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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 07/11/2025. Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 7-8 were amended by applicant. Claims 3-6 were cancelled by applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 19 recites “current collector supporting”, but should recite “current collector [[supporting]] supports” to be correct grammatically;
Claim 1 line 24 recites “anode,”, but should recite “anode, and” or “anode, wherein” to be correct grammatically;
Claim 1 lines 25-26 recites “the vessel carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated”, but should recite “the vessel carrying out electrolysis [[with]] has a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, that is kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated” to be correct grammatically.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe (WO 2021/015120 A1, with citations to US Pat. Pub. 2022/0316079 A1 as the official English translation on file with the office) in view of Suzuki (WO 2021/019986A1, with citations to US Pat. Pub. 2022/0267915 A1 as the official English translation on file with the office) and Gestermann (US Pat. No. 6841047).
Regarding claim 1, Manabe teaches an alkaline water electrolysis vessel (“alkaline water electrolyzer” para. 36) comprising:
an anode-side frame body (“anode chamber frame 22” para. 86 and Fig. 4) defining an anode chamber (“anode chamber 15”);
a cathode-side frame body (“cathode chamber frame 23”) defining a cathode chamber (“cathode chamber 16”);
an ion-permeable separating membrane (“separator 6 … having permeability to an aqueous solution.” para. 78 and Fig. 4, see also para. 91) being arranged between the anode-side frame body and the cathode-side frame body, and separating the anode chamber and the cathode chamber (see Fig. 4);
a gasket (“gasket 17” para. 66 and Figs. 3-4) being sandwiched by the anode-side frame body and the cathode-side frame body to be held therebetween (see Fig. 2), and holding a periphery of the separating membrane (“The separator 6 is installed in such a way that the edge part (end part) thereof is held in the previously described notch 20 of the electrolyzer gasket 17” para. 65 and Figs. 3-4);
an anode (“anode fine mesh 28” para. 89 and Fig. 4) being arranged in the anode chamber without being held by the gasket (see Fig. 4);
a cathode (“cathode fine mesh 29” para. 89 and Fig. 4) being arranged in the cathode chamber without being held by the gasket (see Fig. 4); and
an electroconductive first elastic body arranged in the anode chamber (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached between the anode fine mesh 28 and the anode 1” para. 90);
the anode is arranged between the separating membrane and the first elastic body (“it is preferable to attach, to the surface of the anode 1 [i.e., an anode current collector] on the separator 6 side, an anode fine mesh 28 [i.e., the anode]” para. 89 and “a spring material 30 is preferably attached between the anode fine mesh 28 [i.e., anode] and the anode 1 [i.e., the anode current collector]” para. 90. I.e., using the language of the instant application, the structure is arranged as: anode current collector, first elastic body, anode, separating membrane), and is pushed by the first elastic body toward the cathode (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached between the anode fine mesh 28 and the anode 1 … to achieve a zero gap between the anode 1 and the cathode 3” para. 90 i.e., the first elastic body pushes the anode toward the cathode);
an electroconductive second elastic body arranged in the cathode chamber (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached between the anode fine mesh 28 and the anode 1 and/or between the cathode fine mesh 29 and the cathode 3” para. 90 and Fig. 4, emphasis added) wherein,
the cathode is arranged between the separating membrane and the second elastic body (“attach, to the surface of the cathode 3 [i.e., the cathode current collector] on the separator 6 side, a cathode fine mesh 29 [i.e., the cathode]” para. 89 and (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached … between the cathode fine mesh 29 and the cathode 3” para. 90. I.e., using the language of the instant application, the structure is arranged as: cathode current collector, second elastic body, cathode, separating membrane), and is pushed by the second elastic body toward the anode (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached … between the cathode fine mesh 29 and the cathode 3 to achieve a zero gap between the anode 1 and the cathode 3” para. 90 and Fig. 4), and
the vessel carrying out electrolysis has a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, that is kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated (para. 92).
Manabe does not explicitly teach the anode and cathode are flexible first and second porous plates, respectively.
However, Suzuki teaches it is preferable to use flexible porous plates as the electrodes when using a zero-gap structure (“it is more preferable that the anode 2a and the cathode 2c be porous. In particular, in an electrolyzer having a zero-gap structure, …” para. 93 and “as the electrodes 2 that can be used for the zero-gap structure, electrodes 2 having thin wire diameters and small meshes are preferable because of flexibility.” para. 95, emphasis added) for an alkaline water electrolyzer (title).
As Manabe and Suzuki each teach alkaline water electrolyzers comprising an elastic body pushing the anode and cathode to form a zero-gap structure, Manabe and Suzuki are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Manabe, such that the anode and cathode are flexible first and second porous plates, as taught by Suzuki. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because Suzuki teaches that flexible porous plate electrodes are preferable for forming zero-gap structures in alkaline water electrolyzers. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the flexible porous plate electrodes of Suzuki in place of the fine mesh electrodes of Manabe) to achieve predictable results (forming an electrolyzer with a zero-gap structure) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., using a flexible porous plate material as an electrode in a zero-gap electrolyzer, as taught by Suzuki) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Modified Manabe does not teach an electroconductive first rigid current collector being arranged in contact with the anode, the first rigid current collector is arranged between the anode and the first elastic body., wherein the first rigid current collector supports the anode.
However, Gestermann teaches a zero-gap electrolysis cell (abstract), comprising am electrode (“gas diffusion electrode 32” col. 5 lines 10-29 and Fig. 3), an elastic body (“springs 18” col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 5 and Fig. 3), and a rigid current collector (“an essentially rectangular current collector 10” Id. and “The current collector 10 was … titanium expanded metal …” col. 7 lines 32-53), wherein the rigid current collector is arranged between the electrode and the elastic body to provide the predictable benefit of transmitting a uniform pressure to the electrode (col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 5 and col. 6 lines 63-67).
As Gestermann teaches a zero-gap electrolysis cell, Gestermann is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Manabe, by adding a first rigid current collector arranged between the anode and the first elastic body, as taught by Gestermann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of transmitting an even pressure to the electrode, as taught by Gestermann. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Manabe further teaches an electroconductive first current collector supporting the first elastic body (“anode 1” para. 89).
Modified Manabe does not teach the anode chamber comprises at least one first electroconductive rib protruding from an inner wall of the anode-side frame body, wherein the electroconductive first current collector is held by the first electroconductive rib.
However, Suzuki further teaches electroconductive ribs (“rectifier plates 6 serve as supports (ribs) for the electrodes 2 … It is also preferable that the rectifier plates 6 are electrically connected to the partition wall 1” para. 104 and Fig. 3) protruding from an inner wall of a respective frame body (“rectifier plates 6 are preferably attached to the partition wall 1”) and holding the respective current collectors (“the rectifier plates 6 may be provided with the current collector 2r, the conductive elastic body 2e, and the electrode 2 in this order” para. 105) make it easy to maintain a zero-gap electrode structure (“making it easy to maintain the zero-gap structure” para. 104) in an alkaline water electrolyzer (title).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Manabe, such that the anode chamber comprises at least one first electroconductive rib protruding from an inner wall of the anode-side frame body and the electroconductive first current collector is held by the second electroconductive rib, as taught by Suzuki. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of easily maintaining the zero-gap electrode structure, as taught by Suzuki. Furthermore, combining prior art elements (i.e., the conductive ribs of Suzuki with the electrolyzer of Manabe) according to known methods to yield predictable results (supporting the anode current collector) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Manabe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Manabe further teaches an electroconductive second current collector supporting the second elastic body (“a spring material 30 is preferably attached … between the cathode fine mesh 29 [i.e., the cathode] and the cathode 3 [i.e., the cathode current collector]” para. 90 and Fig. 4).
Modified Manabe does not teach the cathode chamber comprises at least one second electroconductive rib protruding from an inner wall of the cathode-side frame body, wherein the electroconductive second current collector is held by the second electroconductive rib.
However, Suzuki further teaches electroconductive ribs (“rectifier plates 6 serve as supports (ribs) for the electrodes 2 … It is also preferable that the rectifier plates 6 are electrically connected to the partition wall 1” para. 104 and Fig. 3) protruding from an inner wall of a respective frame body (“rectifier plates 6 are preferably attached to the partition wall 1”) and holding the respective current collectors (“the rectifier plates 6 may be provided with the current collector 2r, the conductive elastic body 2e, and the electrode 2 in this order” para. 105) make it easy to maintain a zero-gap electrode structure (“making it easy to maintain the zero-gap structure” para. 104) in an alkaline water electrolyzer (title).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Manabe, such that the cathode chamber comprises at least one second electroconductive rib protruding from an inner wall of the cathode-side frame body and the electroconductive second current collector is held by the second electroconductive rib, as taught by Suzuki. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of easily maintaining the zero-gap electrode structure, as taught by Suzuki. Furthermore, combining prior art elements (i.e., the conductive ribs of Suzuki with the electrolyzer of Manabe) according to known methods to yield predictable results (supporting the cathode current collector) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Manabe teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Manabe does not teach an electroconductive second rigid current collector arranged in contact with the cathode, the second rigid current collector being arranged between the cathode and the second elastic body, the second rigid current collector supporting the cathode.
However, Gestermann teaches a zero-gap electrolysis cell (abstract), comprising an electrode (“gas diffusion electrode 32” col. 5 lines 10-29 and Fig. 3), an elastic body (“springs 18” col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 5 and Fig. 3), and a rigid current collector (“an essentially rectangular current collector 10” Id. and “The current collector 10 was … titanium expanded metal …” col. 7 lines 32-53), wherein the rigid current collector is arranged between the electrode and the elastic body to provide the predictable benefit of transmitting a uniform pressure to the electrode (col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 5 and col. 6 lines 63-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Manabe, by adding a second rigid current collector arranged between the cathode and the second elastic body, as taught by Gestermann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of transmitting an even pressure to the electrode, as taught by Gestermann. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5-7, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p. 5-7, filed 07/11/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 6 that the prior art of record does not reasonably teach or disclose the limitation “the vessel carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated” recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether the prior art reasonably teaches or discloses the limitation “the vessel carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated” as recited in amended claim 1.
During prosecution, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111). The limitation “the vessel carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Manabe explicitly indicates the electrolysis vessel can be pressurized, such that the pressure in the cathode chamber is higher than the pressure in the anode chamber (“cathode pressurization is preferable” para. 92). The electrolysis vessel of Manabe is therefore capable of “carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated”. Manabe therefore discloses the limitation “the vessel carrying out electrolysis with a pressure in the cathode chamber, where hydrogen gas is generated, kept higher than that in the anode chamber, where oxygen gas is generated”.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hahn (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0191175 A1) teaches a water electrolyzer comprising elastic bodies disposed in anode and cathode chambers.
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 R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. 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 R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795