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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 19 March 2026. Claims 14-27 are currently pending of which claims 23-27 are withdrawn from consideration. Previously presented claims 28-32 are not present and considered cancelled. It may be important to note that were these claims preserved, the rejections would be identical to the Office Action of 17 March 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 14-19 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0368483 to Wakita et al. (Wakita) in view of US Patent No. 5,900,031 to Bloomfield (Bloomfield).
As to claim 14, Wakita teaches a method for electrochemical hydrogen compression. The method comprising providing hydrogen gas having a relative humidity of 100%, electrochemically oxidizing the hydrogen gas at an anode (AN), transporting protons obtained as a result of the oxidation through a membrane (1) and electrochemically reducing the protons at the cathode (CA) into hydrogen (Paragraphs 0034, 0043-0046, 0072; Figures 2 and 4D). Wakita further teaches that the hydrogen can be provided as a mixed gas; however is silent as to specifically what this mixed gas could be (Paragraph 0050).
However, Bloomfield also discusses electrochemical hydrogen compression and teaches that the anode side hydrogen stream is a mixed hydrogen stream mixed with inert gas. This inert gas forming a carrier gas for flowing the hydrogen and ensuring proper pressures of the anode side (Abstract; Column 3, Lines 48 to Column 4, Line 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the hydrogen stream of Wakita with the addition of an inert gas in order to ensure proper pressure on the anode side as taught by Bloomfield. Wakita further teaches that having 100% relative humidity in the anode side is critical for operation of the electrochemical hydrogen compressor (Paragraphs 0024, 0028, 0034) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide this inert gas at 100% relative humidity.
The combination is silent as to at what point the humidity is adjusted, i.e. prior to the gases being mixed or after the gases are mixed. However, either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected using a single humidifying after mixing to result in less equipment and capital cost, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have expected using individual humidifiers before mixing to allow for optimization of the humidification operation for each stream. The combination thus rendering obvious mixing the humidified inert gas and the humidified hydrogen gas.
As discussed above, the combination teaches that the 100% humidified mixed gas is supplied to the anode side, thus teaching that the gas is delivering water vapor via the inert and hydrogen gas and maintains at least some level of hydration in the membrane during operation.
As to claim 15, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 14. The limitation of a ratio of 99:1 and 1:99 covers substantially the entire range of possibilities of a mixture, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. However, furthermore, as discussed above, Bloomfield teaches that the carrier gas is utilized for pressure optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio of hydrogen gas to inert gas in order to optimize the pressure for the desired operation of the cell (MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 16, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 15. As discussed above, Bloomfield teaches that the carrier gas is utilized for pressure optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio of hydrogen gas to inert gas in order to optimize the pressure for the desired operation of the cell (MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 17, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Wakita further teaches that the hydrogen gas is fed at a pressure of 2 bar (0.2 MPa) (Paragraph 0033).
As to claim 18, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Bloomfield further teaches that the inert gas is circulated through the anode with hydrogen added thereto (Abstract). As discussed above, Wakita teaches that maintaining a 100% RH is important. Thus in combination a method in which inert gas is recycled and added with further hydrogen gas, and as rendered obvious above, the humidity of each gas is separately brought to 100% RH.
As to claim 19, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Wakita further teaches that water is separated from the hydrogen obtained at the cathode (Paragraph 0143; Figure 4D).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0001264 to Rheaume et al. (Rheaume).
As to claim 20, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 19. However, Wakita fails to further teach that the separated water is recycled. However, Rheaume also discusses electrochemical pumps and teaches that water separated from the product gas should be returned upstream in the process (Paragraph 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Wakita by recycling the water from the separator upstream to the process, thus to the humidification steps of the inert and hydrogen gas in order to reuse the separated process stream as taught by Rheaume.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield as applied to claims 14 and 21 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0089229 to Stein et al. (Stein).
As to claims 21 and 22, the combination of Wakita and Bloomfield teaches the apparatus of claim 14. However, Wakita fails to further teach that the hydrogen from the cathode is used to generate energy. However, Stein also discusses electrochemical pumps (139) and teaches that the permeate gas from the electrochemical pump is sent to an expansion turbine (157) in order to allow for the produced permeate gas to produce work, the work used to drive a compressor (107) for providing the inlet flow into the electrochemical pump (139) (Paragraphs 0071 and 0072; Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Wakita by sending the permeate gas, the hydrogen, to an expansion turbine, in order to allow the produced hydrogen to generate work to power the inlet streams, the hydrogen and the inert gas, as taught by Stein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the prior art fails to teach that the membrane is maintained in a hydrated state during the electrochemical compression. However, as discussed above, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that the combined humid stream is applied to the membrane and thus would at least partially maintain hydration of the membrane during at least some of the operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached on 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794