DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claims 3-7 are canceled by the applicant.
The amendment to the claims filed on 12/31/2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because claim 1, as amended, does not reflect all the claim limitations of claim 1 as submitted on 09/16/2025 (e.g., the term “and wherein the apparatus if free of a pump for circulating the alkaline solution, the circulation being effected solely by said capillary flow and gas lift” is not shown on claim 1 submitted on 12/31/2025). Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Currently, the term “and wherein the apparatus if free of a pump for circulating the alkaline solution, the circulation being effected solely by said capillary flow and gas lift” not shown on claim 1 is interpreted such that the aforementioned claim limitation, as amended, is deleted. As a result, the term is no longer required in claim 1.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Currently, claim(s) 1-2 and 8-13 is/are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the term “to produce” renders the instant claim indefinite because it is not clear what generation of electricity is producing. For examination purposes, “to produce” is interpreted as “to produce a chemical reaction”.
Claims 2 and 8-13 are rejected for being dependent on 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) 1-2, 8-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson Nigel of US 2016/0090657 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Nigel) in view of George Anagnostopoulos of US 2015/0034493 A1 (hereinafter Anagnostopoulos), relying on Masatoshi Sugimasa of US 2009/0000574 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sugimasa) and Hanno Wenske of US 5,650,058 A (hereinafter referred to as Wenske) as evidentiary references.
As to claim 1, Nigel teaches to a capillary electrolysis apparatus (Nigel, paragraphs [0060]-[0066], teaches to a capillary electrolysis apparatus, as Nigel teaches to a hydrogen gas generator system 1) for producing hydrogen comprising:
a closed container (Nigel, paragraph [0062], Fig. 3, teaches to a closed container, as Nigel teaches that the reactor stack 2 comprises a plurality of stainless steel bi-polar plates 10 separated by spacer plates 11 that define a distance of about 1 mm between the plates and define together with adjacent plates 10 the envelope in which electrolyte solution is contained),
a plurality of polarized electrodes immersed (Nigel, paragraph [0062], Fig. 3, teaches to a plurality of polarized electrodes immersed, as Nigel teaches that the reactor stack 2 comprises a plurality of stainless steel bi-polar plates 10 separated by spacer plates 11 that define a distance of about 1 mm between the plates and define together with adjacent plates 10 the envelope in which electrolyte solution is contained) in an alkaline solution within the container (Nigel, paragraph [0001], teaches to in an alkaline solution within the container, as Nigel teaches that the electrolyte solution may be alkaline);
wherein the electrodes comprise nickel-plated stainless steel (Nigel, paragraph [0020], teaches to wherein the electrodes comprise nickel-plated stainless steel, as Nigel teaches that one pair or more of the plates are stainless steel cell plates, which may be coated with nickel);
a plurality of non-conducting spacers positioned between adjacent electrodes (Nigel, paragraph [0015], teaches to a plurality of non-conducting spacers positioned between adjacent electrodes, as Nigel teaches to a plurality of electrode plates separated by sealing spacers, wherein the spacers may be formed of a rubber; rubber is non-conducting and is instead an excellent insulator),
Nigel does not explicitly teach wherein the electrodes are spaced apart by a distance of 3mm to 10mm.
In an analogous art, Anagnostopoulos teaches to wherein the electrodes are spaced apart by a distance of 3mm to 10mm (Anagnostopoulos, paragraph [0013], teaches to wherein the electrodes are spaced apart by a distance of 3mm to 10mm, as Anagnostopoulos teaches that wherein the first and second electrodes may be provided in relative close proximity to one another in a range of between 1 mm and 6 mm).
Both Nigel and Anagnostopoulos relate to an electrolyzer (Anagnostopoulos, paragraph [0002]). Nigel does not explicitly teach the recited distance of the claimed invention. Nigel does teach that the electrodes are spaced apart in a narrow dimension from 0.5 mm to 2mm, and Nigel teaches that the spacing of the narrow dimension is particularly advantageous because it facilitates high velocity flow across the plates which helps remove gas bubbles from the plates and thereby increases efficiency of the electrolysis operation. Anagnostopoulos teaches to a range of between 1 mm and 6 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Nigel with the recited range of Anagnostopoulos for increasing efficiency of the electrolysis operation.
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the instant claim is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed structure and a structure having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art structure, the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the prior art structure. Please see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to said spacing configured to cause capillary action of the alkaline solution between the electrodes as the solution is displaced by electrolysis (Nigel, paragraphs [0003], [0037] – [0038], teaches to said spacing configured to cause capillary action of the alkaline solution between the electrodes as the solution is displaced by electrolysis, as Nigel teaches that electrodes are spaced apart; the Office notes that the "capillary electrolysis," which is not defined by the instant specification, is understood by the one of ordinary skill in the art as an electrolytic system incorporating any means of spacing electrodes apart, which may allow capillary action of any pertinent fluid, for mitigating undesired effects of bubbles in an electrolytic process; Sugimasa, paragraph [0038], while not relied on as prior art, teaches that it is preferable to narrow the gap between the anode and cathode and supply the liquid electrolyte using capillary action or supply the liquid electrolyte to the hydrophilic layer by absorption; further, Wenske, col. 7, ln. 44-52, teaches width of capillary gap between the spaced-apart electrode elements; at least for this reason, Nigel teaches a structure that reads into a capillary electrolysis apparatus).
Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to wherein hydrogen gas produced by said electrolysis rises through the alkaline solution and collects at a top portion of the closed container
(Nigel, paragraph [0060], Fig. 1, teaches to wherein hydrogen gas produced by said electrolysis rises through the alkaline solution and collects at a top portion of the closed container, as Nigel teaches to an electrolyte solution/gas outlet 4, wherein the hydrogen gas inherently rise through the alkaline solution due to lower density of gas; the hydrogen gas is collected at a top portion of the closed container; the claimed invention in the instant claim is a functional limitation that does not necessarily require a distinct structure, wherein the claimed invention is directed to an apparatus).
Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to a power source electrically connected to the electrodes to generate the electricity to produce (Nigel, paragraph [0063], teaches to a power source electrically connected to the electrodes to generate the electricity to produce a chemical reaction, as Nigel teaches that the electrical connections to the stack may be provided by a battery, as with vehicular systems, or by use of a Power Supply Unit (PSU) which takes mains AC voltage and converts into high current, low voltage DC; for electrolyzers, a power source is necessary per definition of electrolysis).
As to claim 2, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the alkaline solution is selected from the group consisting of sodium carbonate potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide (Nigel, paragraph [0063], teaches to , wherein the alkaline solution is selected from the group consisting of sodium carbonate potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide, as Nigel teaches to potassium hydroxide).
As to claim 8, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrodes are positioned at a bottom portion of the container (Nigel, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the electrodes are positioned at a bottom portion of the container, as Nigel teaches to the reactor stack 2 comprising a plurality of electrode plates at a bottom portion of the reactor stack 2).
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the instant claim is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed structure and a structure having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art structure, the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the prior art structure. Please see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As to claim 9, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a flashback arrestor connected to the container to prevent propagation of flames from the hydrogen gas (Nigel, paragraph [0025], teaches to further comprising a flashback arrestor connected to the container to prevent propagation of flames from the hydrogen gas, as Nigel teaches to a flashback arrestor; the claim recitation “prevents the propagation of potential flames generated by the hydrogen gas” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
As to claim 11, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a cooling system thermally coupled to the container (Nigel, paragraph [0070], teaches to further comprising a cooling system thermally coupled to the container, as Nigel teaches to interruption or supplementation of the flow system with a radiator or heat exchanger).
As to claim 12, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the cooling system comprises a water-cooled radiator system (Nigel, paragraph [0070], teaches to wherein the cooling system comprises a water-cooled radiator system, as Nigel teaches to interruption or supplementation of the flow system with a radiator or heat exchange; Nigel does not explicitly teach a water-cooled radiator; however, radiator of Nigel is capable of cooling the system, nonetheless; The use of a water-cooled radiator system of the structure disclosed in Nigel amounts merely to a matter of obvious engineering choice, as the use of a water-cooled radiator system instead of a radiator would have been operable to one of ordinary skill in the art for cooling the system; as such, the integration of the claimed invention is not contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.).
As to claim 13, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos teaches to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power source is configured to supply between 12 and 24 volts to the electrodes (Nigel, paragraph [0018], teaches to wherein the power source is configured to supply between 12 and 24 volts to the electrodes, as Nigel teaches to a 12-volt system).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson Nigel of US 2016/0090657 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Nigel) in view of George Anagnostopoulos of US 2015/0034493 A1 (hereinafter Anagnostopoulos), relying on Masatoshi Sugimasa of US 2009/0000574 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sugimasa) and Hanno Wenske of US 5,650,058 A (hereinafter referred to as Wenske) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nicolas Jerez of US 2021/0180198 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jerez).
As to claim 10, Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos does not explicitly teach further comprising a check valve connected to the container to prevent regression of the hydrogen gas back into the container.
In an analogous art, Jerez teaches to further comprising a check valve connected to the container to prevent regression of the hydrogen gas back into the container (Jerez, paragraphs [0021], [0037], and [0125], teaches to further comprising a check valve connected to the container to prevent regression of the hydrogen gas back into the container, as Jerez teaches to check valves 10a).
Both Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos and Jerez relate to electrolyzers (Jerez, paragraph [0001]). Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos does not explicitly teach a check valve. Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos does teach producing hydrogen gas through electrolysis. Jerez teaches to a check valve for preventing regression of the hydrogen gas back into the container. It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrolysis (Jerez, paragraph [0001]) before the effective filing date that primary function of check valves is to prevent the regression of the gas back into the container, which may help avoid any mixing or contamination between enclosures and/or containers (Jerez, paragraphs [0021] and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the capillary electrolysis apparatus of Nigel in view of Anagnostopoulos with the check valve of Jerez for preventing mixing of the various liquid, solid or gaseous chemical compounds used in the system (Jerez, paragraph [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson Nigel of US 2016/0090657 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Nigel) in view of George Anagnostopoulos of US 2015/0034493 A1 (hereinafter Anagnostopoulos), relying on Masatoshi Sugimasa of US 2009/0000574 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sugimasa) and Hanno Wenske of US 5,650,058 A (hereinafter referred to as Wenske) as evidentiary references. Please refer to the rejection above.
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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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 at (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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794