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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 26 February 2026. Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from consideration, claims 13, 14 and 16 are under consideration and claims 15 and 17 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 26 February 2026. The objections to the claims presented in the Office Action of 24 October 2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 26 February 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 24 October 2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 26 February 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 24 October 2025 are withdrawn.
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 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105862066 A to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US 2019/0390354 A1 to Frimann (Frimann).
As to claims 13 and 14, Lee teaches a method for producing hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of an electrolysis medium, the method comprising electrochemical splitting of water by means of an electrolysis cell stack (4), whereby a hydrogen loaded catholyte (H2/H2O stream) withdrawn from a cathode section of the electrolysis cell stack and an oxygen loaded anolyte withdrawn from an anode section of the electrolysis stack is obtained; supplying the hydrogen loaded catholyte to a catholyte gas-liquid separator (8) to separate hydrogen gas (through hydrogen exhaust valve (15)) from the hydrogen loaded catholyte, whereby hydrogen gas and a hydrogen depleted catholyte (exiting the bottom of separator (8)) is obtained; supplying the oxygen loaded anolyte (O2/H2O stream) to an anolyte gas-liquid separator (7) to separate oxygen (via oxygen vent valve (14)) from the oxygen loaded anolyte, whereby oxygen and an oxygen depleted anolyte (exiting the bottom of separator (7)) is obtained; withdrawing the hydrogen depleted catholyte from the catholyte gas-liquid separator (8) back to the electrolysis stack (4), including the cathode section (through circular pump (3)); withdrawing the oxygen depleted anolyte form the anolyte gas-liquid separator (7) back to the electrolysis stack (4), including the anode section (through circular pump (3)); and supplying the oxygen loaded anolyte withdrawn from the anode section of the electrolysis cell stack (4) to an anolyte cooler (5) to obtain a cooled oxygen loaded anolyte before supplying the oxygen loaded anolyte to the anolyte gas-liquid separator (7) (Paragraphs 0033, 0037, 0041, 0042, 0050 and 0051; Figure 1). Lee further teaches that, in at least one embodiment, the hydrogen depleted catholyte withdrawn from the catholyte gas-liquid separator (8) and the oxygen depleted anolyte withdrawn from the anolyte gas-liquid separator (7) are sent back to the electrolysis cell (4) without passing through a further cooler (Figure 1).
However, Lee teaches that the electrolysis medium is water alone and fails to teach that the electrolysis medium is a concentrated potassium hydroxide solution. However, Frimann also discusses water electrolysis for the production of hydrogen and oxygen and teaches that in addition to a proton exchange membrane the cell can comprise a 15 to 30 wt% potassium hydroxide (Paragraphs 0012 and 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a 15 to 30 wt% potassium hydroxide electrolyte in addition to the PEM of Lee as taught by Frimann, thus ensuring current flow through the apparatus for the electrolytic reaction via the combination of known means (MPEP 2144.06 I).
As to claim 16, the combination of Lee and Frimann teaches the method of claim 13. Lee further teaches that the hydrogen depleted catholyte withdrawn from the catholyte gas-liquid separator (8) and the oxygen depleted anolyte withdrawn from the anolyte gas-liquid separator (7) are mixed to obtain a hydrogen and oxygen depleted mixed electrolysis medium (sent through pump (3)) to obtain a hydrogen and oxygen depleted mixed electrolysis medium recycled to the electrolysis cell stack (4) through pump (3) (Paragraph 0033 and 0049; Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Lee fails to teach that the electrolyte is an aqueous alkaline medium as newly amended. The Examiner does not disagree; however, the Examiner maintains that Frimann teaches this limitation, as discussed above. Applicants did not present any arguments against Frimann, previously utilized only for dependent claim 14.
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
Prosecution Insights