AN ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 36-39, 41-45, and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streckert et al. (US 6,447,945 B1) and further in view of Norbert et al. (DE 20 2005 011017 U1).
Regarding claim 36, Streckert et al. teach an integrated energy storage device (Col. 1, lines 45-48 disclose a combination of such a PEM fuel cell-powered portable electronic device with an electrolyzer unit for efficiently recharging a hydrogen reservoir while at the same time powering the electronic device.), including:
an electrolyser for generating hydrogen through electrolysis of water (Figs. 1 and 15; Col. 8, lines 42-49 disclose an electrolyzer, element 17, which uses water to generate hydrogen.);
a metal hydride store (Fig. 15, element 27 discloses a hydride container. Further, col. 6, lines 50-65 disclose the hydride form is in the form of a metal hydride.) fluidly coupled to the electrolyser (Col. 8, lines 35-40), for receiving and converting the hydrogen from a gaseous form to solid state metal hydrides and back to hydrogen when required (Col. 8, lines 48-58 disclose the flow of hydrogen gas to the hydride container which stores the hydrogen.);
one or more fuel cells (Col. 3, lines 47-50; Fig. 3, element 33) coupled to the metal hydride store (Figs. 2 and 3 disclose the connection via elements 17a, 53a, 54a, 61, and 67), for generating electricity from hydrogen generated from the metal hydride store (Col. 3, lines 55-65); one or more coupling means for electrically connecting to a local electrical load to supply electricity to the electrical load (Col. 3, lines 55-65 disclose electrical connections between components in a base section, element 13 shown in Figs. 1- 3, are effected through sliding contacts in the hinge, element 17a.), wherein the one or more coupling means are accessible from the enclosure (Figs 1-3 disclose the hinge, element 17a, for electrical connections is accessible from the base section.).
However, they do not teach an enclosure for housing the electrolyser, the metal hydride store, and the one or more fuel cells therein.
Streckert disclose a fuel cell (Fig. 3, element 33) being located in the upper lid of a laptop (Fig. 3, element 15), a hydride container being located in a lower lid of a laptop (Fig. 2, element 27) along with a hydride container being located inside of an enclosure of an electrolyzer (Fig. 15 shows a hydride container, element 27, being inserted inside of an electrolyzer, element 71, having a cover, element 75.). Therefore, Streckert teaches all three components, each being kept in some type of enclosure. This is merely an example of making components integral. MPEP 2144.04 V B: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
However, alternatively, Norbert et al. teach an energy station comprising an electrolyzer (Fig. 1, element 2) producing hydrogen and heat, a hydrogen intermediate storage (Fig. 1, element 3) which is in the form of metal hydride storage, and a fuel cell (Fig. 1, element 4)(Abstract). Further, figure 1 shows all three components within the same enclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert with Norbert in order to ensure the provision of the energy required for a specific period of time.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Norbert et al. teach wherein the device includes one or more auxiliary energy storage units such as a battery (Fig. 2, element 15 discloses a battery.), which is chargeable by at least one of: an external power supply, or an electrolyser of the device (Paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert with Norbert in order to ensure the provision of the energy required for a specific period of time.
Regarding claims 39 and 41, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein the electrolyser is a stackable anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyser, or an alkaline based proton exchange membrane; wherein the device is fluidly coupled to a water source, for receiving and supplying water to the electrolyser for generating hydrogen. (Col. 8, lines 45-56 disclose the electrolyzer 71 has a tank that is filled with alkaline or acidic electrolyte and will be replenished with distilled or demineralized water, and water from the tank is supplied through a check valve to a cell assembly containing an ion exchange membrane.).
Regarding claims 42-44, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein the metal hydride store includes one or more storage vessels for storing the metal hydrides and wherein the metal hydride store includes a twin pair of hydrogen storage vessels (Col. 7, lines 4-25; Fig. 6, element 27a disclose four hydride containers which store metal hydride material.); wherein the one or more storage vessels are removable from the device and replaceable with new storage vessels if required (Col. 7, lines 4-25).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein the metal hydride store uses hydrogen storage alloys to convert hydrogen into metal hydrides (Col. 6, line 60-Col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein the device includes one or more ventilation units for promoting air flow within and/or surrounding the device (Col. 5, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein components of the device are electrically and/or fluidly coupled to each other within the enclosure (Figs. 1-3 disclose the electrolyzer, element 71, being connected to the hydride container, element 27, through a fluid conduit, element 69. Further, the fuel cells, element 33, are electrically connected to the hydride container through the hinge, element 17a.).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. Further, Streckert et al. teach wherein the device is a plug and play type energy storage and supply device (Fig. 15 shows an electrical plug.).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streckert et al. (US 6,447,945 B1) and Norbert et al. (DE 20 2005 011017 U1) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Kai et al. (US 2021/0320287 A1).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the electrolyser comprises a plurality of electrolytic cells, which are connected in series in a bipolar design.
