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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
02/03/2026.
Status of Rejections
The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
All other previous rejections are maintained.
The rejection of claim 1 has been updated in response to the limitations of claims 4 and 5 being amended in. No new art is cited.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono et al (JPH09192670A, Google Patent translation used for citations) in view of Miyashita (US 20070131541 A1), Seymour et al (US 20210363651 A1), and Mofakhami (US 20140202875 A1).
Claim 1: Kono discloses a method of operating an electrolysis apparatus comprising an electrolyzer (see e.g. Fig 3) that includes an anode compartment including an anode and a cathode compartment including a cathode and in which the anode compartment and the cathode compartment are partitioned from each other by a spacer (see e.g. abstract and Fig 11), the method comprising:
an energization step in which electrolysis of electrolyte in the anode compartment and the cathode compartment is performed (see e.g. page 12: “After the power was turned on, the solenoid valve was opened to start water flow, and SW1 was turned on to start electrolysis”);
a suspension step in which electrolysis of electrolyte in the anode compartment and the cathode compartment is suspended (see e.g. page 12: “After electrolysis for a predetermined time, SW1 was turned off to stop electrolysis, and the solenoid valve was closed to stop water flow”); and
a discharge step of, in the suspension step, electrically connecting the electrolyzer to an external load (see e.g. page 12: “SW2 is turned on to form an inter-electrode discharge circuit to perform discharge between the electrodes for a predetermined time”) and adjusting a cell voltage to 0.1 V or less in 5 hours or less (0 V in 4 seconds, see e.g. page 14: “when there was a discharge between the electrodes, the residual voltage after stopping for 4 seconds after the short-circuiting had decreased to about 0 V”), wherein the discharge step is implemented when voltage of the electrolyzer falls below a specific threshold value in the suspension step (the applied voltage is turned off and this initiates the discharge step, see e.g. page 12: “After electrolysis for a predetermined time, SW1 was turned off to stop electrolysis”),
the anode and a positive electrode of an electrolysis power supply are connected by a first cable (see e.g. cable connecting the positive end of power supply #3 to the anode of cell #1 on Fig 1),
the cathode and a negative electrode of the electrolysis power supply are connected by a second cable (see e.g. cable connecting the negative end of power supply #3 to the cathode of cell #1 on Fig 1), and
the first and second cables are connected through the external load and a switch (see e.g. #5 and #4 on Fig 1).
Kono does not explicitly teach that the apparatus includes a membrane. Miyashita teaches an electrolytic apparatus for water (see e.g. [0010]-[0011]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Miyashita teaches that these cells comprising anodes, cathode, and spacers also include membranes (see e.g. abstract) which improves efficiency relative to the power applied (see e.g. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Kono to incorporate the membrane taught in Kono.
Kono does not explicitly teach that the electrolyzer includes a plurality of electrolytic cells connected in series and comprises at least a first cell having an anode and a second cell having a cathode at two end parts. Seymour teaches an electrolytic apparatus for water (see e.g. [0054]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Seymour teaches that these cells can sometimes comprise up to 200 cells (see e.g. [0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Kono so that at least a first cell having an anode and a second cell having a cathode at two end parts because Seymour teaches that these apparatuses can comprise multiple cells. The number of cells desired is based on the desired output of products from the apparatus.
Kono does not explicitly teach that the electrolyzer comprises a bipolar electrolyzer. Mofakhami teaches an electrolyzer for water (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Mofakhami teaches using bipolar electrolyzers (see e.g. [0007] and [0010]) comprising bipolar electrodes (see e.g. [0010]) that improves the circulation of electric current (see e.g. [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Kono so that the apparatus is a bipolar electrolyzer as taught in Mofakhami.
Claim 2: Kono in view of Miyashita, Seymour, and Mofakhami discloses that the cell voltage is adjusted to 0.1 V or less in 60 minutes or less in the discharge step (0 V in 4 seconds, see e.g. page 14: “when there was a discharge between the electrodes, the residual voltage after stopping for 4 seconds after the short-circuiting had decreased to about 0 V”).
Claim 4: Kono in view of Miyashita, Seymour, and Mofakhami teaches that the discharge step is implemented for a portion of the plurality of electrolytic cells (see e.g. page 12: “SW2 is turned on to form an inter-electrode discharge circuit to perform discharge between the electrodes for a predetermined time”).
Claim 5: Kono in view of Miyashita, Seymour, and Mofakhami teaches that the electrolyzer of the electrolysis apparatus includes 30 or more electrolytic cells (see e.g. [0055] of Seymor)
Claim 6: Kono in view of Miyashita, Seymour, and Mofakhami discloses that the retained electrical charge of the cathode included in the cathode compartment is 0.1 times or less retained electrical charge of the anode included in the anode compartment (see e.g. page 14: “when there was a discharge between the electrodes, the residual voltage after stopping for 4 seconds after the short-circuiting had decreased to about 0 V”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 8, the Applicant argues Kono does not disclose the method of claim 1 because “Kono merely discloses that after stopping electrolysis by turning off switch SW1, an inter-electrode discharge is performed by turning on switch condition or with thus SW2. See Kono at paragraph [0021]. However, Kono is completely silent as to any specific or monitored parameter for turning on the switch SW2…Since Kono lacks any disclosure of a specific trigger condition for the switch SW2, Kono fails to reasonably teach or suggest the above-mentioned feature of amended claim 1, namely that the discharge step is implemented when voltage of the electrolyzer falls below a specific threshold value in the suspension step”. This is not considered persuasive. Kono discloses a suspension step in which electrolysis of electrolyte in the anode compartment and the cathode compartment is suspended (see e.g. page 12: “After electrolysis for a predetermined time, SW1 was turned off to stop electrolysis, and the solenoid valve was closed to stop water flow”) followed by a discharge step (see e.g. page 12: “SW2 is turned on to form an inter-electrode discharge circuit to perform discharge between the electrodes for a predetermined time”) when the voltage of the electrolyzer falls below a specific threshold value in the suspension step (the applied voltage is turned off and this initiates the discharge step, see e.g. page 12: “After electrolysis for a predetermined time, SW1 was turned off to stop electrolysis”). The claim does not specify what the threshold value is and that only a threshold is present. The threshold is the voltage after the first switch is turn off.
The Applicant’s arguments about monitoring a parameter is unclaimed subject matter. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant also argues “Instead, the claimed method ensures that the discharge step is triggered specifically in response to the voltage of the electrolyzer falling below a defined threshold. This threshold-based control provides the advantage of effectively preventing electrode degradation while suppressing the amount of heat generated in the external load.” Kono also teaches performing the discharge step to prevent electrode degradation (see e.g. page 5: “it is possible to reduce the opposite charge accumulated between the electrodes without damaging the elements in the circuit, etc., and to reduce the generation efficiency of electrolysis-generated water”).
On page(s) 9-10, the Applicant argues the combination of Kono with Seymour is improper because “because doing so would clearly render Kono's system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation” due to “Seymour's teaching of maintaining a specific voltage (0.5 to 1.5 V)”. This is not considered persuasive. Seymour was combined with Kono to teach having up to 200 cells in an electorlyzer for electrolyzing water. The voltage range taught in Seymour would not be a part of the combination. Although the entire reference needs to be considered when making art combinations, the teaching of the specific voltage (0.5 to 1.5 V) in Seymour would not render the combination inoperable because it does not relate to how many cells can be in the electrolyzer.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights