DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 3/18/26:
claims 1-20 are presently pending
claims 11-20 are currently withdrawn
the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US Pub. No. 2016/0040310 to Komai et al., (hereinafter referred to as “KOMAI”).
Regarding claim 1, KOMAI teaches a system for operating one or more electrolysis cells (see generally KOMAI at Abstract and Fig. 7 depicting steam electrolytic cell 14; see also KOMAI at ¶13-¶15 teaching the system allowing for more efficient hydrogen production with a time-varying electric power source through the operating of the electrolytic cell; see also KOMAI at ¶65 teaching the third embodiment of Fig. 7 including both of embodiments one and two of Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 which are referenced herein), comprising:
one or more electrolysis cells (see KOMAI at Fig. 7 depicting electrolytic cell 14; see also KOMAI at ¶25 teaching the system including electrolytic cell 14); and
at least one power electronic unit (see KOMAI at Fig. 7 depicting pulse voltage generation unit 13; see also KOMAI at ¶25 teaching pulse voltage generation unit 13 providing the pulse voltage at a set amplitude and period), wherein the power electronic unit(s) provides voltage fluctuations to the electrolysis cells (see KOMAI at ¶25 teaching pulse voltage generation unit capable of providing one or more voltage fluctuations as claimed; see also KOMAI at ¶29 and at Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C depicting exemplary voltage pulses clearly showing the capability as claimed),
wherein the voltage fluctuation(s) are periodical voltage variations which recur in predefined intervals (see KOMAI at Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C depicting voltage pulses, i.e. periodic voltage variations, which recur in predefined intervals for each scenario – proper power, increased power, or decreased power) and are configured such that near-thermoneutral operation at part load is enabled by matching the integral Joule heat production with the integral reaction heat consumption inside said cell(s) (see KOMAI at ¶29 and ¶34 teaching the voltage pulses being set so as to maintain the voltage at the thermoneutral point), and wherein the near-thermoneutral operation comprises an electrothermal balanced operation, which uses electric (Joule) heat to balance the reaction heat consumed and produced in the one or more electrolysis cells during electrolysis and fuel cell mode operation of the one or more electrolysis cells respectively (see KOMAI at ¶29 and ¶34 teaching the voltage pulses being maintained as such so as to allow for thermoneutral operation which would operate so as to balance the reaction heat consumed and produced through the operation of the electrolysis pulses as claimed); and
wherein the voltage fluctuations are periodical changes of cell voltages with a frequency in the range of from 10 mHz to 100 kHz (see KOMAI at Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C and ¶33-¶34 teaching the pulse voltage generation unit adjusting the period, i.e. and by extension the frequency, based on a detected parameter thereby demonstrating the capability of the pulse voltage generation unit to supply a desired frequency as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the one or more electrolysis cell(s) are configured to operate above 120 °C (see KOMAI at ¶3 teaching the system for high temperature steam electrolysis; see also KOMAI at ¶5 teaching the usual temperature for steam electrolysis being 500 °C or more such that the system would be capable of operating at temperatures as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the one or more electrolysis cell(s) are selected from solid oxide electrolysis/fuel cells (SOEC/SOFC), molten carbonate electrolysis/fuel cells (MCEC/MCFC), high temperature and pressure alkaline electrolysis/fuel cells, and ceramic electrolyte proton conducting electrolysis/fuel cells (PCEC/PCFC) (see KOMAI at ¶30 teaching the electrolytic cell 14 being a SOEC).
Regarding claim 5, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the voltage fluctuation(s) are configured to effect desorption or dissolution of side reaction compounds adsorbed, precipitated or otherwise formed in the electrodes of the cell(s) (see KOMAI at ¶29 teaching voltage pulses maintained at the thermoneutral point such that this effect would be expected to occur).
Regarding claim 6, KOMAI teaches the system wherein a duration of each voltage fluctuation(s) is in the range of from 1 µs to 1000 s (see rejection of claim 1 setting forth the teachings of KOMAI above in which the pulse voltage generation unit 13 would have the capability of providing voltage fluctuations, i.e. changes of voltage, for any needed time period; see also KOMAI at Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C depicting the changing of the length of time thereby demonstrating the capability as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the power electronic unit comprises a DC power supply with a pulse width modulation (PVVM) motor controller, a bi-directional power supply, or a power supply in combination with an e-load (see KOMAI at Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C teaching the capacitor 12 and pulse voltage generation unit 13 acting as a DC power source and pulse width modulation controller to adjust the width through the period control; see also KOMAI at ¶29 teaching the pulse voltage generation unit 13 generating the pulse voltage at a set amplitude, period and width).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the range of the voltage fluctuation(s) is between 0.2 V and 2.0 V per electrolysis cell, and further between 0.5 V and 1.9 V per electrolysis cell (see KOMAI at ¶29 teaching the capability of the pulse voltage generation unit 13 as capable of setting the voltage amplitude; see also KOMAI at ¶38 teaching the voltage Vs being a voltage which maintains the thermoneutral point which is the same desire as applicant and so would be within the claimed range. Furthermore, since the claimed voltage fluctuation values are directed towards the manner of operation of the power electronic unit(s) the prior art need merely possess the capability of operating as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, KOMAI teaches the system wherein the one or more electrolysis cell(s) perform electrolysis of H2O and/or CO2 (see KOMAI at ¶25 teaching the generation of H2 by steam electrolysis, i.e. the electrolysis of H2O).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that KOMAI does not teach the voltage fluctuations being periodical voltage variations which recur in predefined intervals and are configured such that near-thermoneutral operation at part load is enabled by matching the integral Joule heat production with the integral reaction heat consumption inside said cells, the near-thermoneutral operation comprises an electrothermal balance operation, which uses electric (Joule) heat to balance the reaction heat consumed and produced in the one or more electrolysis cells. See Remarks at page 8, first full paragraph. Applicant also argues that this limitation requires a dynamic process which inherently requires the voltage fluctuation to be configured in response to changes in the heat balance and not in response to changes in electric power as taught by KOMAI.
While the examiner agrees that KOMAI teaches voltage fluctuations configured to change in response to changes in electric power, the examiner must nevertheless respectfully disagree that the claimed limitations as amended require a dynamic process as recited. It is noted that the claims at issue are directed towards a system and as such a method of operating is only limiting to the extent it imparts structure. Here, the claims do not appear to require any structural element configured to perform the electrothermal balance determination and control the voltage fluctuations in response to that determination. Instead, the voltage fluctuations are required to be “configured such that near-thermoneutral operation at part load is enabled …” (see claim 1 at lines 6-8). As such, it is the examiner’s opinion that the system of KOMAI which provides voltage fluctuations that change in response to changes in electric power which operate the electrolysis cell in a thermoneutral manner would still read on the claim limitations of independent claim 1.
Applicant also argues against the rejection of claim 1 based on the examiner’s assertion of KOMAI teaching the limitation specifying the voltage fluctuations to have a frequency in the range of from 10 mHz to 100 kHz. See Remarks at page 9, third paragraph.
However, here also the Examiner must respectfully disagree as the claim limitation is further limiting the voltage fluctuations which are directed towards a function of the at least one power electronic unit. As such, here, the prior art teaches the capability of providing voltage fluctuations and adjusting the parameters of the voltage pulse (see e.g. KOMAI at ¶42) and so KOMAI is reasonably relied on as having the capability of providing for pulses having a frequency as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights