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 04/25/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the drawings, specification and claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
All previous rejections are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallone (U.S. Patent No. 2,834,728).
Regarding claim 1, Gallone discloses a circuit arrangement for at least one electrolytic cell of an electrolysis device (see e.g. Fig. 1, circuitry shown for electrolysis cells 1 and 2; Col. 2, lines 49-53), comprising:
an electrical auxiliary voltage source which is designed to provide an electrical auxiliary DC voltage (see e.g. Fig. 1, polarizing voltage source 10 comprising battery, which provides DC current/voltage; Col. 3, lines 35-40),
connection contacts for electrical connection to cell connections of the at least one electrolytic cell (see e.g. Fig. 2, contacts 9a and 9b for connecting to anodes A and cathode B; Col. 3, lines 22-28),
a protective voltage unit which is electrically coupled to the electrical auxiliary voltage source and is designed to provide an individual protective voltage for the at least one electrolytic cell (see e.g. Fig. 1, means for applying polarizing voltage, e.g. via resistor 11 and relay 14, between anodes A and cathode B from source of polarizing voltage 10 to protect cathode with trickle charge system 12 maintaining desired potential; Col. 2, lines 6-10, and Col. 3, lines 19-28, 35-40 and 46-49), and
a switching unit which is connected to the protective voltage unit and to the connection contacts and is designed to electrically couple the protective voltage unit for providing the protective voltage at the connection contacts to the connection contacts depending on a switching state of the switching unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, switch bar 8 with auxiliary contact member 9 for connecting to contacts 9a and 9b to connect anodes A and cathode B with the polarizing voltage; Col. 3, lines 22-28).
The limitation of the protective voltage unit being “configured to deliver an individual protective voltage that is less than a polarizing voltage associated with an intended use of the at least one electrolytic cell” is a statement regarding and depending on the intended use of the claimed arrangement. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Gallone discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed circuit arrangement as stated above. Gallone further discloses the protective voltage being delivered amounting to about 1 V (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 13-23), which is less than a polarization voltage of 1.48 V exemplified in paragraph 0047 of the instant specification, showing that the arrangement of Gallone can be operated as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Gallone discloses the at least one electrolytic cell comprising a plurality of electrolytic cells (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolysis cells 1 and 2; Col. 2, lines 49-53); and
the electrical auxiliary voltage source is designed to provide the electrical auxiliary DC voltage to the plurality of electrolytic cells (see e.g. Fig. 1, voltage source 10 provided for each of the electrolysis cells 1 and 2 fed via trickle charge system 12 by common connection; Col. 2, lines 49-53, and Col. 3, lines 40).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Buschmann (U.S. 2014/0131217).
Regarding claim 2, Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 1 as stated above. Gallone does not teach the switching unit comprising at least one individual switching element for each of the connection contacts, instead teaching only one switching element (see e.g. Fig. 1, switch bar 8 with auxiliary contact member 9 for connecting to both contacts 9a and 9b to connect anodes A and cathode B with the polarizing voltage; Col. 3, lines 22-28), but does teach that other switching devices may be used (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 73-75).
Buschmann teaches an electrochemical reactor (see e.g. Abstract) in which the anode and cathode leads of the reactor may each be connected to receive direct current from a power supply via an individual switching element (see e.g. Fig. 6, DC power supply respectively connected to cathode lead and anode lead via switch S2 and S4; Paragraph 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 switching unit of Gallone to comprise one switching element for each of the connection contacts instead of one shared switching element as taught by Buschmann as an alternate suitable configuration for connecting the anode and cathode of an electrochemical device to receive switchable current from a power supply. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 3, 5, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Nygren et al. (U.S. 2021/0179996).
Regarding claim 3, Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 1 as stated above. Gallone does not teach the protective voltage unit for providing the protective voltage comprising an electronic voltage converter electrically connected to the electrical auxiliary voltage source, but does teach that any suitable source of polarizing, i.e. protective, voltage may be used instead of the exemplified battery with a trickle charge system connected to a shared alternating current feed maintaining the desired potential (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 35-40).
Nygren teaches a power converter for an electrochemical system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising first converters, i.e. voltage converters, for supplying DC current at a suitable voltage to each electrode pair/cell of the system (see e.g. Fig. 2, first converters 202, 203 and 204 supplying DC current to electrode pairs 215/216, 217/218 and 219/220; Paragraph 0027, lines 3-13 and 23-31) and a single second converter for supplying each of the first converters with energy from a shared external power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, second converter 206 supplying converters 202-204 with energy form external electrical power grid 225; Paragraph 0027, lines 13-16).
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 circuit arrangement of Gallone to comprise first voltage converters as the protective voltage unit for each of the cells supplied from the auxiliary voltage source with direct current from a shared second converter as taught by Nygren as an alternate suitable power supply configuration for providing direct current at a desired potential/voltage to a plurality of electrolytic cells from a shared external power source. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Gallone as modified by Nygren above does not explicitly teach the voltage converter having at least one diode and/or at least one electrical resistor which is used to provide the protective voltage. Gallone does however teach a ballast resistor preferably being inserted in the polarizing, i.e. protective voltage, circuit in order to protect the voltage source form damaging current surges from the connected cell (see e.g. Gallone Fig. 1, ballast resistor 11; Col. 3, lines 29-34).
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 voltage converter of modified Gallone to comprise a ballast resistor as taught by Gallone to protect it from damaging current surges from the connected cell.
Regarding claim 12, Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 11 as stated above. Gallone does not teach the protective voltage unit comprising a plurality of electronic voltage converters electrically connected to the electrical auxiliary voltage source; wherein the plurality of electrical voltage converters comprises a voltage converter per electrolytic cell of the plurality of electrolytic cells, and the voltage converters are configured to individually provide the protective voltage to respective electrolytic cells. Gallone does however teach polarizing, i.e. protective, voltage being individually provided to each respective electrolytic cell (see e.g. Fig. 1, polarizing voltage source 10 provided for each of the electrolysis cells 1 and 2 fed via trickle charge system 12 by common connection; Col. 2, lines 49-53, and Col. 3, lines 35-40), as well as that any suitable source of polarizing, i.e. protective, voltage may be used instead of the exemplified battery with a trickle charge system connected to a shared alternating current feed maintaining the desired potential (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 35-40).
Nygren teaches a power converter for an electrochemical system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising first converters, i.e. voltage converters, for supplying DC current at a suitable voltage to each electrode pair/cell of the system (see e.g. Fig. 2, first converters 202, 203 and 204 supplying DC current to electrode pairs 215/216, 217/218 and 219/220; Paragraph 0027, lines 3-13 and 23-31) and a single second converter for supplying each of the first converters with energy from a shared external power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, second converter 206 supplying converters 202-204 with energy form external electrical power grid 225; Paragraph 0027, lines 13-16).
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 circuit arrangement of Gallone to comprise a plurality of first voltage converters as the protective voltage unit for each of the cells supplied from the auxiliary voltage source with direct current from a shared second converter as taught by Nygren as an alternate suitable power supply configuration for providing direct current at a desired potential/voltage to a plurality of electrolytic cells from a shared external power source. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Gallone as modified by Nygren teaches the voltage converters being connected to the electrical auxiliary voltage source in parallel (see e.g. Gallone Fig. 1, polarizing voltage source/battery 10 provided in parallel for each of the electrolysis cells 1 and 2 fed via trickle charge system 12 by common alternating current connection, Col. 2, lines 49-53, and Col. 3, lines 35-40; see e.g. Nygren Fig. 2, first converters 202, 203 and 204 supplying DC current to electrode pairs 215/216, 217/218 and 219/220, Paragraph 0027, lines 3-13 and 23-31), the voltage converters being configured to provide individually adjustable protective voltages to respective electrolytic cells (see e.g. Nygren Paragraph 0027, lines 23-31, each of the first converters comprising a controllable, i.e. individually adjustable, direct voltage-to-direct voltage converter).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Nygren, as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Labitzke et al. (U.S. 2010/0244555).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 3 as stated above. Modified Gallone does not teach the voltage converter being in the form of an in-phase regulator, but does teach it comprising a circuitry for converting a first received direct voltage into a second direct voltage suitable for the electrolysis cells, such as a direct voltage-to-direct voltage converter known in the prior art (see e.g. Nygren Paragraph 0027, lines 23-31).
Labitzke teaches an electrical system in which voltage is provided from a generator to an electrical system consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0007 and Paragraph 0008, lines 1-4), wherein a consumer may be supplied with a controllable rated, i.e. converted, voltage via an in-phase regulator provided between the generator and the consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 4-13 and Paragraph 0009).
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 voltage converter of modified Gallone to comprise an in-phase generator as taught by Labitzke as a particular suitable electrical circuit component for converting a first received direct voltage into a second output voltage. 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.
Although Labitzke does not relate to circuit arrangements for electrolysis cells, it is analogous art as it is directed toward the same problem of regulating the voltage delivered to a system from a power source, as similarly described in paragraph 0061 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 14, modified Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 12 as stated above. Modified Gallone does not teach each voltage converter comprising an in-phase regulator, wherein a voltage drop across the in-phase regulator determines a voltage provided to a respective electrolytic cell, but does teach them comprising a circuitry for converting a first received direct voltage into a second direct voltage suitable for the electrolysis cells, such as a direct voltage-to-direct voltage converter known in the prior art (see e.g. Nygren Paragraph 0027, lines 23-31).
Labitzke teaches an electrical system in which voltage is provided from a generator to an electrical system consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0007 and Paragraph 0008, lines 1-4), wherein a consumer may be supplied with a controllable rated, i.e. converted, voltage via an in-phase regulator provided between the generator and the consumer, the voltage provided to the consumer being altered from that provided directly from the generator and thereby determined by the voltage drop across the in-phase regulator (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 4-13 and Paragraph 0009).
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 each voltage converter of modified Gallone to comprise an in-phase generator, the voltage drop across which determines the voltage delivered to the electrolysis cells, as taught by Labitzke as a particular suitable electrical circuit component for converting a first received direct voltage into a second output voltage. 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.
Although Labitzke does not relate to circuit arrangements for electrolysis cells, it is analogous art as it is directed toward the same problem of regulating the voltage delivered to a system from a power source, as similarly described in paragraph 0061 of the instant specification.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Pederson et al. (U.S. 2015/0329980).
Regarding claim 6, Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 1 as stated above. Gallone does not teach a sensor unit which is connected at least to the switching unit and is designed to capture an electrolysis current of the at least one electrolytic cell and to transmit a corresponding sensor signal at least to the switching unit, but does teach the switching unit being activated and the protective voltage being applied automatically upon current failure of the main electrolysis power (see e.g. Col. 3, lines 41-52, and Col. 3, line 75-Col. 4, line 5).
Pedersen discloses electrical failure detection and safety mechanisms of electrolyser systems (see e.g. Paragraph 0001), wherein the current fed to the cells of electrolyser system is monitored (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 1-8), and, upon detection of a failure mode such as current drop below a certain threshold, an appropriate preventive action such as application of a protective voltage is triggered to protect the system (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 8-12, Paragraph 0024, lines 7-12, and Claim 6).
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 circuit arrangement of Gallone to comprise a current monitoring sensor which signals the switching unit upon detection of a failure mode as taught by Pedersen as an alternate suitable mechanism for automatic triggering of a preventive action such as application of a protective voltage to an electrolytic cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Gallone as modified by Pedersen teaches the switching unit being designed to selectively provide a protective voltage for the at least one electrolytic cell depending on the sensor signal (see e.g. Gallone Col. 3, lines 18-28, protective voltage applied via activation of switch bar; Pederson Paragraph 0016, lines 8-12, Paragraph 0024, lines 7-12, and Claim 6, application of protective voltage upon detection of failure in monitored current).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Nygren, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Dempsey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,870,616).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gallone teaches all the elements of the circuit arrangement of claim 12 as stated above. Modified Gallone does not teach each voltage converter comprising an in-phase regulator, wherein a voltage drop across the in-phase regulator determines a voltage provided to a respective electrolytic cell, but does teach them comprising a circuitry for converting a first received direct voltage into a second direct voltage suitable for the electrolysis cells, such as a direct voltage-to-direct voltage converter known in the prior art (see e.g. Nygren Paragraph 0027, lines 23-31).
Dempsey teaches an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract) provided with a cell current control network which controls the current to the electrolysis cell (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 51-53) which comprises a pair of Zener diodes that are connected to a received rectified DC voltage supply and function to regulate an output voltage an maintain it at a given level, with the output voltage determined by the clipping of voltage, i.e. voltage drop, across the diodes (see e.g. Fig. 3, Zener diodes 107 and 108; Col. 9, lines 51-63).
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 each voltage converter of modified Gallone to comprise a pair of Zener diodes, the voltage drop across which determines the voltage delivered to the electrolysis cells, as taught by Dempsey as a particular suitable electrical circuit component for converting a first received direct voltage into a second output voltage at a desired level. 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 04/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Gallone discloses a protective polarizing voltage being applied between the anodes and cathode, which is counter to the amended claimed limitation of the protective voltage being less than a polarizing voltage associated with an intended use of the cell. This is not considered persuasive. The amended limitation is a statement regarding and dependent on the intended use of the claimed circuit arrangement. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Gallone discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed circuit arrangement as stated in the rejection above. Gallone further discloses an example of the protective voltage being delivered amounting to about 1 V (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 13-23), which is less than a polarization voltage of 1.48 V exemplified in paragraph 0047 of the instant specification, showing that the arrangement of Gallone can be operated as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ehrig et al. (DE 102014224013 A1) discloses an electrolysis cell in which a protective voltage is applied to the cathode in standby mode to prevent corrosion, the protective voltage being preferably below an open circuit potential, i.e. polarization potential, of the cell.
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
Prosecution Insights