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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 11-16 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are under consideration in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “In” in Figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, lines 2 and 5, “electrolyte” should read “electrolytic” for consistency across claims.
In claim 12, lines 5 and 7, “electrolyte” should read “electrolytic” for consistency across claims.
In claim 13, line 4, “electrolyte” should read “electrolytic” for consistency across claims.
In claim 14, line 4, “electrolyte” should read “electrolytic” for consistency across claims.
In claim 15, line 5, “electrolyte” should read “electrolytic” for consistency across claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: New claims 13 and 14 describe “a voltage drop across the [two diodes/in-phase regulator] determin[ing] a voltage provided”, but the specification contains no description of this voltage drop. Page 8 of Applicant’s remarks filed 01/22/2026 suggest that this voltage drop limitation is inherently present in the disclosed circuit configurations, and therefore does not constitute new matter, but it is suggested that this language be explicitly reflected in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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).
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
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.
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.
Conclusion
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