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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Currently claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-22, 27 and 56-59 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 5 and 16 state that the solution is an alkaline solution. Claims 10 and 21 go on to state that the zinc salt is zinc sulfate. As per the specification, the only description of zinc sulfate is used with acidic solution (see [0025]). Thus claims 10 and 21, as currently written, are new matter to the written description.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 27, 56 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0327998 of Ayme-Perrot (herein cited as Perrot) in view of WO 2009/127145A1 of Huang and US 2021/0123145 of Grindler et al.
As to claims 1 and 12, Perrot teaches of a system comprising:
an electrolytic cell comprising a first electrode and a second electrode (Perrot, [0024]);
the cell comprising an uninterrupted electrolyte, single-chamber (Perrot, [0027] – [0028] and Figs. 1 and 2).
Perrot additionally teaches the electrolyte solution comprises an alkaline solution containing a zinc metal salt (Perrot, [0037], [0051] and [0076]).
It is noted that the system does not actively comprise an external power source or a heating mechanism.
In relation to the configured language of the electrode connections, Perrot teaches the system is configured to perform a charge, discharge and standby phases (Perrot, [0057] – [0062] and [0100]).
Perrot does not teach the specific zinc salt concentration or the electrode spacing.
Huang teaches of electrolytic hydrogen generation and energy storage systems (Huang, p. 1 lines 4-6).
Huang additionally teaches that the zinc electrode and gas evolution electrode are placed as intervals (i.e. gaps) of between 1 mm to 30 mm (including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 23 and 30 mm) to facilitate capacity requirements and gas generation ability (Huang, p. 7 lines 26-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrot as per Huang so as to utilize the desired spacing of the electrodes to facilitate gas generation ability and functional capacity.
Perrot in view of Huang do not teach the zinc salt concentration.
Grindler teaches of electrolytic system for decoupled hydrogen and oxygen generation (Grindler, [0029] – [0035]).
Grindler additionally teaches the electrolyte can be alkaline and comprise a zinc salt in a concentration between 0.1 M to 15 M to facilitate the decoupled hydrogen and oxygen generation (Grindler, [0082] – [0092] and [0104] - [0106]), generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical (See MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, it is also noted that Grindler also teaches that there is a heating means to heat the electrolyte during discharge to promote hydrogen nucleation and release (Grindler, [0066], [0123]).
As to the temperature range, this would be obvious in view of the language that the heater is capable of heating above room temperature.
Generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical (See MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perrot in view of Huang as per Grindler so as to utilize the desired metal salt concentration in order to facilitate the decoupled generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases as a predictable result of the system.
As to claims 3 and 14, Perrot in view of Huang and Grindler teach to the system of claims 1 and 12.
Perrot teaches the zinc salt is zincate (Perrot, [0076]).
As to claims 4 and 15, Perrot in view of Huang and Grindler teach to the system of claims 1 and 12.
Perrot additionally teaches the first electrode (one that has metal deposited thereon) consists of zinc and the second electrode (one where gas is generated) consists of nickel alloys (Perrot, [0074] and [0079]).
As to claim 27, Perrot in view of Huang and Grindler teach to the system of claim 1.
Perrot additionally teaches an external power source (Perrot, [0055] and Fig. 1).
As to claims 56 and 58, Perrot in view of Huang and Grindler teach to the system of claims 1 and 12.
The claims 56 and 58 denote how the system is used and thus do not provide any additional elements to the structure of the system. The claims are towards intended use. Therefore the system limitations are met, see MPEP 2114 I and II.
Claims 5, 8, 10, 16, 19, 21, 57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0079536 of Bizouard et al in view of WO2009/127145A1 of Huang.
As to claims 5 and 16 Bizouard teaches of a system, the system comprising:
an electrolytic cell containing a first electrode and a second electrode, the second electrode being split into a first unit and second unit that are electrically insulated from each other (Bizouard, [0093] – [0099], [0363] – [0369] and Figs. 1A and 1B).
Bizouard additionally teaches an alkaline solution contain a zinc salt herein such that the concentration is between 0.1 M to 15 M (Bizouard, [0031], [0074], [0085] – [0088] and [0101]). Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical (See MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
As to the configured to language, as seen in 1A and 1B, during a charging phase, a first electrode (3) is provided for metal to be deposited thereon and a second electrode (4) is provided for oxygen to be generated when connected to the power supply (7). During the discharge phase, the second electrode (5) is connected such that hydrogen gas is generated as zinc is dissolved from the first electrode (3).
As to the standby condition, as Bizouard teaches switching from the power supply (7) to load (13), there is a disconnect of the electrodes which discloses the structure of the standby state.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, it is noted that the system does not actively comprise an external power source or a heating mechanism.
For claim 16, it is noted that the system does not actively comprise a heating mechanism. For claim 16, Bizouard teaches an external power source (Bizouard, [0368]).
Bizouard additionally teaches that in such a system to utilize at least one heater for preferable localized heating of the electrolyte which can advantageously reduce the solubility of the dissolved gaseous hydrogen and thus promote nucleation of bubbles within the system such that the electrolyte is heated above room temperature during discharge (Bizouard, [0042], [0257] and [0388]).
As to the temperature range, this would be obvious in view of the language that the heater is capable of heating above room temperature.
Generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical (See MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
Bizouard does not teach the electrode spacing.
Huang teaches of electrolytic hydrogen generation and energy storage systems (Huang, p. 1 lines 4-6).
Huang additionally teaches that the zinc electrode and gas evolution electrode are placed as intervals (i.e. gaps) of between 1 mm to 30 mm (including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 23 and 30 mm) to facilitate capacity requirements and gas generation ability (Huang, p. 7 lines 26-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bizouard as per Huang so as to utilize the desired spacing of the electrodes to facilitate gas generation ability and functional capacity.
As to claim 8 and 19, Bizouard in view of Huang teach to the systems of claims 5 and 16.
Bizouard teaches the first electrode consists of stainless steel (Bizouard, [0102]), the second electrode (first and second units) comprise of metals including nickel and nickel alloys (Bizouard, [0103] – [0109]).
As to claim 10 and 21, Bizouard in view of Huang teach to the systems of claims 5 and 16.
Bizouard teaches the zinc salt can comprise anions including sulfate, thus disclosing zinc sulfate (Bizouard, [0088] and [0101]).
As to claims 57 and 59, Bizouard in view of Huang teach to the system of claims 5 and 16.
The claims 57 and 59 denote how the system is used and thus do not provide any additional elements to the structure of the system. The claims are towards intended use. Therefore the system limitations are met, see MPEP 2114 I and II.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bizouard in view of Huang as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and further in view of US 2024/0327998 of Ayme-Perrot.
As to claims 7 and 18, Bizouard in view of Huang teach to the system of claims 5 and 16.
Bizouard teaches that known alkaline solutions include zinc with hydroxide anions (Bizouard, [0085] – [0088] and [0101]), however, Bizouard does not specifically teach zincate of zinc hydroxyl as the zinc salt.
Perrot teaches of system for the decoupled generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases with zinc deposition and dissolution (Perrot, Abstract and [0065]).
Perrot additionally teaches that preferred embodiments include zincate when the electrolyte is a base (i.e. alkaline) (Perrot, [0076]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bizouard in view of Huang as per Perrot so as to utilize zincate as the zinc salt as a preferred electrolyte in a basic solution for the decoupled generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bizouard in view of Huang as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and further in view of WO 2015/056641A1 of Sugimasa et al.
As to claims 11 and 22, Bizouard in view of Huang teach to the systems of claims 5 and 16.
Bizouard additionally teaches the first electrode is stainless steel or a nickel based material, the second unit of the second electrode is a nickel or nickel alloy including a composite (i.e. layered structure of one or more of these elements) (Bizouard, [0102] and [0109]).
Bizouard does not teach the oxygen generating electrode comprises a titanium metal with an optional coating thereon.
Sugimasa teaches of decoupled hydrogen and oxygen generation (Sugimasa, p. 1 lines 2-4 and p. 6 line 1 thru p. 7 line 19).
Sugimasa teaches that low overvoltage oxygen generating electrodes include titanium supporting an iridium coating (Sugimasa, p. 13 lines 27-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bizouard as per Sugimasa so as to utilize the desired electrode composition in providing an electrode with a low overvoltage for oxygen generation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759