherein the desorption potential (= the cell at 0.4 V) [page 5763, right column, lines 11-12] is within an underpotential deposition range
for hydrogen (HUPD) on the electrode (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11].8
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desorption potential taught by Muller I with wherein the desorption potential is within an underpotential deposition
range for hydrogen (HUPD) on the electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to make this modification because limiting the potential to the HUPD potential range, you avoid the complications of hydrogen absorption into the bulk of a metal electrode.
Regarding claim 15, Muller I teaches wherein the chemical reactant comprises a
saturated hydrocarbon, an unsaturated hydrocarbon, or a polymer whose backbone comprises
carbon atoms (= cyclohexene) [page 5763, left column, line 18].
Regarding claim 20, Muller I teaches wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted within a flow cell (= flushing 0.5-1 mL of a 4 × 10-4 M cyclohexene
solution in 0.5 M H2SO4 electrolyte through the thin layer cell (page 5763, left column, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 23, Muller I teaches wherein the electrode comprises one or more metals (= the porous Pt electrode) [page 5763, right column, lines 10-11].
Regarding claim 24, Muller I teaches wherein the electrode comprises one or more metals selected from the group consisting of Pt, Au, Ag, Cu, Fe, Rh, Ni, Pd, Ir, Co, V, Cr, Sn, Ti, W, and alloys, sulfides, nitrides, oxides, and carbides thereof (= the porous Pt electrode) [page
5763, right column, lines 10-11].
Regarding claim 28, Muller I teaches wherein the electrode of the electrochemical cell is in contact with an electrolyte formulation and the electrolyte formulation comprises an ion selected from the group consisting of I-, Cl-, Cu2+, Ce2+, and CN (= introducing a Cu2+ solution into the cell) [page 5763, right column, line 11].
II. Claim(s) 8, 10, 14, 16-19, 21-22 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Müller et al. (“Displacement of Ethene and Cyclohexene from Polycrystalline Pt and Pt(110) Electrodes,” J. Phys. Chem. B (22 June 2000) Vol. 104 , No. 24, pp. 5762–5767)
[Muller I] as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 above, and further in view
of Botte (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0148846 A1), Ehsen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0214850 A1) and Müller et al. (“Adsorption and Hydrogenation of Simple Alkenes at Pt-Group Metal Electrodes Studied by DEMS: Influence of the Crystal Orientation,” Surface Science (1995), Vol. 335, pp. 333-342) [Muller II].
Regarding claim 8, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one species comprises a C3 or C4 hydrocarbon species.
Muller I teaches that ethene was adsorbed (page 5763, left column, line 18).9
Like Muller I, Botte teaches the oxidation of hydrocarbons via a dehydrogenation reaction (page 3, [0032]).
In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon comprises ethane and its electrochemical dehydrogenation (i.e., oxidation) to ethylene will take place according to Equation (5).
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + 2H+ + 2e- Eo = 0.523*V vs. SHE (5)
Accordingly, the overall electrochemical cell reaction, as shown in Equation (6), will take place at a cell voltage of 0.444 V, which represents a 61% reduction in the electrical energy
when compared to the reaction shown in Equation (3). Other hydrocarbons, e.g., methane, propane,
butane, pentane, hexane, etc. can also be oxidized, but ethylene is shown as an example.
6C2H6 + CO2 → 7C2H4 + 4H2O (6)
[page 3, [0035]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one species taught by Muller
I with wherein the at least one species comprises a C3 or C4 hydrocarbon species. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using other hydrocarbons, e.g., propane and butane, would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Botte in [0035] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one hydrocarbon for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I also teaches wherein the adsorption potential and the dehydrogenation potential are from about -1.0 V to about 1.5 V (= at 0.4 V) [page 5763, left column, line 21).
Muller I does not explicitly teach relative to a standard hydrogen electrode.
Muller I teaches the potential (V) vs RHE (page 5763, Fig. 2).
Botte teaches that:
In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon comprises ethane and its electrochemical dehydrogenation (i.e., oxidation) to ethylene will take place according to Equation (5).
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + 2H+ + 2e- Eo = 0.523*V vs. SHE (5)
(page 3, [0035]).
Ehsen teaches that:
In one embodiment, the electrochemical cell further comprises a reference electrode in
contact with the electrolyte solution. A reference electrode is an electrode which has a stable and well-known electrode potential. The high stability of the electrode potential is usually reached by employing a redox system with constant (buffered or saturated) concentrations of each relevant species of the redox reaction. A reference electrode may enable a potentiostat to
deliver a stable voltage to the working electrode or the counter electrode. The reference electrode may be a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), a normal hydrogen electrode (NHE), a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), a saturated calomel electrode (SCE), a copper-copper(II) sulfate electrode (CSE), a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl), a pH-electrode, a palladium-hydrogen electrode, a dynamic hydrogen electrode (DHE), a mercury-mercurous sulfate electrode, or some other type of electrode. In a preferred embodiment, a reference electrode is present and is a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl), while for long term electrocatalysis, a saturated calomel electrode (Hg/HgO) was used. However, in some embodiments, the electrochemical cell does not comprise a reference electrode (page 10, [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the V taught by Muller I with relative to a standard hydrogen electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because substituting the RHE taught by Muller I on page 5763, Fig. 2, with a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) is an alternative to a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) as a reference electrode as taught by Ehsen in [0123], and the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Ehsen in [0123] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one reference electrode for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 18, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I also teaches wherein the desorption potential is less than 0.09 V (page 5763, Fig. 2).
Muller I does not explicitly teach relative to a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE).
Muller I teaches the potential (V) vs RHE (page 5763, Fig. 2).
Botte teaches that:
In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon comprises ethane and its electrochemical dehydrogenation (i.e., oxidation) to ethylene will take place according to Equation (5).
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + 2H+ + 2e- Eo = 0.523*V vs. SHE (5)
(page 3, [0035]).
Ehsen teaches that:
In one embodiment, the electrochemical cell further comprises a reference electrode in
contact with the electrolyte solution. A reference electrode is an electrode which has a stable and well-known electrode potential. The high stability of the electrode potential is usually reached by employing a redox system with constant (buffered or saturated) concentrations of each relevant species of the redox reaction. A reference electrode may enable a potentiostat to deliver a stable voltage to the working electrode or the counter electrode. The reference electrode may be a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), a normal hydrogen electrode (NHE), a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), a saturated calomel electrode (SCE), a copper-copper(II) sulfate electrode (CSE), a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl), a pH-electrode, a palladium-hydrogen electrode, a dynamic hydrogen electrode (DHE), a mercury-mercurous sulfate electrode, or some other type of electrode. In a preferred embodiment, a reference electrode is present and is a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl), while for long term electrocatalysis, a saturated calomel electrode (Hg/HgO) was used. However, in some embodiments, the electrochemical cell does not comprise a reference electrode (page 10, [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the V taught by Muller I with relative to a standard hydrogen electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because substituting the RHE taught by Muller I on page 5763, Fig. 2, with a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) is an alternative to a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) as a reference electrode as taught by Ehsen in [0123], and the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Ehsen in [0123] is within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one reference electrode for another is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical reactant comprises a C2-C12 linear, branched, or cyclic alkane, an addition polymer, a condensation polymer, or any combination thereof.
Muller I teaches that ethene was adsorbed (page 5763, left column, line 18).10
Botte teaches that:
In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon comprises ethane and its electrochemical dehydrogenation (i.e., oxidation) to ethylene will take place according to Equation (5).
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + 2H+ + 2e- Eo = 0.523*V vs. SHE (5)
Accordingly, the overall electrochemical cell reaction, as shown in Equation (6), will take place at a cell voltage of 0.444 V, which represents a 61% reduction in the electrical energy
when compared to the reaction shown in Equation (3). Other hydrocarbons, e.g., methane, propane,
butane, pentane, hexane, etc. can also be oxidized, but ethylene is shown as an example.
6C2H6 + CO2 → 7C2H4 + 4H2O (6)
[page 3, [0035]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical reactant taught by Muller
I with wherein the chemical reactant comprises a C2-C12 linear, branched, or cyclic alkane, an addition polymer, a condensation polymer, or any combination thereof. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using
other hydrocarbons, i.e., methane, propane, butane, pentane and hexane, would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Botte in [0035] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one hydrocarbon for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical reactant is selected from the group consisting of ethane, and linear, branched, or cyclic propane, butane, pentane, octane, and any combination thereof.
Muller I teaches that ethene was adsorbed (page 5763, left column, line 18).11
Botte teaches that:
In an embodiment, the hydrocarbon comprises ethane and its electrochemical dehydrogenation (i.e., oxidation) to ethylene will take place according to Equation (5).
C2H6 ↔ C2H4 + 2H+ + 2e- Eo = 0.523*V vs. SHE (5)
Accordingly, the overall electrochemical cell reaction, as shown in Equation (6), will take place at a cell voltage of 0.444 V, which represents a 61% reduction in the electrical energy
when compared to the reaction shown in Equation (3). Other hydrocarbons, e.g., methane, propane,
butane, pentane, hexane, etc. can also be oxidized, but ethylene is shown as an example.
6C2H6 + CO2 → 7C2H4 + 4H2O (6)
[page 3, [0035]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical reactant taught by Muller
I with wherein the chemical reactant is selected from the group consisting of ethane, and linear, branched, or cyclic propane, butane, pentane, octane, and any combination thereof. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using other hydrocarbons, i.e., methane, propane, butane and pentane, would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Botte in [0035] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one hydrocarbon for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the dehydrogenated product comprises a C2-C12 alkene.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Botte teaches that other hydrocarbons, e.g., methane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, etc. can also be oxidized, but ethylene is shown as an example in [0035] where when n‑butane (CH₃CH₂CH₂CH₃) undergoes dehydrogenation, hydrogen atoms would have been removed from adjacent carbon atoms, forming a double bond.
Regarding claim 19, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach the dehydrogenated product comprises propene and/or butene.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Botte teaches that other hydrocarbons, i.e., propane and butane, can also be oxidized, but ethylene is shown as an example in [0035] where when n‑butane (CH₃CH₂CH₂CH₃) undergoes dehydrogenation, hydrogen atoms would have been removed from adjacent carbon atoms, forming a double bond.
Regarding claim 21, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode is a gas diffusion electrode.
Muller I teaches a porous Pt electrode (page 5763, right column, lines 10-11).
Botte teaches that:
In one embodiment, the conducting component of the anode electrode 30 comprises an active catalyst selected from platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), ruthenium (Ru), palladium (Pd), rhodium (Rh), nickel (Ni), Cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), and their combinations. In another embodiment, the active catalyst includes one or more platinum-group metals, which includes ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), palladium (Pd), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and platinum (Pt). When a combination of one or more metals is used for the conducting component of the anode electrode 30, the metals can be co-deposited as alloys as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,485,211 and 7,803,264, and/or by layers as described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,216,956, wherein the entirety of these disclosures are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. In one embodiment, where the metals are layered, the overlying layer of metal may incompletely cover the underlying layer of metal (page 3, [0033]).
In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the anode electrode
30 may be constructed as a high surface area material, so as to increase the available surface area for the anodic conducting component. Accordingly, the conducting component and/or active catalyst of the anode may be present in a form, e.g., nanoparticles, that provides the high surface area material. Additionally, the anode electrode 30 may further include a substrate onto which the conducting component and/or active catalyst is applied. Non-limiting examples of suitable substrates include conductive metals, carbon fibers, carbon paper, glassy carbon, carbon
nanofibers, graphene, carbon nanotubes, metal nanoparticles, nickel, nickel gauze, Raney nickel, alloys, etc. (page 3, [0034]).
Muller II teaches that for the experiments at polycrystalline Pd electrodes, a gas diffusion electrode was used (Pd sputtered on a Teflon membrane) in conjunction with a conventional cell for DEMS [18] (page 334, right column, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode taught by Muller I
with wherein the electrode is a gas diffusion electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to make this modification because substituting the porous Pt
electrode taught by Muller I on page 5763, right column, lines 10-11, with electrode comprising
platinum (Pt) applied on carbon paper would have been suitable for the method disclosed by Muller I because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Botte in [0033] and [0034] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one electrode construction for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the introducing the chemical reactant comprises introducing the chemical reactant in a gas phase feedstock.
Botte teaches that:
Each of the cathodic and anodic chambers 15, 25 may further comprise gas distributors 70, 75, respectively (page 3, [0024].
In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the electrochemical cell 10
can be operated at a constant voltage or a constant current. While the electrochemical cell 10 is shown in a flow cell configuration, which can operate continuously, the present invention is not limited thereto (page 4, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Muller I
with wherein the introducing the chemical reactant comprises introducing the chemical reactant in a gas phase feedstock. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because introducing the hydrocarbon as a gas phase feedstock in an electrochemical cell having a flow cell configuration comprising gas distributors would have operated at a constant voltage or a constant current, and would have operated continuously as taught by Botte in [0024], [0035] and [0045].
Regarding claim 25, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a temperature of from about 15°C to about 30°C.
Botte teaches that in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the temperature of the cell can be in a range from about 25° C. to about 120° C. (page 4, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and
the desorbing taught by Muller I with wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a temperature of from about 15°C to about 30°C. The person with
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using a
temperature of the cell in a range from about 25° C. to about 120° C. would have been suitable
for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon to an olefin in an electrochemical cell having a flow cell configuration as taught by Botte in [0012], [0045] and [0050].
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 26, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a temperature of from about 15°C to about 30oC, and without an externally applied source of heat other than the applied electrical
potentials.
Botte teaches that in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the temperature of the cell can be in a range from about 25° C. to about 120° C. (page 4, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and
the desorbing taught by Muller I with wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a temperature of from about 15°C to about 30oC, and without an externally applied source of heat other than the applied electrical potentials. The person with
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using a
temperature of the cell in a range from about 25° C. to about 120° C. would have been suitable
for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon to an olefin in an electrochemical cell having a flow cell configuration as taught by Botte in [0012], [0045] and [0050].
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 27, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the adsorbing, the
dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a pressure of from about 0.8 to about 1.2
atm.
Botte teaches that in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the pressure of the cell can be in a range from about 1 atm to about 100 atm (page 4, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing taught by Muller I with wherein the adsorbing, the dehydrogenating, and the desorbing are conducted at a pressure of from about 0.8 to about 1.2 atm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using a pressure of the cell in a range from about 1 atm to about 100 atm would have been suitable for dehydrogenating a hydrocarbon to an olefin in an electrochemical cell having a flow cell
configuration as taught by Botte in [0012], [0045] and [0050].
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.
III. Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller et al. (“Displacement of Ethene and Cyclohexene from Polycrystalline Pt and Pt(110) Electrodes,” J. Phys. Chem. B (22 June 2000) Vol. 104 , No. 24, pp. 5762–5767) [Muller I] as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 above, and further in view of WO
2013/148216 (‘216).
Regarding claim 29, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I also teaches wherein the electrode of the electrochemical cell is in contact with an electrolyte formulation (= the smooth electrodes by flushing 0.5-1mL of a 4 × 10-4 M cyclohexene solution in 0.5 M H2SO4 electrolyte) [page 5763, left column, lines 19-21].
Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte formulation comprises a reduced proton concentration relative to an acidic electrolyte.
WO ‘216 teaches that for example, as illustrated in Fig. 4B, the electrochemical system 400 includes a cathode in contact with the cathode electrolyte 401 where the hydrochloric acid
delivered to the cathode electrolyte is transformed to hydrogen gas in the cathode electrolyte (ρ [180]).
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Muller I teaches a H2SO4 electrolyte12 where the acid delivered to the cathode electrolyte would have been transformed to hydrogen gas, and thus, would have reduced the proton concentration relative to an acidic electrolyte.
Regarding claim 30, Muller I teaches the method of at least claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 20, 23-24 and 28 as applied above. Muller I does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the protons in the electrolyte formulation is replaced with one or more cations selected from the group consisting of alkali metal cations and multivalent cations.
WO ‘216 teaches that:
There are provided methods and systems for an electrochemical cell including an anode and a cathode where the anode is contacted with a metal ion that converts the metal ion from a lower oxidation state to a higher oxidation state. The metal ion in the higher oxidation state is reacted with hydrogen gas, an unsaturated hydrocarbon, and/or a saturated hydrocarbon to form products (abstract).
In some embodiments, the metal ion in the lower oxidation state and the metal ion in
the higher oxidation state are both present in the anode electrolyte. In some embodiments, it may be desirable to have the metal ion in both the lower oxidation state and the higher oxidation state in the anode electrolyte. Suitable ratios of the metal ion in the lower and higher oxidation state in the anode electrolyte have been described herein. The mixed metal ion in the lower oxidation state with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state may assist in lower voltages in the electrochemical systems and high yield and selectivity in corresponding catalytic reactions with hydrogen gas or hydrocarbons (ρ [90]).
In some embodiments of the above described methods, the metal ion is any metal ion
described herein. In some embodiments of the above described methods, the metal ion is selected from the group consisting of iron, chromium, copper, tin, silver, cobalt, uranium, lead, mercury, vanadium, bismuth, titanium, ruthenium, osmium, europium, zinc, cadmium, gold, nickel, palladium, platinum, rhodium, iridium, manganese, technetium, rhenium, molybdenum,
tungsten, niobium, tantalum, zirconium, hafnium, and combination thereof. In some embodiments, the metal ion is selected from the group consisting of iron, chromium, copper, and tin. In some embodiments, the metal ion is copper. In some embodiments, the lower
oxidation state of the metal ion is 1+, 2+, 3+, 4+, or 5+. In some embodiments, the higher
oxidation state of the metal ion is 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, or 6+ (ρ [415]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protons in the electrolyte formulation taught by modified Muller I with wherein at least a portion of the protons in the electrolyte formulation is replaced with one or more cations selected from the group consisting of alkali metal cations and multivalent cations. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because multivalent cations in the anode electrolyte would have reacted with an unsaturated hydrocarbon, and/or a saturated
hydrocarbon to form products and would have assisted in lower voltages in the electrochemical
systems and high yield and selectivity in corresponding catalytic reactions with the hydrocarbons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
1 It is deemed that 0.4 V possesses this property and/or function. This is determined by comparing the measured potential to the reduction potential of the relevant half-reaction and analyzing the reaction products.
2 It is deemed that 0.4 V possesses this property and/or function. This is determined by comparing the measured potential to the reduction potential of the relevant half-reaction and analyzing the reaction products.
3 It is deemed that 0.4 V possesses this property and/or function. This is determined by comparing the measured potential to the reduction potential of the relevant half-reaction and analyzing the reaction products.
4 It is deemed that 0.4 V possesses this property and/or function. This is determined by comparing the measured potential to the reduction potential of the relevant half-reaction and analyzing the reaction products.
5 The Potential of Zero Charge (PZC) - also known as the zero-charge potential (ZCP) - is a known and fundamental parameter in electrochemistry. The PZC is the specific electrode potential, typically measured against a reference electrode, at which the surface charge density on an electrode surface is exactly zero. It indicates the transition point between a positively and negatively charged electrode.
6 The Potential of Zero Charge (PZC) - also known as the zero-charge potential (ZCP) - is a known and fundamental parameter in electrochemistry. The PZC is the specific electrode potential, typically measured against a reference electrode, at which the surface charge density on an electrode surface is exactly zero. It indicates the transition point between a positively and negatively charged electrode.
7 Maybe by cyclic voltammetry (CV).
8 Hydrogen underpotential deposition (HUPD) is the adsorption of hydrogen atoms onto an electrode surface (typically noble metals like Pt, Pd, Rh) at potentials more positive than the equilibrium hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) potential.
9 ethene = ethylene.
10 ethene = ethylene.
11 ethene = ethylene.
12 H2SO4 dissociates into H+ and SO42- ions.
Prosecution Insights