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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 02/25/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 12-23 are pending in the current Office action. Claim 2 was cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1 and 14-15 were amended by Applicant. Claims 18-23 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The objections to claims 1, 14, and 15 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The term “base metal”, recited in claim 6, is considered a term of art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand as indicating a metal that is not a noble metal.
Abbreviations used in this Office action:
AEM – Anion-exchange membrane
MEA – Membrane-electrode assembly
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation "the electrolyte solution including the urea" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, does not recite “an electrolyte solution including urea” or “an electrolyte solution including the urea”. It is therefore unclear if the limitation “the electrolyte solution including the urea” is intended to further limit the electrolyte solution such that it comprises “the urea” or is intended to indicate that “the urea” is intended to be included in “the electrolyte solution”. Claim 4 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 4 to recite “the electrode assembly is immersed in the electrolyte solution, and the electrolyte solution comprises urea”.
Regarding claim 18, the term “close contact” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close contact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the term “close contact” is not used in the specification, and it is therefore unclear how close the cathode, the anion exchange membrane, and the anode would need to be to one another to be considered “in close contact”. Claim 18 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the electrolyte solution is filled in the anode chamber to be in direct contact with the anode, and the cathode in the container is exposed to a dry environment” in lines 5-7. However, claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, recites “both the anode and the cathode are in contact with the electrolyte solution” in line 8. I.e., as currently drafted, claim 21 incorporates mutually exclusive limitations. Claim 21 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 21 to depend from claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 12, 14, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0173040 A1) as evidenced by Cho et al. (“A Review on Membranes and Catalysts for Anion Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis Single Cells.” J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol., 2017, 8(3), 183-196).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a hydrogen producing device configured to produce hydrogen (title), the hydrogen producing device comprising:
an electrochemical cell including an electrode assembly (“a membrane electrode assembly” para. 79) and an electrolyte solution (“2M KOH solution” Id.), wherein the electrode assembly has a cathode (“Ni0.75Ru1.25N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 11 served as the cathode of HER” Id.), a separator (“an anionic exchange film X37-50” Id.) and an anode (“the Ni1.5Nb0.5N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 9 served as the anode of OER” Id.) that are sequentially stacked with each other (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 … interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode” Id.),
the electrolyte solution is an alkaline aqueous solution (“2M KOH solution” Id.),
both the anode and the cathode are in contact with the electrolyte solution (“The membrane electrode assembly was dipped in 2M KOH solution” Id.),
the separator is an ion exchange membrane that is an anion exchange membrane separator (“an anionic exchange film X37-50” Id.), and
the cathode, the anion exchange membrane and the anode are integrally formed with each other (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide Materials) was interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode to obtain a membrane electrode assembly.” Id., as evidenced by e.g., Cho, a membrane electrode assembly refers to a cathode, membrane, and anode that are integrally formed with each other see e.g., Fig. 1 and p. 184 para. bridging cols. 1-2).
Regarding the limitations “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce, from addition of urea” and “both the anode and the cathode are in contact with the urea”, as currently drafted, these limitations are drawn to an intended use and a material worked upon by the system, respectively. During examination, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim limited by an intended use thereof or the material worked upon is an apparatus capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114) or working upon the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Lin teaches the system comprises a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) comprising an anion exchange membrane (AEM), wherein the MEA produces hydrogen from an alkaline solution at the cathode, and wherein the anode comprises nickel deposited on a conductive substrate. The instant specification indicates that a nickel catalyst is suitable for oxidizing urea at the anode, thereby generating ammonia or nitrogen gas (see e.g., claim 13). It is therefore considered that the system of Lin is capable of serving as “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce, from addition of urea …” wherein “both the anode and the cathode are in contact with the urea”. The system of Lin therefore anticipates these limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Lin further teaches the anode contains a base metal i.e., nickel and steel/iron (“the Ni1.5Nb0.5N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 9 served as the anode of OER” para. 79).
Regarding claim 12, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Lin further teaches the hydrogen ammonia producing device is configured to produce hydrogen by applying a voltage between the cathode and the anode (“The method also applies a voltage to the anode and the cathode to electrolyze the alkaline aqueous solution to generate hydrogen by the cathode and generate oxygen by the anode.” para. 49).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been interpreted as “wherein the cathode, the anion exchange membrane, and the anode are adjacent to one another”.
Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Lin further teaches the cathode, the anion exchange membrane, and the anode are adjacent to one another (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide Materials) was interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode to obtain a membrane electrode assembly.” para. 79 and Fig. 1 shows no additional components between the cathode, AEM and anode).
Regarding claim 19, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Lin further teaches no clearance is provided between the cathode and the anion exchange membrane, and no clearance is provided between the anion exchange membrane and the anode (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide Materials) was interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode to obtain a membrane electrode assembly.” para. 79 and Fig. 1 shows no additional components between the cathode, AEM and anode. As evidenced by e.g., Cho, an MEA refers to a cathode, membrane, and anode having no clearance between them, see e.g., Fig. 1 p. 184 para. bridging cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Lin further teaches the cathode, the anion exchange membrane and the anode are integrally formed with each other such that hydroxide ions are directly transmitted from the cathode to the anode through the anion exchange membrane (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide Materials) was interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode to obtain a membrane electrode assembly.” Para. 79 and Fig. 1. As evidenced by e.g., Cho, an MEA refers to a cathode, membrane, and anode that are integrally formed with each other, and AEMs directly transmit hydroxide ions from the cathode to the anode see e.g., Fig. 1 and p. 184 para. bridging cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Lin further teaches the anion exchange membrane is formed of a polymer having a ligand portion and a skeleton portion chemically bonded to the ligand portion, the ligand portion including an imidazolium group (“the anionic exchange film 13 can be a halogen ion-containing imidazole polymer or other suitable materials. For example, … X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide materials)” para. 46 and “an anionic exchange film X37-50” para. 79).
Regarding claim 23, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the anion exchange membrane is configured to inhibit ion exchange and trapping of ammonium ions present in the alkaline aqueous solution into the anion exchange membrane thereby inhibiting an increase in electrical resistance of the anion exchange membrane during electrolysis”, 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, Lin teaches that the ion exchange membrane is an AEM (“an anionic exchange film X37-50” para. 79). By definition, and as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, AEMs inhibit the transport of cations, such as ammonium ions. Therefore, because the ion exchange membrane of Lin is an AEM, the ion exchange membrane of Lin necessarily inhibits ion exchange and trapping of ammonium ions present in the alkaline aqueous solution into the AEM, thereby inhibiting an increase in electrical resistance of the AEM during electrolysis (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches a hydrogen producing device configured to produce hydrogen (title), the hydrogen producing device comprising:
an electrochemical cell including an electrode assembly (“a membrane electrode assembly” para. 79) and an electrolyte solution (“2M KOH solution” Id.), wherein the electrode assembly has a cathode (“Ni0.75Ru1.25N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 11 served as the cathode of HER” Id.), a separator (“an anionic exchange film X37-50” Id.) and an anode (“the Ni1.5Nb0.5N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 9 served as the anode of OER” Id.) that are sequentially stacked with each other (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 … interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode” Id.),
the electrolyte solution is an alkaline aqueous solution (“2M KOH solution” Id.),
the anode is in contact with the electrolyte solution (“The membrane electrode assembly was dipped in 2M KOH solution” Id.),
the cathode is in contact with the electrolyte solution (Id.),
the separator is an ion exchange membrane that is an anion exchange membrane (“an anionic exchange film X37-50” Id.), and
the cathode, the anion exchange membrane and the anode are integrally formed with each other (“an anionic exchange film X37-50 (commercially available from Dioxide Materials) was interposed between the catalyst layers of the cathode and the anode to obtain a membrane electrode assembly.” Id., as evidenced by e.g., Cho, a membrane electrode assembly refers to a cathode, membrane, and anode that are integrally formed with each other see e.g., Fig. 1 and p. 184 para. bridging cols. 1-2).
Regarding the limitations “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce, from addition of urea” and “the anode is in contact with the urea”, as currently drafted, these limitations are drawn to an intended use and a material worked upon by the system, respectively. During examination, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim limited by an intended use thereof or the material worked upon is an apparatus capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114) or working upon the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Lin teaches the system comprises an MEA comprising an AEM, wherein the MEA produces hydrogen from an alkaline solution at the cathode, and wherein the anode comprises a nickel catalyst deposited on a conductive substrate. The instant specification indicates that a nickel catalyst is suitable for oxidizing urea at the anode, thereby generating ammonia or nitrogen gas (see e.g., claim 13). It is therefore considered that the system of Lin is capable of serving as “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce, from addition of urea” wherein “the anode is in contact with the urea”. The system of Lin therefore anticipates these limitations.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0173040 A1) in view of Dempsey (US Pat. No. 4311569).
Regarding claim 3, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above.
Lin does not teach the electrode assembly separates an inner space of the electrochemical cell into a space for the anode and a space for the cathode.
However, Dempsey teaches that separating an electrochemical cell into a space for the anode and a space for the cathode using an electrode assembly provides the predictable benefit of separating the cathodic and anodic products (Fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 44-62).
As Lin and Dempsey each teach electrode assemblies for the production of hydrogen, Lin and Dempsey 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 Lin, such that the electrode assembly separates an inner space of the electrochemical cell into a space for the anode and a space for the cathode, as taught by e.g., Dempsey. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of separating the cathodic and anodic products, as taught by Dempsey. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0173040 A1) in view of King et al. (“Hydrogen production via urea electrolysis using a gel electrolyte” Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 2773–2778).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been interpreted as “the electrode assembly is immersed in the electrolyte solution, and the electrolyte solution comprises urea”.
Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above.
Lin further teaches the electrode assembly is immersed in the electrolyte assembly (“The membrane electrode assembly was dipped in 2M KOH solution” para. 79).
Lin does not teach the electrolyte comprises urea.
However, King teaches a system for generating hydrogen (title), comprising an electrode assembly immersed in an alkaline electrolyte comprising urea (“1 M KOH and 0.33 M urea” § 3.1. and see Fig. 3), wherein the urea provides the predictable benefit of lowering the voltage required to generate the hydrogen (Fig. 6, see also § 1.1.).
As both Lin and King teach electrode assemblies for the production of hydrogen from an alkaline solution, Lin and King 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 Lin, such that the electrolyte comprises urea, as taught by King. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because King teaches the addition of urea to an alkaline electrolyte predictably lowers the voltage required for hydrogen production. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0173040 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lin anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above.
Lin further teaches the anode is an electrode composed of a mesh and Ni that is deposited on the mesh (“the Ni1.5Nb0.5N2-stainless steel mesh in Preparation Example 9 served as the anode of OER” para. 79).
Lin does not teach the mesh is a titanium mesh, but rather a stainless steel mesh.
However, Lin further teaches that a Ti mesh is a suitable substrate for the anode catalyst (“Commercially available insoluble anode (IrO2/RuO2-Ti mesh …” para. 75).
As Lin teaches a system for generating hydrogen using an MEA, Lin 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 Lin, such that the mesh is a titanium mesh rather than a stainless steel mesh. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lin teaches a titanium mesh is a suitable material for the anode substrate. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0323249 A1) in view of Tampucci (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0103829 A1) and Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0173040 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Fujiwara teaches a hydrogen producing device configured to produce hydrogen (“Alkaline Water Electrolysis Device” para. 62 et seq.), the hydrogen producing device comprising:
an electrochemical cell (see annotated Fig. 2, below) including an electrode assembly (“The air electrode of the present invention has a structure in which the air electrode catalyst layer and the anion exchange membrane are laminated.” para. 48 and Fig. 2) and an electrolyte solution (“an aqueous solution containing alkali metal hydroxide,” para. 64 and Fig. 2), wherein the electrode assembly has a separator (“anion exchange membrane” para. 48 and Fig. 2) and an anode that are sequentially stacked with each other (“the air electrode catalyst layer and the anion exchange membrane are laminated.” para. 48 and Fig. 2, and “the oxygen evolution reaction in the air electrode” para. 67),
the electrolyte solution is an alkaline aqueous solution (para. 64),
the cathode is in contact with the electrolyte solution (“hydrogen evolution reaction in the fuel electrode” para. 67 and Fig. 2),
the separator is an ion exchange membrane that is an anion exchange membrane (“anion exchange membrane” para. 48 and Fig. 2),
the anode is an electrode composed of at least one metal that is selected from a group consisting of Ru and Ni (“The types of metals include, for example, … ruthenium, …, nickel, …” para. 43), and
the anion exchange membrane and the anode are integrally formed with each other (“The air electrode catalyst layer and the anion exchange membrane may be unified.” Para. 49).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fujiwara Fig. 2
Regarding the limitations “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce hydrogen and/or ammonia from addition of urea” and “the anode is in contact with the urea”, as currently drafted, these limitations are drawn to an intended use and a material worked upon by the system, respectively. During examination, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim limited by an intended use thereof or the material worked upon is an apparatus capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114) or working upon the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Fujiwara teaches the system comprises an MEA comprising an AEM, wherein hydrogen is produced from an alkaline solution at the cathode, and wherein the anode catalyst comprises a nickel or ruthenium. The instant specification indicates that a nickel or ruthenium catalyst is suitable for oxidizing urea at the anode, thereby generating ammonia or nitrogen gas (see e.g., claim 13). It is therefore considered that the system of Fujiwara is capable of serving as “a hydrogen ammonia producing device configured to produce hydrogen and/or ammonia from addition of urea” wherein “the anode is in contact with the urea”. The system of Fujiwara therefore reads on these limitations.
Fujiwara does not teach the cathode is stacked with the separator, wherein the cathode is integrally formed with the cathode.
However, Tampucci teaches that the cathode can be suitably arranged on and integrally formed with the anion exchange membrane in a water electrolysis system (“the cathode consists of cathodic electrocatalysts deposited directly on the ion exchange membrane” para. 19, see also Fig. 1 and para. 12), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing intimate contact between the cathode and the anion exchange membrane (para. 19).
As Fujiwara and Tampucci each teach electrolytic hydrogen generation systems comprising MEAs disposed to divide an electrolytic cell into anodic and cathodic chambers, Fujiwara and Tampucci 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 Fujiwara, such that the cathode is arranged on and integrally formed with the anion exchange membrane, as taught by Tampucci. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of enhancing the contact between the cathode and the anion exchange membrane, as taught by Tampucci. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Fujiwara does not teach the anode comprises a titanium mesh on which the Ru or Ni catalyst is deposited.
However, Fujiwara further teaches the catalyst may suitably be deposited on a metal mesh to form the anode (“a structure maybe [sic] such that a current collector such as carbon paper, carbon cloth, metal mesh, or metal sintered body is disposed on the catalyst layer side of the air electrode” para. 53).
Furthermore, Lin teaches that a Ti mesh is suitable as the support material for an anode configured for water oxidation (“Commercially available insoluble anode (IrO2/RuO2-Ti mesh …” para. 75).
As Lin teaches a system for generating hydrogen using a membrane electrode assembly, Lin 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 Fujiwara, such that the Ru or Ni catalyst is deposited on a Ti mesh. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, because Fujiwara suggests using a metal mesh as the catalyst substrate, and Lin teaches titanium is a suitable material for a metal mesh used as the anodic catalyst substrate in a water electrolysis cell. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 16-17, Fujiwara further teaches one of the anode and the cathode (claim 16), specifically the cathode (claim 17), is in contact with the electrolyte solution (“hydrogen evolution reaction in the fuel electrode” para. 67 and Fig. 2, annotated above) and the other of the anode or the cathode (claim 16), specifically the anode (claim 17), is exposed to a dry environment (“an air electrode” para. 35 and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 21 has been interpreted to depend from claim 15.
Modified Fujiwara renders the limitations of claim 15 obvious.
Fujiwara further teaches a power supply electrically connected to the anode and the cathode (“in an alkaline fuel cell that uses the air electrode of the present invention, application of the voltage, … to the air electrode and the fuel electrode” para. 67);
a container in which the cathode, the anion exchange membrane and the anode are integrally formed with each other such that an inner space of the container is divided into an anode chamber and a cathode chamber by the anion exchange membrane (see Fig. 2, annotated above);
a first tube fluidly connected to a first gas outlet defined in an upper part of the anode chamber in a vertical direction (see Fig. 2, annotated above); and
a second tube inserted into the cathode chamber and fluidly connected to a second gas outlet defined in an upper part of the cathode chamber in the vertical direction, wherein the second tube has a length extended to a depth between an upper end and a lower end of the cathode in the vertical direction (see Fig. 2, annotated above).
Fujiwara does not teach the electrolyte solution is filled in the anode chamber to be in direct contact with the anode, the cathode in the container is exposed to a dry environment, or the first tube is inserted into the electrolyte solution.
Fujiwara instead teaches the anode chamber is exposed to a dry environment and the electrolyte solution is filled in the cathode chamber.
However, Tampucci further teaches that the electrolyte solution can be suitably added only to the anode chamber of a water electrolysis cell, which provides the predictable benefit of generating pure, dry hydrogen as a product (see paras. 11-17).
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 Fujiwara, such that the electrolyte is filled in the anode chamber rather than the cathode chamber i.e., such that the electrolyte solution is filled in the anode chamber to be in direct contact with the anode, the cathode in the container is exposed to a dry environment, and the first tube is inserted into the electrolyte solution, based on the teachings of Tampucci. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Tampucci teaches having a dry cathode chamber and electrolyte-filled anode chamber provides the predictable benefit of allowing the production of dry hydrogen gas. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitation “in order to send out hydrogen generated at the cathode”, 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, Fujiwara teaches hydrogen gas is generated at the cathode (“hydrogen evolution reaction in the fuel electrode” para. 67) and the second tube has a length extended to a depth between an upper end and a lower end of the cathode in the vertical direction (see Fig. 2, annotated above). Furthermore, modified Fujiwara teaches the cathode chamber is devoid of electrolyte solution (see above). It is therefore considered that the second tube of modified Fujiwara is capable of sending out hydrogen gas generated at the cathode. Modified Fujiwara therefore renders the limitation “in order to send out hydrogen generated at the cathode” obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections over the prior art, see Remarks p. 7-11, filed 02/25/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and it is not considered that the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights