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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/16/2026.
Status of Rejections
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 is/are obviated by applicant' s cancellation.
All other previous rejections are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claims 14-18 and 20-26 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-16, 18, 20-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weninger et al. (U.S. 20220074059).
Regarding claim 14, Weninger discloses a reactor for electrochemical synthesis (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electrolytic cell 200 for production of H2 and O2; Paragraph 0147, lines 1-3), comprising
a vessel configured to receive a reaction mixture comprising an electrolytic medium and at least one reactant (see e.g. Fig. 1A, cell compartment 210 comprising electrolyte 240 including water to be reacted and other electrolyte components; Paragraph 0157, lines 1-3, and Paragraphs 0013 and 0039),
at least a first electrode (see e.g. Fig. 1A, gas evolution electrode 220; Paragraph 0147, lines 4-5), and
at least a second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electron storage electrode 230; Paragraph 0147, lines 5-6),
the first electrode and the second electrode being arranged within the vessel (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electrodes 220 and 230 within cell compartment 210; Paragraph 0147, lines 4-6) and interpenetrating one another without electrical contact (see e.g. Fig. 2A, interdigitated, i.e. interpenetrating, gas evolution electrodes 220 and electron storage electrodes 230 not touching each other, i.e. not in electrical contact; Paragraph 0055 and Paragraph 0159, lines 12-15), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are three dimensionally grid-shaped (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, electrodes 220 and 230 each shown forming a 3D grid on the bipolar plates 271 upon which they are arranged; Paragraph 0159, lines 8-12), the first electrode and the second electrode being arranged to allow a flow of the reaction mixture therebetween (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2C, electrolyte 240 hosted in separation space 260 between electrodes 220 and 240 as it is added/removed, i.e. flows; Paragraph 0164, lines 3-5, and Paragraph 0101).
The limitation of the first electrode and the second electrode being “made by an additive manufacturing method” is a product-by process limitation. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Weninger discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed electrodes as stated above, and there is no indication in the instant disclosure of the “additive manufacturing method” resulting in a structural difference.
Regarding claim 15, Weninger discloses the first electrode and the second electrode having a different shape (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, differently shaped electrodes 220 and 230 shown).
Regarding claim 16, Weninger discloses the first electrode and the second electrode being shaped in a regular pattern (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, electrodes 220 and 230 shown with regular patterns).
Regarding claim 18, Weninger discloses the first electrode being comb-shaped (see e.g. Fig. 2A, gas evolution electrode 220 with comb-shaped cross section formed by the supporting bipolar plate 271 and the spatially separated extending cylindrical portions; Paragraph 0162, lines 6-9, and Paragraph 0163, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Weninger discloses the first electrode and the second electrode being made at least partially of a material comprising metal (see e.g. Paragraphs 0057 and 0064, both electrodes comprising one or more of various metals).
Regarding claim 21, Weninger discloses at least an outer surface layer of the first electrode comprising a material selected from Pt, Ru, Ir, Ni, Fe, Cr, Ti, Mo, W, Sn, Zn and mixtures thereof (see e.g. Paragraphs 0031 and 0057, gas evolution electrode, including outermost surface thereof, comprising one or more of the listed materials) and an outer surface layer of the second electrode comprising a material selected from Fe, Cn, Cd, and mixtures thereof (see e.g. Paragraph 0064, electron storage electrode, including outermost surface thereof, comprising one or more of the listed materials).
Regarding claim 24, Weninger discloses the vessel comprising at least one inlet for supplying the reaction mixture and at least one outlet for discharging the reaction mixture and/or its reaction products (see e.g. Paragraphs 0026-0027, cell compartment comprising openings for adding fluid such as electrolyte and removing fluid such as the electrolyte or produced H2/O2).
Regarding claim 25, Weninger discloses a power source configured to apply a voltage and current to the first and second electrodes (see e.g. Paragraphs 0104 and 0112, external energy source and charge control unit providing energy at a current to impose a potential, i.e. voltage, difference between the two electrodes), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each comprise at least one connection point connected to the power source (see e.g. Fig. 1A, first and second electrical connections 120 and 130 respectively connected to electrodes 220 and 230; Paragraph 0148, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 26, Weninger discloses a method for carrying out an electrochemical synthesis (see e.g. Paragraph 0001, method for controlling electrolytic cell for production of H2 and O2), comprising
providing a reactor according to claim 14 (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electrolytic cell 200 for production of H2 and O2; Paragraph 0147, lines 1-3),
supplying a reaction mixture comprising an electrolytic medium and at least one reactant to the vessel (see e.g. Paragraphs 0013, 0026 and 0039, electrolyte including water to be reacted and other electrolyte components added to cell compartment), and
applying a predetermined voltage or current to the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Paragraphs 0104 and 0112, specific potential, i.e. voltage, difference imposed and/or current flow provided between the two electrodes).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weninger in view of Gilman (U.S. 2014/0284209).
Regarding claim 17, Weninger teaches all the elements of the reactor of claim 14 as stated above. Weninger does not explicitly teach the first electrode and/or the second electrode being honeycomb-shaped, but does teach the second electrode having the shape of a single continuous electrode with cylindrical holes in which separated cylindrical parts of the first electrode are accommodated (see e.g. Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0162, lines 4-9, and Paragraph 0163, lines 1-6).
Gilman teaches a system for generating hydrogen and oxygen gas by water electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraph 0003) comprising a cathode formed as a matrix resembling honeycombs with hexagonal bores (see e.g. Fig. 3, cathode matrix 15; Paragraph 0069) in which individual anode rods are placed concentrically inside (see e.g. Figs. 3/3A and 8B, anode rods 16 within bores of cathode matrix 15; Paragraphs 0068 and 0070), these hexagonal bores providing enhanced reaction efficiency and current spreading ability as compare to other cross-sectional shapes such as circles, i.e. cylinders (see e.g. Paragraph 0069, lines 1-7, and Paragraphs 0147-0148)
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 second electrode of Weninger to comprise hexagonal holes instead of cylindrical holes in its continuous structure, forming a honeycomb shape, as taught by Gilman to provide enhanced reaction efficiency and current spreading ability.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weninger.
Regarding claim 22, Weninger teaches the vessel comprising a predetermined length (see e.g. Fig. 1A, vertical length of cell compartment 210), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each comprising a length greater than 50% to and less than 100% of the length of the vessel (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electrodes 220 and 230 shown with vertical lengths that appear to span the majority, but not all of, the length of cell compartment 210).
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weninger in view of Loftfield et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,893,902).
Regarding claim 23, Weninger teaches all the elements of the reactor of claim 14 as stated above. Weninger further teaches the vessel comprising a predetermined width (see e.g. Fig. 1A, width of cell compartment 210 in direction perpendicular to image). Weninger does not explicitly teach the first electrode and the second electrode each comprising a width being in a range of 50% to 99% of the width of the vessel. Weninger does generally exemplify the first and second electrodes having a length equal to the majority, but not all of the length of the vessel (see e.g. Fig. 1A, electrodes 220 and 230 shown with vertical lengths that appear to span the majority of the length of cell compartment 210).
Loftfield teaches a cell for electrolyzing sea water (see e.g. Abstract) comprising an enclosure (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, enclosure defined by walls 1/1’/3/3’, cover 9 and bottom 11; Col. 4, lines 15-21) and an alternating array of anodes and cathodes with widths and lengths that take up the majority, i.e. greater than 50%, but not all, i.e. less than 100%, of the width and length of the enclosure (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, anodes and cathodes 17 and 19 shown spanning the majority of enclosure in each direction; Col. 4, lines 48-51), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
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 first and second electrodes of Weninger to have a width spanning the majority, but not all, i.e. greater than 50% but less than 100%, of the width of the vessel similar to the length as taught by Loftfield as suitable relative dimensions for the electrodes and vessel of a water electrolysis cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that the limitation of the electrodes being “made by an additive manufacturing method” is not merely a product-by-process limitation, as the additive manufacturing method is essential for producing the claimed three-dimensional grid-shaped electrode, which is not disclosed by Weninger, the additive manufacturing particularly allowing the creation of complex and intricate electrode geometries. This is not considered persuasive. Weninger discloses all the required structural limitations of the claimed electrodes, particularly: the electrodes interpenetrating one another without electrical contact (see e.g. Fig. 2A, interdigitated, i.e. interpenetrating, gas evolution electrodes 220 and electron storage electrodes 230 not touching each other, i.e. not in electrical contact; Paragraph 0055 and Paragraph 0159, lines 12-15), the electrodes being three dimensionally grid-shaped, as shown by them having a length, width and height (3D) and respective arrays of protrusions and holes (grid-shaped) (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, electrodes 220 and 230 each shown forming a 3D grid on the bipolar plates 271 upon which they are arranged; Paragraph 0159, lines 8-12), and the first electrode and the second electrode being arranged to allow a flow of the reaction mixture therebetween (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2C, electrolyte 240 hosted in separation space 260 between electrodes 220 and 240 as it is added/removed, i.e. flows; Paragraph 0164, lines 3-5, and Paragraph 0101). The particular complexity or intricacy of the three dimensionally grid-shaped electrodes is not a claimed limitation, and there is no specific definition in the disclosure limiting what is defined as “three dimensionally grid-shaped” beyond its plane meaning. The additive manufacturing could be used to form simple or complex structures, as long as they are “three dimensionally grid-shaped”. Therefore, the product-by-process limitation of the electrodes being “made by an additive manufacturing method” does not appear to inherently impart further structural limitations to the claimed electrodes (see MPEP § 2113 as cited in the rejection above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795