DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 3/6/26:
claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 15-18 and 21-25 are presently pending
claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are canceled
the objection to the drawing is maintained for the reasons as set forth herein
the objection to claim 18 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(d) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show drier 330 of Fig. 4 as described in the specification (see Specification at ¶70 and ¶71). Specifically, it is noted that Figure 4 while labeling dryer 330 in the upper right-hand corner of the Figure, the box or element meant to be depicted as dryer 330 is missing. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 15-18 and 21-25 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.
Specifically, it is noted that independent claim 1 was amended to refer to “the method of electrochemically purifying …” (see claim 1 at the penultimate line of the claim). However, the method of claim 1 is a “method of purifying hydrogen” (see claim 1 at line 1), and the individual parts of the method are set forth as “steps” (see claim 1 at lines 1-2). As such, the claims reference to “the method …” would seem to lack antecedent basis and also make it unclear whether the entire method of claim 1 is being further limited or if it is just the electrochemically purifying step that is meant to be further limited.
It is additionally noted that in newly added dependent claim 22, when referring to a part of the method of claim 1, the claim refers to “the step” and so that further supports the conclusion of indefiniteness as the claims do refer to the subcomponents of the method as steps in the preamble in independent claim 1 and also in another dependent claim but instead refers to “the method” in that limitation.
The examiner would suggest amending the limitation to refer to “the step of electrochemically purifying” if that is indeed the intent, or provide some other clarifying amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection to the drawing, the examiner wishes to make clear that the issue isn’t the labeling of Fig. 4 with element 330, but instead that the figure appears to be missing the element, i.e. dryer 330, literally in the drawing. Specifically, while elements 336 and 338 are pointed to and in a dashed circled, they are separate from the dryer and so it looks as though the part of the figure meant to represent dryer 330 was omitted from the drawing.
It is additionally noted that the examiner attempted to contact applicant’s attorney at the provided number to arrange an examiner’s interview in order to resolve the issues, but the attempts to arrange an interview were not successful and so a written action was mailed out.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights