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
11/17/2025.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
All other previous rejections are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-4 are under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data processing system for storing data…computing…and computing…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Figure 1a shows the data processing system is data processor #102.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1: The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process (collecting information, see limitation starting with “storing data…” see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and mathematical concepts (limitations starting with “in response to…” and “computing at least…”, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the data that is stored and then put into equations is not utilized by the apparatus to cause an affect or change. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional structures in the claims are a processor (“data processing system”), an electrolyzer, current sensors, and voltage sensors, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional parts of electrolyzer systems.
Claim 2: The claim does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al (“Equivalent Electrical Circuit Modelling of a Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyser based on Current Interruption”, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Cape Town, South Africa, 2013, pp. 716-721, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement and previous Office Action).
Claim 1: Martinson discloses an apparatus for estimating electrical properties of an electrolyzer (see e.g. abstract), the apparatus comprising current and voltage sensors for measuring a voltage applied on the electrolyzer and a current of the electrolyzer (see e.g. “current probe” and “voltage probe” on Fig 6), wherein the apparatus comprises a data processing system (computer, see e.g. Fig 6) for:
storing data (via computer, see e.g. 719, col 1, paragraph starting with “A. PEM electrolyzer”) indicative of a value V0 of a difference voltage (V0, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”) prevailing at a beginning of a shutdown of the electrolyzer (via switch, see e.g. Fig 1) and a value I0 of the current of the electrolyzer prevailing at the beginning of the shutdown (I0, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”),
in response to a situation in which the current has reached zero, computing an estimate τ for a time constant of exponential attenuation of a double-layer capacitance voltage of the electrolyzer (τrc, see e.g. page 717, col 2, paragraph starting with “The voltage at t1”) and an estimate V1 voltage prevailing at the beginning of the shutdown (V1, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”), and
computing at least one of the following: i) an estimate for a membrane resistance Rm of the electrolyzer (Rm = (V0 – V1)/I0, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”), ii) an estimate for a charge-transfer resistance Rct of the electrolyzer (Rct = V1/I0, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”), and iii) an estimate for a double-layer capacitance Cdl of the electrolyzers (Cdl = τrc/Rct, see e.g. page 717, col 1, paragraph starting with “From Fig. 3”).
The equations for calculating Rm, Rct, and Cdl are substantially similar in Martinson and the instant invention. A table for comparison is provided below:
Claim 1
Martinson
Rm
(u0 – u0c)/I0
(V0 – V1)/I0
Rct
u0c/I0
V1/I0
Cdl
τI0/u0c
τrc/Rct = τrc/(V1/I0) = τrcI0/V1
wherein u0 is a difference voltage prevailing at a beginning of a shutdown of the electrolyzer and u0c is an estimate for the double-layer capacitance voltage prevailing at the beginning of the shutdown prior to the direct current reaching zero.
According to the instant specification, uoc can be derived from the equation u= uoce(t-t0)/τ (see page 10), which is similar to the equation shown on page 717, col 2 of Martinson (v(t1) = V1(e-t1/τrc). Therefore, u0 is substantially similar and equivalent to V0. Thus, Martinson anticipates the u0 of the claim. Alternatively, the method steps are prima facie obviousness over Martinson because a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that u0 is substantially similar and equivalent to V0. Furthermore, u0c is considered to be substantially similar to the V1 even though V1 is not necessarily estimated prior to the direct current reaching zero. There does not appear to be any substantial difference between the two values based on how they are used to determine Rm, Rct, and Cdl. Therefore, the V1 of Martinson would render u0c obvious to a person having a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson in view of Tremblay et al (US 20060289312 A1).
Claim 2: Martinson does not explicitly teach that the data processing system is configured to compute the estimate of the membrane resistance Rm of the electrolyzer at successive shutdowns of the electrolyzer and to detect an increase of the computed estimate. Tremblay teaches a method of monitoring and optimizing electrolyzers (see e.g. abstract) wherein the system is repeatedly monitored to detect degradation in performance (see e.g. [0051]). 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 Martinson my incorporating the step of doing successive shutdowns/measuring steps to make calculations to detect changes in those estimates as taught in Tremblay to determine if the cell is degrading.
Claim 3: Martinson in view of Tremblay teaches that the data processing system is configured to activate a procedure to recover from reversible degradation of electrolytic cells of the electrolyzer in response to the detected increase of the computed estimate of the membrane resistance (see e.g. [0028] of Tremblay).
Claim 4: Martinson in view of Tremblay teaches that the procedure comprises successive shutdowns and startups of the electrolyzer (see e.g. [0028] of Tremblay).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered.
The arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection on pages 11-12 are not considered persuasive. The Applicant’s argues that claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) to require specific structure and “therefore, they necessarily cannot be also directed to an abstract idea”. However, the analysis of 35 USC 101 does not simply require specific structure. Rather, judicial exceptions need to be integrated into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)) or needs to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05). The claim has failed the first test because the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Rm, Rct, and Cdl are computed (via the abstract ideas) but nothing else is done with them, such as “Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way”. Additionally, as stated in the rejection, “The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional structures in the claims are a processor (“data processing system”), an electrolyzer, current sensors, and voltage sensors, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional parts of electrolyzer systems.”
The arguments regarding the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claim 1 on pages 13-16 are considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103.
The arguments regarding the current interrupt method of Martinson not being compatible with industrial electrolyzers as pointing to allowability on pages 16-17 is not considered persuasive. The claim is directed to “an electrolyzer”, which is much broader than what is being argued in the remarks.
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 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