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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 21 January 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are herein maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gao et al (CN 206942887 U) in view of He (CN 2021313774 U) and Arroyo et al (US 2013/0174930 A1).
As to claim 1, Gao discloses an electrolyzer (Fig. 2 #4), comprising:
a container having a top and bottom (#1 Fig. 2 where having a top and bottom are inherent to any container);
electrode ports coupled to the container (see annotation below); and
a plurality of separate vertically aligned and positioned, helical, electrodes (Fig. 4 #7.1/7.2) that all have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and have a first part that winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius (See Fig. 5 top view) in a first direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports, and that all have a second part which extends in a second vertical direction towards the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (Straight section shown in Fig. 4 going to opposite 7.1 or 7.2 connectors) and have a second end that extend from inside the container through a second one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container to outside the container (See citations below of the electrode ports).
As to the directions, it is noted that any winding has plural locations arbitrarily defined to have plural winds in each direction whether away or towards the ports. Furthermore, the instant claims do not distinguish a difference between a first or second direction, or whether each direction applies to each electrode or only singular electrodes.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gao fails to explicitly disclose where the second part winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius.
He discloses electrodes for a water electrolyzer (Title) comprising electrodes with plural windings in two directions (Fig. 1 and 2 #s 11/12/13 with connecting sections 20 and 30).
Arroyo discloses that concentric coil designs of electrodes leads to a greater surface area and thus increase the efficiency of an apparatus by lowering the energy required to perform electrolysis ([0008]).
Thus, the prior art of Gao discloses a base device comprising an electrode which spirals in a singular direction instead of both directions and provides a device where the second end extends straight up the direction from which it came and He discloses an electrolytic device which comprises electrodes which spiral in more than one direction. Arroyo discloses that the coiling leads to an increased surface area with the beneficial result in increasing efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an additional spiral in the upward direction that winds in parallel with a common radium as disclosed in He which leads to an increased surface area recognized by Arroyo to the second part of the electrode in Gao because the use of multiple spirals results in a higher production efficiency in he ([0008] He, Arroyo [0008]). The change amounts to an obvious change in shape of the electrode portions which provide an obvious increase in surface area of the electrode vi addition of further windings by providing plural portions with the winding shape in multiple directions where the difference where this particular feature is recognized in the art within the ordinary capabilities to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrode with different shape in providing the predictable result of electrolyzing water when a current/voltage is applied and leads to an increase efficiency as a result of the increased surface area as disclosed by Arroyo. See MPEP 2143 C, D.
As to claim 2, Gao further discloses a bracket inside the container extending in a first direction away from the electrode ports (#7.3 “).
As to claim 3, Gao further discloses wherein a plurality of electrodes are held in place by the bracket (See Fig. 4/5 “…an insulating plate 7.3, an insulating plate 7.3 is composed of three blocks, horizontal and vertical I-shaped, supporting spiral-shaped metal wire 7.1 and the helical metal wire 7.2, spiral metal wire 7.1 and the helical metal wire 7.2 keep distance with each other are sleeved together, with uniform spacing, head connected with the tail of each metal wire is respectively connected with the power supply”).
As to claims 4 and 8, Gao further discloses a ported outlet pipe coupled to the container (Abstract “hydrogen gas exhaust pipe” which also necessarily requires “gas ports” as required by instant claim 8).
As to claim 10, Gao discloses an electrolyzer electrode assembly, comprising:
at least a first helical electrode and a second helical electrode (Fig. 4 #7.1/7.2), that are vertically aligned, that have a first end that extend from outside of a container having a top and a bottom through a first one of a plurality of electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and wind, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius, in a first vertical direction away from the plurality of electrode ports, and in a second vertical direction toward the plurality of electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (See Fig. 5 top view), and have a second end that extend from inside of the container through a second one of the plurality of electrode ports coupled to the top of the container to outside of the container (See annotation below); and a bracket that includes structures that hold the first electrode and the second electrode in place (Fig. 4/5 #7.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gao fails to explicitly disclose where the second part winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius.
He discloses electrodes for a water electrolyzer (Title) comprising electrodes with plural windings in two directions (Fig. 1 and 2 #s 11/12/13 with connecting sections 20 and 30).
Arroyo discloses that concentric coil designs of electrodes leads to a greater surface area and thus increase the efficiency of an apparatus by lowering the energy required to perform electrolysis ([0008]).
Thus, the prior art of Gao discloses a base device comprising an electrode which spirals in a singular direction instead of both directions and provides a device where the second end extends straight up the direction from which it came and He discloses an electrolytic device which comprises electrodes which spiral in more than one direction. Arroyo discloses that the coiling leads to an increased surface area with the beneficial result in increasing efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an additional spiral in the upward direction that winds in parallel with a common radium as disclosed in He which leads to an increased surface area recognized by Arroyo to the second part of the electrode in Gao because the use of multiple spirals results in a higher production efficiency in he ([0008] He, Arroyo [0008]). The change amounts to an obvious change in shape of the electrode portions which provide an obvious increase in surface area of the electrode vi addition of further windings by providing plural portions with the winding shape in multiple directions where the difference where this particular feature is recognized in the art within the ordinary capabilities to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrode with different shape in providing the predictable result of electrolyzing water when a current/voltage is applied and leads to an increase efficiency as a result of the increased surface area as disclosed by Arroyo. See MPEP 2143 C, D.
As to claim 11, Gao discloses wherein the at least first electrode and the second electrode wind in the first direction and in the second direction for at least a second time. (See Fig. 4 where each one is wound plural times thus satisfying the instant claim limitation).
As to claim 16, Gao discloses an electrolyzer (Fig. 2 #4), comprising:
Providing a container having a top and bottom (#1 Fig. 2);
Providing electrode ports coupled to top of the container (see annotation below); and
Providing a plurality of vertically aligned, helical, electrodes (Fig. 4 #7.1/7.2) that have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and wind, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius (See Fig. 5 top view) in a first direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container, and in a second vertical direction toward the electrode ports and have a second end that extend from inside of the container through a second one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container to outside of the container. (See citations below of the electrode ports). As to the directions, it is noted that any winding has plural locations arbitrarily defined to have plural winds in each direction whether away or towards the ports. Furthermore, the instant claims do not distinguish a difference between a first or second direction, or whether each direction applies to each electrode or only singular electrodes.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gao fails to explicitly disclose where the second part winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius.
He discloses electrodes for a water electrolyzer (Title) comprising electrodes with plural windings in two directions (Fig. 1 and 2 #s 11/12/13 with connecting sections 20 and 30).
Arroyo discloses that concentric coil designs of electrodes leads to a greater surface area and thus increase the efficiency of an apparatus by lowering the energy required to perform electrolysis ([0008]).
Thus, the prior art of Gao discloses a base device comprising an electrode which spirals in a singular direction instead of both directions and provides a device where the second end extends straight up the direction from which it came and He discloses an electrolytic device which comprises electrodes which spiral in more than one direction. Arroyo discloses that the coiling leads to an increased surface area with the beneficial result in increasing efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an additional spiral in the upward direction that winds in parallel with a common radium as disclosed in He which leads to an increased surface area recognized by Arroyo to the second part of the electrode in Gao because the use of multiple spirals results in a higher production efficiency in he ([0008] He, Arroyo [0008]). The change amounts to an obvious change in shape of the electrode portions which provide an obvious increase in surface area of the electrode vi addition of further windings by providing plural portions with the winding shape in multiple directions where the difference where this particular feature is recognized in the art within the ordinary capabilities to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrode with different shape in providing the predictable result of electrolyzing water when a current/voltage is applied and leads to an increase efficiency as a result of the increased surface area as disclosed by Arroyo. See MPEP 2143 C, D.
As to claim 17 and 18, Gao further discloses a bracket inside the container extending in a first direction away from the electrode ports wherein the plurality of electrodes are held in placed by the bracket (#7.3 “).
As to claim 19, Gao further discloses a ported outlet pipe coupled to the container (Abstract “hydrogen gas exhaust pipe”).
Claim 5, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of He and Arroyo, in further view of McBride et al (US 2010/0170454 A1).
As to claims 5 and 20, Gao, in view of He, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ported outlet pipe includes the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container.
McBride further discloses wherein the ported outlet pipe includes the electrode ports (#114 is deemed to be a structure forming the pipe since the outlet 136/140 is formed therein – [0029] thus includes electrode ports since they are also coupled to the lid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to haves made integral the outlet pipe with the electrode ports as shown in McBride in the apparatus of Gao, in view of He and Arroyo, because the location of each outlet port for the electrodes provided in a singular location, in this case the structure 114 as evidenced in McBride, because said location is already recognized in McBride for electrode connections and amounts to an obvious duplication of ports to allow predictable results making the electrical connections. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B,C and 2144.04 V B.
As to claims 14 and 15, Gao, in view of He and Arroyo, fails to explicitly disclosed the claimed structure of supporting the electrodes to the bracket.
McBride further discloses wherein the bracket includes a plurality of sections that include spaces for holding the first electrode and the second electrode in place (Each hole in Fig. 5 that an electrode passes through as required by instant claim 14). As to claim 15, McBride further discloses wherein the bracket includes a plurality of rows of spaces for holding the first electrode and the second electrode in place (each row of holes in Fig. 5/6 as required by instant claim 15).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a bracket with spaces or portions as taught by McBride in providing a structure for the bracket to securing the electrodes in Gao, in view of He and Arroyo. Upon coupling, the predicted result would be that since the two structures are connected, that of the bracket and ported outlet pipe, relative movement between the two would be prevented and enable the loading of the electrodes with lid into the electrochemical cell during assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a bracket space or portions as taught by McBride to secure the electrodes to the bracket in Gao, in view of He and Arroyo, because it allows for the predictable result of securing of the electrodes to the bracket within the electrochemical cell at relative positions (McBride [0034] MPEP 2143 A and 2144.07).
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride in view of Sullivan.
As to claim 1, McBride discloses an electrolyzer (Fig. 1 and 2 “hydrogen generator” #s 100, Fig. 5), comprising:
a container having a top and bottom (#110 [0027]);
electrode ports coupled to the top of the container ([0027] “Generator lid 114 further includes conductive terminals 126 (four shown) extending vertically through the upper surface of the lid for electronic receipt of conductors 230 as generally shown.” thus coupled to the container since the lid is placed atop the container,); and
a plurality of separate vertically aligned and positioned, helical, electrodes that all have a first end that extends from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and have a first part that winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing (via bracket) a plurality of times, and with a common radius, in a first vertical direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container, and that all have a second part that winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times and with a common radius, in a second vertical direction toward the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#220/228 [0034] “helically wound”, [0035] “third 220 and fourth 228 electrodes are helically wound in alternating fashion down through the third set of apertures 196 along axis 164 until the bottom most set of apertures are reached and then are wound upward along axis 164 back toward the top through the second set of radial apertures 190 as shown.” In other words, the electrodes 220/228 wind down through middle holes of the bracket and back up via the inside holes of the bracket). Note: the claim requires “a plurality of electrodes…that all have a first …and that all have a second…” and does not require all electrode contained within the electrolyzer to have said structure.
McBride fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrodes have a second end that extends from inside the container through a second one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container to outside of the container.
Sullivan discloses a plurality of electrodes (#4/5) that have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports into the container and wind, a plurality of times. in a first direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports, and in a second direction toward the electrode ports and have a second end that extend from inside of the container through a second one of the electrode ports to outside of the container. (See citations below. As to the directions, it is noted that any winding has plural locations arbitrarily defined to have plural winds in each direction whether away or towards the ports. See annotation below as applied to electrode 4 and also applied to electrode 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
790
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
790
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provides a second end that extends from inside to outside of the container for each of the electrodes as taught by Sullivan in the electrolyzer of McBride because by provided additional connections at the opposite ends of the electrode allows for the apparatus of have a reduced voltage drop when compared to electrodes with only a single connection (Sullivan [0008]) where the benefit of using an alternating reversal of current allows for the reversal of the electromagnetic field during electrolytic thus accelerating electrolysis and reducing buildup of electrolytic reaction products on the electrodes (Sullivan [0024]-[0025]).
