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 1/26/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1-9 and 12-15 are pending with claims 14-15 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are pending examination.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 now recites that the flushing process includes performing electrochemical discharge on the cell stack to consume the free combustible gas in the cell stack. This flushing process is performed for a predetermined amount of time as a function of an amount of combustible gas remaining in the cel stack (as noted in lines 2-3 of claim 1).
Dependent claim 4 recites that the flushing includes continuously pumping water through the cell stack.
Dependent claim 7 recites that the flushing includes purging the cell stack with an inert gas.
Dependent claim 12 recites that the flushing includes performing chemical recombination to consume the free combustible gas.
Claim 1 states that the flushing process is performed for an amount of time to consume an amount of combustible gas remaining in the cell stack.
There is no support that clearly demonstrates the use of more than one process of flushing of the cell stack.
Claims 5-6, 8-9 and 13 are rejected as being dependent on claims 4, 7 and 12 respectively.
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.
Claims 4-9 and 12-13 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.
Dependent claims 4, 7 and 12 state that there is another process for flushing of the cell stack. It is not clear from the claim limitation when these processes will occur. Are they concurrent to the electrochemical discharge, before or after.
As such the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite as there is no guidance or direction from the claims or the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0316075 of Harada et al.
As to claim 1 Harada teaches of a method, the method comprising:
performing an electrochemical discharge of a cell stack to consume free combustible gas (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen gases) in the cell stack, thus performing a flushing process. The electrochemical discharge includes, on a first side of the cell stack, catalyzing separation of the electrons and protons of hydrogen gas, the protons transversing a membrane and the electrons and protons combining with oxygen on the second side of the cell stack to produce water (Harada, [0020] – [0027] and [0037] – [0043]).
As to claims 2 and 3, Harada teaches that the flushing process occurs after shutting down the cell stack power supply such that the process includes operating the cell stack for an initial amount of time before the flushing process occurs (Harada, [0040] – [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0316075 of Harada et al.
As to claims 4-6, 7-9 and 12-13, Harada teaches to the method of claim 1.
Harada does not specifically teach a second flushing process being performed, however, in view of the disclosure of Harada as per the requirement that flushing the cell stack is for a predetermined amount of time as a function of the amount of combustible gas in the cell stack, the overall processes of the dependent claims are obvious.
Harada teaches to consume all the combustible gas within the cell stack (Harada, [0042] – [0043]), thus the predetermined time for the other flushing processes becomes zero as there is no remaining combustible gas present in the cell stack. Thus Harada deems obvious the claimed invention as there is no further required flushing process being performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Harada does not teach a system where protons are forced from the hydrogen side to the oxygen side as per the claim.
This is not true. As per the reactions that occur in the system, Harada specifically shows that at the anode, protons and electrons combine with oxygen to form water. At the cathode, the hydrogen gas is separated into protons and electrons such that the protons migrate, by an electromotive force, through the membrane to the anode (See Harada, [0041] – [0043]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759