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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 2 cites “supplementing means for increasing an amount of the contaminant gas in the principal gas stream to above said predetermined threshold so as to ensure that combination by the CAS hydrogen and oxygen in said principal gas stream occurs” (see lines 4-6).
112(f) interpretation of “supplementing means” is invoked.
The specification fails discloses a “supplementing means”; however, claim 3, which depends on claim 2, states that the supplementing means comprises either means for recirculating of the principal gas stream drop downstream of the CAS back to upstream thereof, or a reservoir the contaminant gas, the reservoir being adapted to release said contaminant gas under a predetermined condition.
The specification discloses means that include recirculation of gases, or the use of a reservoir prior to the combiner, or a combination thereof (see page 4, 2nd paragraph).
The specification fails to discloses the specifics of claim 3.
The examiner will interpret the supplementing means of claim 2 as a means that include recirculation of gases, or the use of a reservoir prior to the combiner, or a combination thereof and claim 3 will be interpreted the means as a recirculation of gas or a reservoir.
Claims 7 recites “computing means for determining the amount of a contaminant gas present in the principal gas stream” (see lines 2-3).
112(f) interpretation of “computing means” is invoked.
The specification discloses that mass could be measured and a mass balance conducted to calculate the ratios of the gases present; however, the computing means are not defined.
The examiner will interpret the computing means to be a calculator or any device/apparatus that is capable of computing calculations.
Claim 11 recites “means for the removal and optional recycling of the generated liquid” (see lines 2-3).
112(f) interpretation of “means” is invoked.
The specification discloses that generated water is removed by means for wicking water, means such as heating, and a chemical pre-treatment (see page 8, 4th paragraph) and, optionally, a recycle loop comprising a feed (20a) and enters the housing via pipe (20b) (see figure 5 and page 18, 3rd paragraph).
The examiner will interpret the means as any device/apparatus that is capable wicking water, heating water in order to evaporate the water, resulting in a chemical pre-treatment, and resulting in a recycle loop.
Claim 13 recites “means for the introduction of ambient air to the principal gas stream” (see claims 2-3).
112(f) interpretation of “means” is invoked.
Ambient air is introduced to the CAS via a second inlet (8) (see figure 2B and page 17, 1st paragraph).
The examiner will interpret the means is an inlet.
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 9-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the demister additionally acts a flame arrestor”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the demister is attached to the inlet” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the demister is a microporous material”, and the claim also recites “preferably one of; a foam or sintered material, preferably a foam or sinter metal; a ceramic, preferably a sinter ceramic; or a carbon based material” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “an AEM electrolyzer with a dry cathode”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the AEM electrolyzer with dry cathode is configured to operate with the dry cathode at an elevated pressure” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henrie (US 3,755,075).
Regarding claim 1, Henrie discloses, in one embodiment, a combiner device (a condenser-type gas combiner) for, in use, removing a hydrogen contaminant in a principal gas stream comprising predominantly oxygen, or vice versa, with said combiner device comprising: a catalytically active structure (CAS) (catalyst bed, 16) comprising a housing having an and an outlet; a first pipe (12) coupled to the inlet for conveying said principal gas stream into the housing such that it flows from the inlet to the outlet, and an exhaust pipe (22) for conveying said principal gas stream away from said housing; the CAS (16) further comprising a structural element comprising or including a catalytic material operable to combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water, the structural element being located within the housing, part way between the inlet and the outlet, and extending across a substantial majority of a cross-section thereof, such that, in use, the principal gas stream flows therethrough (see Abstract; figure 1; and column 3, lines 15-39).
Henie discloses, in another embodiment, a combiner device (a condenser-type gas recombiner, 108) for, in use, removing a hydrogen contaminant in a principal gas stream comprising predominantly oxygen, or vice versa, with said combiner device comprising: a catalytically active structure (CAS) (catalyst bed, 110) comprising a housing having an and an outlet; a first pipe (106) coupled to the inlet for conveying said principal gas stream into the housing such that it flows from the inlet to the outlet, and an exhaust pipe (124) for conveying said principal gas stream away from said housing; the CAS (110) further comprising a structural element comprising or including a catalytic material operable to combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water, the structural element being located within the housing, part way between the inlet and the outlet, and extending across a substantial majority of a cross-section thereof, such that, in use, the principal gas stream flows therethrough (see Abstract; figure 3; and 5, lines 36-58).
Regarding claim 2, Henrie discloses a combiner device wherein the CAS is configured to combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water when the quantity of the contaminant gas in the principal gas stream is above a predetermined amount, the device further comprising supplementing means for increasing an amount of the contaminant gas in the principal gas stream to above said predetermined threshold so as to ensure that combination by the CAS of hydrogen and oxygen in said principal gas stream occurs (see Abstract; figure 3; and 5, lines 36-58), since Henrie discloses a water cooler (120) that acts as reservoir.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 11-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 8, and 11-15, Henrie fails to discloses a combiner device wherein said supplementing means comprises either: means for recirculating the principal gas stream from downstream of the CAS back to upstream thereof, or a reservoir containing the contaminant gas, the reservoir being adapted to release said contaminant gas under a predetermined condition; configured to simultaneously recombine the contaminant gas with the principal gas to form water, and detect the presence of said contaminant gas; coupled with a demister, the CAS being either: upstream of a demister pad, downstream of a demister pad, or combined with a demister pad; further comprising means for the removal and optional recycling of the generated liquid; wherein the structural element comprises a backbone of: carbon black, metal oxides including ceramics, a polymeric film, metal foam, zeolitic structures, or metal organic frameworks; further comprising means for the introduction of ambient air to the principal gas stream; and wherein the catalytic material is platinum, palladium or an alloy thereof; wherein the catalytic material is a non-PGM material including metal alloys, ceramics, chalcogenides, pnictogenides, organometallics, or other metal complexes.
Claim 4 depend on claim 3.
Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 16-17 and 20-22 are allowed.
The closest prior art references are Henrie (US 3,755,075) and Sakai et al. (EP 3,492,630 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sakai et al. discloses an electrochemical cell, since the electrochemical hydrogen pump (100) has a single cell (100A) that includes an electrolyte membrane (11), an anode (13), a cathode (12), a cathode separator (16), an anode separator (17), and an insulating member (17), see paragraph 58) comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (MEA), since the anode (13) is called a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (see paragraph 0600).
Sakai et al. fails to disclose or suggest an electrochemical cell comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) wherein the MEA comprises: an anode layer, a cathode layer and an ion exchange membrane situated therebetween; an anodic compartment adapted to operate at a first pressure, a cathodic compartment adapted to operate at a second pressure, and an electrically insulated catalytically active structure (CAS), wherein the CAS is: situated in the compartment with a relatively lower pressure, and extending across a substantial majority of the cross-section said compartment, such that, in use, the principal gas stream flows therethrough.
Claims 17 and 20 depend on claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, Henrie discloses a combiner device according to claim 1 such that said principal gas stream flows through the housing from the inlet to the outlet (see Abstract; figures 1 and 3; column 3, lines 15-39; and 5, lines 36-58).
Henrie fails to disclose or suggest a method, in a system that utilizes a principal gas stream comprising hydrogen and oxygen, for removing contaminant hydrogen from a principal gas stream comprising predominantly oxygen, or vice versa, since Henrie fails to disclose a contaminant to remove.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774