As to claim 2, McBride further discloses a bracket inside the container extending in a first direction away from the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#150).
As to claim 3, McBride further discloses wherein a plurality of electrodes are held in place by the bracket (See Fig. 5).
As to claim 4, McBride further discloses a ported outlet pipe coupled to the container (#114 cap with 136/140).
As to claim 5, McBride further discloses wherein the ported outlet pipe includes the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#114 is deemed to be a structure forming the pipe since the outlet 136/140 is formed therein – [0029] thus includes electrode ports since they are also coupled to the lid). Furthermore, location of each outlet port for the electrodes provided in a singular location, in this case the structure 114, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because said location is already recognized in McBride for electrode connections and amounts to an obvious duplication of ports to allow predictable results making the electrical connections. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B,C.
As to claim 6, McBride further discloses wherein the wind the first direction is less than the radius of the wind in the second direction (electrodes 220 going downward in 196 apertures and back up in 190 apertures [0035] thus providing a smaller radius going away from the ports than the direction back up from the ports).
As to claim 8, McBride further discloses wherein the ported outlet pipe includes gas ports (#136 which provide the outlet of the container which flows hydrogen gas when being used – [0030] thus constitutes a gas port).
As to claim 10, McBride discloses a at least a helical first electrode and second helical electrode, that are vertically aligned, that have a first end that extend from outside of a container having a top and a bottom through a first one of a plurality of electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and wind, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius in a first vertical direction away from the plurality of electrode ports coupled to the top of the container, and that all have a second part that winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times and with a common radius, in a second vertical direction toward the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#220/228 [0034] “helically wound”, [0035] “third 220 and fourth 228 electrodes are helically wound in alternating fashion down through the third set of apertures 196 along axis 164 until the bottom most set of apertures are reached and then are wound upward along axis 164 back toward the top through the second set of radial apertures 190 as shown.” In other words, the electrodes 220/228 wind down through middle holes of the bracket and back up via the inside holes of the bracket). Note: the claim requires “a plurality of electrodes…that all have a first …and that all have a second…” and does not require all electrode contained within the electrolyzer to have said structure.
McBride fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrodes have a second end that extends from inside the container through a second one of the electrode ports to outside of the container.
Sullivan discloses a plurality of electrodes (#4/5) that have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports into the container and wind, a plurality of times. in a first direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports, and in a second direction toward the electrode ports and have a second end that extend from inside of the container through a second one of the electrode ports to outside of the container. (See citations below. As to the directions, it is noted that any winding has plural locations arbitrarily defined to have plural winds in each direction whether away or towards the ports. See annotation below as applied to electrode 4 and also applied to electrode 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
790
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
790
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provides a second end that extends from inside to outside of the container for each of the electrodes as taught by Sullivan in the electrolyzer of McBride because by provided additional connections at the opposite ends of the electrode allows for the apparatus of have a reduced voltage drop when compared to electrodes with only a single connection (Sullivan [0008]) where the benefit of using an alternating reversal of current allows for the reversal of the electromagnetic field during electrolytic thus accelerating electrolysis and reducing buildup of electrolytic reaction products on the electrodes (Sullivan [0024]-[0025]).
As to claim 11, McBride discloses wherein the at least first electrode and the second electrode wind in the first direction and in the second direction for at least a second time. (See Fig. 5 where each one is wound plural times on the way down and up the bracket 150 thus satisfying the instant claim limitation).
As to claim 12, McBride further discloses wherein the wind the first direction is less than the radius of the wind in the second direction (electrodes 220 going downward in 196 apertures and back up in 190 apertures [0035] thus providing a smaller radius going away from the ports than the direction back up from the ports).
As to claim 13, McBride further discloses wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to include a plurality of concentric parts of different radius. (each section or wind on the way down is different from each on the way up thus having parts of different radius).
As to claim 14, McBride further discloses wherein the bracket includes a plurality of sections that include spaces for holding the first electrode and the second electrode in place (Each hole in Fig. 5 that an electrode passes through).