Kai et al. teach an electrolyzer (Fig. 3, element 1) is a bipolar ion exchange membrane type electrolyzer(Paragraph 0064-0065), and the electrolyzer (Fig. 3, element 1) includes a plurality of electrolytic cells (Fig. 3, element 3) connected in series (Paragraphs 0064-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert and Norbert with Kai in order to prevent corrosion inside the cells.
Claims 46-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streckert et al. (US 6,447,945 B1) and Norbert et al. (DE 20 2005 011017 U1) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing, 11, (2004), 263-267).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the metal hydride store uses TixZryMnzCru(VFe)vMw, wherein M is selected from one or more of V, Fe, Cu, Co, Mo, Al, La, Ni, Ce and Ho;
x is 0.6 - 1.1; y is 0-0.4; z is 0.9 - 1.6; u is0-1; v is 0.01 -0.6; w is 0- 0.4.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert and Norbert with Yu in order to increase hydrogen storage capacity.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the alloy has a hydrogen storage capacity of at least 1.5 wt% H2, or at least 1.6 wt% H2, or at least 1.7 wt% H2, or at least 1.8 wt% H2, or at least 1.9 wt% H2, or at least 2 wt% H2, or least 2.1 wt% H2, or least 2.2 wt% H2, or least 2.3 wt% H2, or least 2.4 wt% H2, or least 2.5 wt% H2, or at least 2.6 wt% H2, or at least 2.7 wt.% H2, or at least 2.8 wt.% H2, or at least 2.9 wt.% H2, or least 3 wt% H2, or least 3.25 wt% H2, or least 3.5 wt% H2, or least 3.75 wt% H2, or at least 4 wt.% H2 at 30 bar.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph). Further, the alloy has a hydrogen storage capacity of at least 1.5 wt% H2, or at least 1.6 wt% H2, or at least 1.7 wt% H2, or at least 1.8 wt% H2, or at least 1.9 wt% H2, or at least 2 wt% H2, or least 2.1 wt% H2, or least 2.2 wt% H2, or least 2.3 wt% H2, or least 2.4 wt% H2, or least 2.5 wt% H2, or at least 2.6 wt% H2, or at least 2.7 wt.% H2, or at least 2.8 wt.% H2, or at least 2.9 wt.% H2, or least 3 wt% H2, or least 3.25 wt% H2, or least 3.5 wt% H2, or least 3.75 wt% H2, or at least 4 wt.% H2 at 30 bar (Fig. 4 shows the hydrogen capacity is at least 1.5 wt.% H2 when the pressure at around 3 MPa.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert and Norbert with Yu in order to increase hydrogen storage capacity.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the alloy has a hydrogen storage capacity of at least 4.5 wt% H2, or least 5 wt% H2, or least 6 wt% H2 at 100 bar.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph). While they do not teach wherein the alloy has a hydrogen storage capacity of at least 4.5 wt% H2, or least 5 wt% H2, or least 6 wt% H2 at 100 bar, Yu does teach the exact same composition of the alloy.
MPEP 2112.01 II: COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the alloy is adapted to desorb at least 65%, or at least 75%, at least 80%, or at least 85%, or at least 90%, or at least 95% of the stored hydrogen at 30 bar.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph). While they do not teach wherein the alloy is adapted to desorb at least 65%, or at least 75%, at least 80%, or at least 85%, or at least 90%, or at least 95% of the stored hydrogen at 30 bar, Yu does teach the exact same composition of the alloy.
MPEP 2112.01 II: COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the alloy is capable of a rate of uptake and release of hydrogen of at least about 0.5 g H2/min, or at least about 0.75 g H2/min, or at least about 1.0 g H2/min, or at least about 1.25 g H2/min, or at least about 1.4 g H2/min.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph). While they do not teach wherein the alloy is capable of a rate of uptake and release of hydrogen of at least about 0.5 g H2/min, or at least about 0.75 g H2/min, or at least about 1.0 g H2/min, or at least about 1.25 g H2/min, or at least about 1.4 g H2/min, Yu does teach the exact same composition of the alloy.
MPEP 2112.01 II: COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claims 51-52, the combination of Streckert and Norbert et al. teach the integrated energy storage device according to claim 36. However, they do not teach wherein the hydrogen storage alloy has a C14 Laves phase; and, wherein the metal hydride store uses room temperature metal hydride families, for example but not limited to, AB, AB2, A2B, ABS based hydrogen storage alloys to convert the hydrogen into metal hydrides.
Yu et al. teach an alloy for hydrogen storage comprising the formula TiMn1.25-xCr0.25(VFe)x wherein x is 0-0.4 (Abstract; Fig. 4; page 265, left column, bottom paragraph). Further, the alloy has a C14 Laves phase and is an AB2 alloy (Section 3.1: Phase Structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Streckert and Norbert with Yu in order to increase hydrogen storage capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 December 3rd, 2025