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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the tap changer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claims 23 does not depend from either claim 21 or claim 22 that would have provided antecedent basis for “the tap changer”. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume that claim 23 depends from claim 21 instead of claim 20.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “adapted … as a function of a previous operating time”, and the claim also recites “in particular increased” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 26 recites the broad recitation “nominal capacity”, and the claim also recites “(ultimately corresponds to the extraction rate)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 27, recites “discharged and, in particular, stored and/or purified”. The recitation of “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the recitation provides an optional limitation or other emphasis on the different recited options.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-20 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A).
Regarding claims 17, 31, and 32, Tanaka teaches (see English abstract, figs. 1, 2, and 4) a system for electrolysis and a method of operating thereof comprising an electrolysis device (18 in fig. 1 or 1 in fig. 4) that is electrically connected to a power converter (16) by means of a direct-voltage circuit, wherein the power converter is connected to an alternating-voltage circuit (15) in order to supply the electrolysis device with electrical energy for operation. The power converter of Tanaka is operated (see esp. fig. 2 and paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0015] of machine translation) to reduce disruptions in the control system and to reduce noise by controlling the power converter using switches that operated at times when the voltage/current of the alternating voltage is at zero.
In the absence of a circuit diagram of the “vibration package control” provided by power converter 130 and control unit 131, the Office must interpret the “vibration package control” limitation in accordance with the language utilized by Applicant in describing the effect of the control.
The operating state of Tanaka is considered to be a “vibration package control” as disclosed and claimed in the instant application in that the control reduced potential/frequency vibrations in the alternating current source by operating the switches only when the voltage/current is at/near zero.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches (see paragraphs [0012] and [0015] of machine translation) using either half-wave or full-wave rectification.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka teaches (see paragraph [0015] of machine translation) using full-wave rectification which 100% of the input voltage is used as the output voltage.
PNG
media_image1.png
30
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka teaches that the alternating-voltage circuit side is electrically connected to a power supply grid via a transformer (15 or 22).
Regarding claim 30, the electrolytic process performed by Tanaka inherently falls within one of the types of electrolysis claimed, most likely the low-temperature electrolysis type.
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A) in view of Nonomura (JP 06-170369 A).
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka fails to teach providing multiple tap points on the transformer (15 in fig. 1 or 22 in fig. 4).
Nonomura teaches (see fig. 3) that a multi-tap transformer (T1)was known in the field of power supplies for electrolysis systems and that it was connected to a tap changer (switches A-C). Multi-tap transformers were known to have the capability of adjusting the output voltage of the power supply to the electrolysis system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a multi-tap transformer with tap changing switches as taught by Nonomura to the power supply of Tanaka for the purpose of permitting the adjustment of the voltage amount supplied to the electrolysis system by the power supply.
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka fails to teach providing a tap changer connecting multiple tap points on the transformer (15 in fig. 1 or 22 in fig. 4).
Nonomura teaches (see fig. 3) that a multi-tap transformer (T1)was known in the field of power supplies for electrolysis systems and that it was connected to a tap changer (switches A-C). Multi-tap transformers were known to have the capability of adjusting the output voltage of the power supply to the electrolysis system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a multi-tap transformer with tap changing switches as taught by Nonomura to the power supply of Tanaka for the purpose of permitting the adjustment of the voltage amount supplied to the electrolysis system by the power supply. Selection of an appropriate style of tap changer would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, the tap changing switches of Nonomura would have been capable of being designed to adjust the voltage within any desired band relative to the output of the transformer.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A).
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka fails to teach the identity of the alternating voltage supply. However, selection of a public utility grid as the source of the alternating voltage supply would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing due to the ubiquitous nature of public utility grids as a source of stable and efficient alternating voltage supply.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A) in view of Ito et al (US 2013/0248359 A1).
Tanaka does not teach that the voltage is adapted as a function of previous operating time to account for degradation of the electrolysis device over the service life.
Ito et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0038], [0064]-[0065]) that operation time may cause efficiency losses in an electrolysis device, and that it was necessary to utilize a controller that adjusts the applied voltage depending upon the operating time of the electrolysis device in order to maintain maximum efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have monitored operating time and/or service life of the electrolysis device and to adjust the voltage accordingly as suggested by Ito et al in the process of Tanaka to permit efficiency of the electrolysis device to stay as high as possible.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A) in view of Liu et al (US 2006/0114642 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 29, Tanaka does not teach that the electrolysis performed by the cell was water electrolysis nor that the electrolysis process produced at least one gaseous product that was discharger, stored, and/or purified.
Liu et al teach (see abstract, figs. 3-7, and paragraph [0008]) using a similar power supply for converting electric grid alternating current into direct current to be applied to an electrolysis system that produced hydrogen and oxygen gases by electrolysis of water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the improvements taught by Tanaka to improve the power supply of Liu et al in the same way resulting in a water electrolysis system that produced hydrogen gas that was discharged and stored using a power supply having “a vibration package control” as claimed. See MPEP 2143.I.C.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 11-010153 A) in view of Pritchard (US 5,592,028 A).
Tanaka does not teach that at least one of the electrolysis cells are switched on and/or off as required.
Pritchard teaches (see abstract, fig. 2) powering a plurality of electrolysis cells, wherein depending upon the availability of power, one or more of the electrolysis cells are switched on and/or off as required to balance the power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of Tanaka to include a step of switching one or more of the electrolysis cells on and/or off as required as suggested by Pritchard to balance power usage by the electrolysis cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794