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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 22 September 2025 is acknowledged.
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 12-15 and 19 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 12, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutsumi et al (JP 2016-204743).
Tsutsumi et al teach (see figs. 2 and 11) an electrolysis apparatus comprising an electrolyzer having electrolysis cell (10 in fig. 2, 50 in fig. 11) with at least one electrode (11, 12, 13, 14) for an electrochemical process where oxygen gas is introduced into the electrolyte of the electrolyzer (via generation of oxygen gas at the anode), an inlet (58 electrolyte inlet) for introducing electrolyte into the electrolysis cell, an apparatus for pressurizing (pump 83), an outlet (57 electrolyte outlet), and an apparatus (71) for reducing the oxygen amount of the alkaline electrolyte solution being provided to the inlet (58).
With respect to the recitations of “wherein the electrolyte for introduction contains an O2 amount of between 0 and 25 mg/L and has an absolute pressure in the range from 1.2 bar to 3.5 bar and a temperature of grater than 40°C”, these recitations relate to the manner of operating the claimed structure and the recitations fail to define additional structural features. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 14, the electrolyte for introduction of Tsutsumi et al was an alkaline water solution containing alkali metal hydroxide, such as potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or sodium hydroxide (see [Electrolytes] paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus of Tsutsumi et al also included a storage vessel (81) for storing the electrolyte, wherein the apparatus for reducing the O2 amount received discharged electrolyte from the electrolysis cell and the vessel received the O2-reduced electrolyte from the apparatus for reducing the O2 amount.
Regarding claim 19, the apparatus for pressurizing of Tsutsumi et al was a pump (83).
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.
Claims 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulan et al (US 2013/0240370) in view of Ylasaari et al (WO 93/24412).
Bulan et al teach (see paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0071], and [0089]) an electrolysis apparatus comprising an electrolyzer having an electrolysis cell comprising an electrode (cathode) suitable for an electrochemical process where oxygen gas is introduced into the electrolyte that is in contact with the electrode, an inlet (liquid inlet for sodium hydroxide), an outlet (liquid outlet for sodium hydroxide), and an apparatus for pressurizing (pump).
The electrolyte leaving the outlet of Bulan et al would have been understood as inherently containing dissolved oxygen gas due to the exposure of the electrolyte to oxygen gas at the cathode.
Bulan fails to teach an apparatus for reducing the O2 amount of the electrolyte for introduction which is capable of achieving an O2 amount below 25 mg/L.
Ylasaari et al teach (see abstract, page 1, line 7 to page 2, line 11) that residual amounts of oxygen dissolved in circulating water, even at very low amounts of 10-20 μg O2 per kg of H2O, posed significant corrosion problems for plumbing systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied one of the deoxygenation techniques taught by Ylasaari et al to the system of Bulan et al in order to have removed the residual dissolved oxygen from the circulating electrolyte of Bulan et al in order to reduce the corrosive power of the dissolved oxygen as taught by Ylasaari et al.
Regarding claim 13, Bulan et al teach using an oxygen depolarized cathode.
Regarding claim 14, as noted above, Ylasaari et al teach reducing the dissolved O2 amount as low as possible, including into the μg/L range, in order to reduce the corrosive potential of the dissolved O2.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a storage vessel for any of the liquids utilized in the electrolysis apparatus, such as the electrolyte, for providing a buffer of the liquids for short duration maintenance and repairs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the apparatus for reducing the O2 amount of Ylasaari et al immediately downstream from the electrolysis cell (i.e. in fluid communication with the outlet) since the highest oxygen concentration in the electrolyte was at the outlet of the electrolysis cell.
Regarding claim 19, Bulan et al teach using a pump as the apparatus for pressurizing.
Conclusion
While the Office generally attempts to avoid duplicative rejection grounds, the above rejection grounds address either the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 (i.e. rejection using Tsutsumi et al) or the inventive concept (i.e. the rejection using Bulan et al in view of Ylasaari et al). The rejection using Bulan et al in view of Ylasaari et al is made for the purposes of compact prosecution to provide Applicant a better understanding of the prior art in anticipation of possible amendments to limit the apparatus claims to require the recited dissolved O2 amount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794