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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed 08/03/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are pending and being examined. Claims 7 and 11-20 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods (US 8137527 B1) in view of Schmid (WO 2019120812 A1, using US 2021/0180196 A1 for English translation).
Considering claim 1, Woods teaches a method for absorbing carbon dioxide from an air stream comprising loading an absorbent with carbon dioxide in a first device, wherein a hydrogen carbonate-containing solution is formed and feeding the hydrogen carbonate-containing solution from the first device into an electrolysis unit wherein the hydrogen carbonate-containing solution is electrolyzed in the electrolysis unit to release carbon dioxide (Woods, Col. 1 lines 15-17, Col. 2 lines 47-65).
Woods teaches the absorbed CO2 reacts with carbonate to form bicarbonate/carbonate ions; this liquid stream can then be regenerated in the electrolysis unit to release the CO2 and return the basic scrubbing solution to the absorption module (Woods, Col. 7 lines 5-8, Col. 10 lines 26-32). Woods teaches that as more CO2 is absorbed the carbonate ions are converted into bicarbonate ions (Col. 11 lines 39-40); thus it would be expected that as CO2 is released during regeneration in the electrolysis unit, the equilibrium will shift to carbonate ions and a carbonate-rich solution will be formed in the electrolysis unit which is then recycled to the absorption module (i.e., first device).
Woods also teaches an embodiment wherein oxygen and hydrogen are formed in the electrolysis unit (Woods, Col. 13 lines 62-67).
Woods teaches an anode chamber (25 of Fig. 7), a cathode chamber (35 of Fig. 7), a cation-selective membrane (41 of Fig. 7), and a bipolar membrane (2 of Fig. 7) adjacent to the anode chamber (Woods, Fig. 7 and Col. 12 lines 15-47), he does not explicitly teach at least one middle bridge chamber.
However, Schmid teaches an electrolysis cell with a multi-compartment structure comprising a salt bridge compartment in addition to the anode and cathode chambers (Schmid, abstract). Schmid teaches by using the additional electrolyzer component, it was possible to improve cell voltage, operating stability, and energy efficiency; Schmid teaches the hydrogen carbonate is transported through the solid anion exchanger in the salt bridge compartment away from the first ion exchange membrane (Schmid, [0017]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a third chamber (middle bridge chamber) such as a salt bridge wherein the hydrogen carbonate-containing solution is fed to the middle bridge chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to improve cell voltage, operating stability, and energy efficiency of the electrolyzer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 2, Woods teaches in the cathode chamber, the hydrogen carbonate is converted to carbonate to form the carbonate-rich solution by teaching regeneration of the carbonate/hydroxide solution in the cathode chamber (Woods, Col. 13 lines 21-27 and Col. 2 lines 62-65).
It has already been established that Schmid obviates at least one middle bridge chamber; Schmid teaches hydrogen carbonate is consumed and at least carbon dioxide is formed in the middle bridge chamber (Schmid, [0140], [0012], [0022], [0047]).
Considering claim 8, Woods teaches the carbon dioxide bound intermediately as hydrogen carbonate is released in a parallel reaction during electrolytic generation of hydrogen and oxygen (Woods, Col. 13).
Considering claim 9, Woods teaches that as more CO2 is absorbed the carbonate ions are converted into bicarbonate ions (Col. 11 lines 39-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the hydrogen carbonate-containing solution to be a pure hydrogen carbonate solution. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize CO2 saturation of the absorbent liquid (i.e., absorb more CO2) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 10, Woods teaches the carbon dioxide containing gas stream is ambient air or ambient air with a slightly or moderately increased or decreased carbon dioxide concentration (Woods, Col. 6 lines 36-44). Thus, the method of woods is capable of being used to remove carbon dioxide from air stream comprising any amount of carbon dioxide including the claimed 100-650 ppm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Schmid teaches away from feeding a hydrogen carbonate-containing solution into the salt bridge compartment have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Schmid’s disclosure that the electrolyte of the salt bridge comprises an acid does not constitute a teaching away from feeding a hydrogen carbonate-containing solution into the salt bridge because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the feeding of a hydrogen carbonate-containing solution especially in light of Schmid’s teaching that the hydrogen carbonate is transported through the solid anion exchanger in the salt bridge compartment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