As to claim 15, McBride further discloses wherein the bracket includes a plurality of rows of spaces for holding the first electrode and the second electrode in place (each row of holes in Fig. 5/6).
As to claim 16, McBride discloses a method comprising:
Providing a container having a top and a bottom (#110 [0027]);
Providing electrode ports coupled to the top of the container ([0027] “Generator lid 114 further includes conductive terminals 126 (four shown) extending vertically through the upper surface of the lid for electronic receipt of conductors 230 as generally shown.” thus coupled to the container since the lid is placed atop the container,); and
Providing a plurality of vertically aligned, helical electrodes that have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container into the container and wind, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times, and with a common radius in a first vertical direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container, and that all have a second part that winds, in parallel, with equidistant spacing, a plurality of times and with a common radius, in a second vertical direction toward the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#220/228 [0034] “helically wound”, [0035] “third 220 and fourth 228 electrodes are helically wound in alternating fashion down through the third set of apertures 196 along axis 164 until the bottom most set of apertures are reached and then are wound upward along axis 164 back toward the top through the second set of radial apertures 190 as shown.” In other words, the electrodes 220/228 wind down through middle holes of the bracket and back up via the inside holes of the bracket). Note: the claim requires “a plurality of electrodes…that all have a first …and that all have a second…” and does not require all electrode contained within the electrolyzer to have said structure.
Note that absent specific method steps related to each “providing” step, by virtue of the structure of McBride being disclosed such structure associated as such are inherently provided.
McBride fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrodes have a second end that extends from inside the container through a second one of the electrode ports to outside of the container.
Sullivan discloses a plurality of electrodes (#4/5) that have a first end that extend from outside of the container through a first one of the electrode ports into the container and wind, a plurality of times. in a first direction for a first distance away from the electrode ports, and in a second direction toward the electrode ports and have a second end that extend from inside of the container through a second one of the electrode ports to outside of the container. (See citations below. As to the directions, it is noted that any winding has plural locations arbitrarily defined to have plural winds in each direction whether away or towards the ports. See annotation below as applied to electrode 4 and also applied to electrode 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
790
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
790
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provides a second end that extends from inside to outside of the container for each of the electrodes as taught by Sullivan in the electrolyzer of McBride because by provided additional connections at the opposite ends of the electrode allows for the apparatus of have a reduced voltage drop when compared to electrodes with only a single connection (Sullivan [0008]) where the benefit of using an alternating reversal of current allows for the reversal of the electromagnetic field during electrolytic thus accelerating electrolysis and reducing buildup of electrolytic reaction products on the electrodes (Sullivan [0024]-[0025]).
As to claim 17, McBride further discloses a bracket inside the container extending in a first direction away from the electrode ports coupled to the top of the container (#150).
As to claim 18, McBride further discloses wherein a plurality of electrodes are held in place by the bracket (See Fig. 5).
As to claim 19, McBride further discloses a ported outlet pipe coupled to the container (#114 cap with 136/140).
As to claim 20, McBride further discloses wherein the ported outlet pipe includes the electrode ports (#114 is deemed to be a structure forming the pipe since the outlet 136/140 is formed therein – [0029] thus includes electrode ports since they are also coupled to the lid).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overGao, as applied to claim 4, in further view of McConahay et al (US 2011/0174241 A1).
As to claim 7, Gao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ported outlet pipe included a bracket securing component.
McConahay discloses a cylindrical hydrogen fuel generator (Title) comprising a ported outlet pipe (check valve 113/490 Fig. 1/4A a part of head 411) with a bracket holding the electrodes (#450/430 a part of the inner core 410) in which the ported outlet pipe is secured to the bracket via a bracket securing component ([0049] #470).
The prior art discloses each element of the instant claim language through the references of Gao and McConahay, with the deficiency being a lack of an actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a bracket securing component attached to the ported outlet pipe using the known methods of McConahay in providing a structure for a bracket securing component missing in Gao. Upon coupling, the predicted result would be that since the two structures are connected, that of the bracket and ported outlet pipe, relative movement between the two would be prevented and enable the loading of the electrodes with lid into the electrochemical cell during assembly since the connection of McConahay would only be able to connect to a bracket when not in the cell due to its location at the bottom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a bracket securing component as taught by McConahay to secure the bracket to the lid in Gao because it allows for the predictable result of securing of the bracket to the lid within the electrochemical cell at relative positions and allow the loaded of the electrodes within the cell with the placement of the ported outlet pipe.
As to claim 9, Gao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ported outlet pipe includes a pressure relief valve.
McConahay discloses a cylindrical hydrogen fuel generator (Title) comprising a ported outlet pipe (check valve 113/490 Fig. 1/4A a part of head 411) with a pressure relief valve (#480 or #111 OR check valve 113/490).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a pressure relief valve as taught by McConahay with the ported outlet pipe of Gao because it regulated the maximum pressure the electrolyzer may be operated at to regulate the hydrogen production process ([0050] McConahay) or to allow hydrogen gas to be delivered and prevent backflow and as a safety mechanism(McConahay [0052]).
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 21 January 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 based upon the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as set forth in the last Office action because:
The declaration, while evidence in and of itself, does not present any actual data or facts pointing to the alleged unexpected result. Bullet 6 describes the tests conducted without associated data of the actual faradaic efficiency. Declarant describes the appearance of “excessive bubble formation” but does not provide germane evidence of the actual bubble formation or what is deemed to be “excessive”. Declarant also does not particularly describe what actual structures define “stopper” terminals, as alleged in McBride and how those are different than those claimed. The instant claims do not preclude such structures in McBride. Assuming the difference between the closed stopper of McBride and an open configuration of a “port” which does not have any particular resilient means to prevent leakage from within the container, i.e. literally a wire exiting an larger hole, one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely expect seeing less bubble as the bubble would naturally escape through the open port. Likewise, the alleged increase in faradaic efficiency is not explicitly tied to the particular electrode port. Declarant further provides conclusory statements about the “submerged terminals stoppers…electode terminal ends…” without sufficient data to support.
Continuing, Declarant attempts to draw a correlation between electrode gap uniformity and the faradaic efficiency. Again, no data is presented demonstrating the increase in efficiency. Indeed, the spiral wire electrodes on McBridge are uniformly spaced which wind in multiple directions, as cited above. No data is shown displaying what is deemed to be “uniform” in accordance with the alleged increase in efficiency. Furthermore, the actual description of the effiency , how it was measured, or the test conditions, i.e. type of water, current density, applied potentials, or the like, are not disclosed.
Thus, the Declaration is deficient in accordance with MPEP 716.02 (a) and (b) because not data is shown directly tied to the features and the unexpected results; MPEP 716.02(d) because the evidence presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed because the claims do not preclude terminal type stopper as allegedly presented in McBride, without provide an actual definition of what a stopper is or further description of a “port”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against Gao, Arroyo, and He, on pgs. 7-9 of the response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Applicant argues that Gao does not disclose the combine features of claim 1 with respect to the plural direction windings and the electrode ports as claimed. Applicant appears to emphasis the electrode ports are not coupled to the top of the container in Gao. This argument is not persuasive as the leads in Gao clearly extend through the chamber, i.e. the container. Furthermore, the recitation of “ports” does not impart any particular structure, condition, or the like so as to allow the passage of the electrodes through the chamber to enable electrical connection.
In response to Applicant’s argument that He has terminal portions which extend from the bottom of the body, this argument is not persuasive because the structure of He with respect to the bottom of the chamber because he is not relied upon for said ports, but rather the plural windings in two directions.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Arroyo fails to disclose electrodes structured as recited in instant claim 1, this argument is not persuasive because Arroyo is not relied upon for the complete structure of the electrodes of instant claim 1, but rather using concentric coil designs that increase the efficiency of the apparatus to lower the energy required to perform.
In response to applicant's arguments against McBridge on pgs. 10-11 of the response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Applicant argues that McBride does not disclose the combined features of the instant claims with respect to the plural direction windings and the electrode ports as claimed. However, McBride is not relied upon for a combination of the features addressed through the addition of Sullivan to disclose the instant claim limitations.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795