DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending.
Claims 3-4 are cancelled.
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 Objections and Rejections
The previous objections of claims 3-4, 9 and 16-17 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein has a water supply” may be more appropriately written as “further comprising a water supply”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a water outflow part…the water outflow holes” appears to be a run-on phrase without appropriate usage of verb(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-16 and 18-20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 depends on cancelled claim 3 therefore its dependency is not clear. For purposes of examination, claim 20 depends on claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-2, the phrase “the area of the flow holes closer to the downstream side are smaller” is indefinite because it is unclear what the flow holes are smaller in compared to what structure of the claimed generator. It is unclear what relative relationship is present.
Claims 5-16 and 18-20 depend from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3209320 (‘320) in view of Kenisu (JPS63303087).
Regarding claim 1, ‘320 discloses a hydrogen-oxygen mixed gas generator [0007] (= an oxygen hydrogen mixed gas generator, which comprises) comprising:
An electrolysis system (4) including an electrolytic cell (41) (= an electrolyze device),
Electrode means (42; electrode plates 423, 424) to electrolyze water [0014], [0021] (= which uses a plurality of electrode plates to electrolyze water);
A power source (43) [0014] which supplies a voltage (= a power supply device, which supplies a specified current to the electrode);
The hydrogen-oxygen gas generator produces oxygen hydrogen mixed gas [0001] (= the oxygen hydrogen mixed gas generator produces the oxygen hydrogen mixed gas, wherein);
A plurality of electrode plates (423, 424) [0016] (Figures 3-6) (= the plurality of said electrodes are arranged in parallel at specified intervals),
Liquid passage holes (421) [0016] (= and flow holes are arranged in the said electrodes to allow said water to flow in the form of overflow and/or to allow atomized water to flow).
Regarding the claimed supplies a specified current, ‘320 discloses applying a voltage in the gas generator, however, it would have been obvious to apply a specified voltage or current for the gas generator to produce the same or similar predictable result. Regarding the claimed overflow and/or to allow atomized water to flow, ‘320 discloses the same holes and generator as claimed therefore the flow of water necessarily occurs. Moreover, the electrolyte flowing from one electrode to another reads on the claimed overflow since the electrolyte is traveling through the cell. Given the offset of the holes (421) of ‘320, ‘320 reads on the claimed phrasing of the flow holes overlapping with electrode portions (Figure 5) with adjacent electrode plates.
‘320 does not disclose the claimed sizing of the holes (421).
In the same or similar field of an electrolytic gas generating device [0001], Kenisu discloses a device comprising electrodes having openings (20, 21) that vary in size as a position of the downstream movement of electrolyte to allow the liquid level in the reservoir to be equalized [0001, 2nd paragraph].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising an area of flow holes closer to the downstream side is smaller because Kenisu discloses decreasing the sizing of holes to equal the flow of electrolyte. Moreover, the selection of the sizing of the holes of ‘320 would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to control the flow of electrolyte between electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, ‘320 in view of Kenisu disclose the claimed invention as applied above. ‘320 discloses that the holes (421) are arranged in an offset arrangement (Figure 5) (= the flow holes are arranged between the adjacent electrodes in a zigzag shape).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, ‘320 discloses the position of the holes (421) as consistent including they are positioned at the same level of each electrode plate (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, The claimed “supplies water intermittently” is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device (MPEP § 2114 II). Since ’320 discloses controlling the opening and closing using a control valve (67) based on the measurement results [0026], [0030], the device of ‘320 discloses the instant claim language. ‘320 discloses an electrolyte containing means (60) [0020]. The claimed “is arranged as a structure” does not positively recite any specific arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, ‘320 and Kenisu disclose the claimed invention as applied above. ‘320 discloses detecting a liquid level using a gauge (66) to monitor and control the electrolyte supply turning the supply on/off based on the liquid level. The claim water outlet holes may be the holes (421) of ‘320 or any of the piping that discharges the electrolyte (e.g. drain valve). The claimed ‘intermittently’ is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device. “Water outflow part” is particularly broad.
Claim(s) 6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3209320 (‘320), in view of Kenisu (JPS63303087) and in further view of Mori et al. (JP 2006-045657).
Regarding claim 6, ‘320 in view of Kenisu fails to disclose a material for inhibiting corrosion is arranged at the periphery of the through holes.
Mori discloses an electrolytic cell for use in an oxyhydrogen gas generator [0001] including a plurality of electrodes spaced apart and arranged in parallel (Figure 12) [0004]. Mori discloses sealing members (71) in contact with the electrodes (68) (= arranged at the periphery of the through holes at least). Mori discloses the sealing member for preventing electrolyte or gas from leaking out from between electrodes. Mori discloses the sealing member arranged inside of each electrode (68). Mori discloses that each electrode has an electrolyte passage hole (not shown) formed in a lower portion thereof [0004].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a material for inhibiting corrosion because Mori discloses the use of sealing elements such as o-rings with electrodes for preventing electrolyte or gas from leaking out. The o-ring of Mori is a rubber based material which the instant specification indicates is a material used to inhibit corrosion.
Regarding claims 18-19, Mori discloses a spacer (3 or 60 = sealing ring) between each electrode and a bolt (64 = pipe component) and a nut (65) for fastening with electrode plates having a through holes (63) [0003] (Figure 11) [0008], [0010]. Any claim language directed towards assembling including “at the same time”, “inserted”, etc. does not further structurally limit the claimed device. Clamping and crimping necessarily occur using a nut and bolt as described by Mori. Figures 3 and 11 of Mori depict how the sizing of the nut, bolt and through hole openings are approximately equal. The instant claim includes several relative words including approximately, close to, etc. which are not particularly limiting. Mori discloses the use of multiple spacers including rigid insulating resin and o-rings [0015], [0004]. Mori additionally discloses an elastic portion as part of a spacer in element (13) (Figure 3).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3209320 (‘320), in view of Kenisu (JPS63303087), in view of Mori et al. (JP 2006-045657) and in further view of Asaumi (US 2012/0145559).
Regarding claims 7-8, ‘320 in view of Kenisu and Mori fail to disclose the material being film form and a liquid liner coated at the periphery. Mori discloses the sealing member as described above.
In the same or similar field of gas electrolyzers, Asaumi discloses wherein a sealing portion (312) can be provided for an outer periphery of a liquid retaining member with a liquid member and subsequent hardening. Asaumi discloses the liquid member includes a liquid rubber and a silicone sealant member [0078].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a film form corrosion inhibiting material and a liquid liner because Mori discloses sealing members and Asaumi discloses a sealant material including a liquid rubber and silicone sealant member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute one known sealant with another to produce the same or similar predictable result of providing a sealant.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3209320 (‘320), in view of Kenisu (JPS63303087) and in further view of Kim et al. (KR 100677668).
Regarding claim 10, ‘320 in view of Kenisu fails to disclose the flow holes extend in a long strip along the direction which intersects with the flow direction of water.
Kim discloses an electrolytic hydrogen-oxygen gas generator (title) comprising electrode plates (11, 21, 31, 41) having an electrolyte distributor (11c, 21c, 31c, 41c) that has an elongated opening (Figure 10) in a direction that would intersect the flow of electrolyte and/or water. Kim discloses that the arrangement of the holes helps direct the electrolyte as it flows between electrodes and creates an extended path that reduces leakage current and heat generation of the electrolytic cell (Final paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising flow holes extend in a long strip along the direction which intersects with the flow direction of water because in the same or similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses electrolyte distribution holes with an elongated shape to help direct the electrolyte flow. Further, selecting a circulate shape or elongated shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the same or similar result of controlling the flow of electrolyte.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3209320 (‘320), in view of Kenisu (JPS63303087) and in further view of Bozhilov et al. (US 2017/0211192).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, ‘320 in view of Kenisu disclose the power supply as described above. ‘320 discloses detecting a liquid level using a gauge (66) to monitor and control the electrolyte supply turning the supply on/off based on the liquid level. ‘320 in view of Kenisu fails to disclose the power supply controlling the switching time of the current, waveform and supplying intermittently.
Bozhilov discloses an oxyhydrogen generator (title) comprising controlling the electrolyte level by sensors and upon reaching the present minimum level discontinuing the power supply to the cells [0026]. Thereafter, the electrolyte is supplied to supplement the electrolytic baths [0027]. Bozhilov discloses running pump (10) to supplemental cells (1) with electrolyte on reaching the preset level and shutting off the pump upon reaching the maximum level [0043]-[0044]. Since Bozhilov teaches controlling the power intermittently the power of Bozhilov necessarily controls the waveform of the current and the switching time of the current. Bozhilov discloses the device comprising a microprocessor for regulating the power supply [0035].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising the power supply controlling the switching time of the current, waveform and supplying intermittently because Bozhilov discloses discontinuing the power (i.e. current/voltage) based on a liquid level. It would have been obvious to control the power and thereby current and voltage in coordination with the supply of electrolyte. The electrolyte is supplied intermittently and therefore the supply of power would also occur intermittently. Regarding claim 12, Bozhilov discloses discontinuing power and then supplying electrolyte [0026]-[0027]. The claimed “when” is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to turn off the power once a liquid level is at a predetermined minimum, supplement electrolyte while the power is off and then shut off the supply of electrolyte and resume the electrolytic process based on the teachings of ‘320 in view of Bozhilov. Regarding claim 14, since the electrolyte level is reduced during electrolytic process, the water supply section necessarily performs the claim language. Moreover, the claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device which does not further structurally limit the claimed invention. Additionally, the claimed “water supply section” is particularly broad. Regarding claim 15, any number of structures read on the claimed holes including pipe (65), openings of the storage units (621, 64), etc. [0023]-[0024]. The additional claim language is addressed above.
Regarding claim 13, ‘320 and Bozhilov disclose the claimed invention as applied above. ‘320 discloses a liquid level gauge (66) for detecting the liquid level of the electrolyte [0030]. Bozhilov discloses sensors (14) for monitoring the electrolyte level [0010], [0024]-[0026]. Regarding a detecting the level of water at a particular location, since the liquid levels of ‘320 and Bozhilov detect the electrolyte level within the cell, the detectors necessarily are detecting a level of water supplied between the electrode closest to the upstream side among the plurality of electrodes arranged in parallel and adjacent electrode on the downstream side with respect to the electrode closest to the upstream side.
Regarding claim 16, ‘320 discloses a drain valve (92) [0036] or alternatively the holes (421) read on the claimed outlet holes since the electrolyte is flowing through them and outwards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered. On page 11 the argument states that neither JP ‘320 nor Kenisu disclose or suggest a flow path direction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. ‘320 discloses electrolyte flows toward the liquid phase area of the first containment tank [0007]. Kenisu discloses maximizing the flow path provided by the opening ([0001], first paragraph) and openings in the consecutive plates provide a winding flow path (2nd paragraph). It is noted that the claimed phrase “the area of the flow holes closer to the downstream side are smaller” does not recite smaller in compared to a positioning, object or other structural element. The term “smaller” is relative, however, it is unclear what the holes are smaller in relationship to what object.
On page 11 the argument states that the claimed invention …but rather to a configuration in which discharge is controlled based on liquid level detection (including intermittent control) is not taught by the applied prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The instant claim (claim 17), states in part “the water outflow part intermittently flows out the water based on the liquid level detected by the detector”. The claimed “water outflow part” is particularly broad given the use of “part”. A part may be any portion of the device that has water flowing. ‘320 discloses detecting a liquid level using a gauge (66) to monitor and control the electrolyte supply turning the supply on/off based on the liquid level using a control valve (67) [0026].
On page 11 the argument states that the device of ‘320 is not an apparatus that handles liquid. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. ‘320 unambiguously discloses an electrolyte, liquid level, water, etc. that clearly indicates the device that handles liquid.
On page 12 the remarks state that claim 4 was not rejected with any prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pages 7-8 of the Non-Final Office action clearly indicate that claim 4 is/was rejected over prior art (e.g. ‘320 in view of Kenisu).
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights