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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
It is important to note that the claims are directed towards apparatus. Apparatus claims must be distinguished over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The claims recite a great deal of function, i.e. “connectable”, and then further limit these functional limitations in dependent claims.
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 6 and 14 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.
As to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the water supply". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 14, the claim recites the limitation "the water supply". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0355590 A1 to Homma et al. (Homma).
As to claims 1 and 2, Homma teaches a system comprising an electrolyzer module (20) capable of being connected to a hydrogen storage system and a water capture unit, dehumidifiers (15b/13c) generating water from a gas stream, the dehumidifiers being capable of being electrically connected to a photovoltaic panel and to a hydrogen fuel cell, particularly in an embodiment wherein the dehumidifier is a pump, and thus a unit that would require an energy input of some sort (Paragraphs 0028, 0040 and 0044; Figure 1; MPEP 2114).
As to claim 3, Homma teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The fuel cell of the claims is not a structural part of the claim, but rather is recited in functional language such that the water capture unit is “connectable” to a fuel cell, therefore, the narrowing limitations of the claim are merely narrowing function limitations. The dehumidifier of Homma is capable of being connected to any number of fuel cells, including a fuel cell that is fluidly connected to the hydrogen storage system (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 4, Homma teaches the apparatus of claim 3. The fuel cell of the claims is not a structural part of the claim, but rather is recited in functional language such that the water capture unit is “connectable” to a fuel cell, therefore, the narrowing limitations of the claim are merely narrowing function limitations. The dehumidifier of Homma is capable of being connected to any number of fuel cells, including a fuel cell that is electrically connected to an electricity storage system (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, Homma teaches the apparatus of claim 4. The fuel cell of the claims is not a structural part of the claim, but rather is recited in functional language such that the water capture unit is “connectable” to a fuel cell, therefore, the narrowing limitations of the claim are merely narrowing function limitations. The dehumidifier of Homma is capable of being connected to any number of fuel cells, including a fuel cell that is electrically connected to a pump (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 12, Homma teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The fuel cell of the claims is not a structural part of the claim, but rather is recited in functional language such that the water capture unit is “connectable” to a fuel cell, therefore, the narrowing limitations of the claim are merely narrowing function limitations. The dehumidifier of Homma is capable of being connected to any number of fuel cells, including a fuel cell that provides electricity to the water-capture unit when the photovoltaic panel is not producing energy (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 13, Homma teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The photovoltaic panel of the claims is not a structural part of the claim, but rather is recited in functional language such that the water capture unit is “connectable” to a PV panel, therefore, the narrowing limitations of the claim are merely narrowing function limitations. The dehumidifier of Homma is capable of being connected to any number of PV panels, including a PV panel that is electrically connected to an electricity storage system (MPEP 2114).
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0113840 A1 to Friesen et al. (Friesen) in view of GB 2556077 A to Fieret (Fieret).
As to claims 1, 2, 12 and 14, Friesen teaches a system for generating a supply of water comprising a water capture unit (204a/b/c/d) comprising a hydropanel, a condenser electrically connected to a photovoltaic panel and alternate sources of energy such as a battery and the power grid, the water capture unit collecting water and supplying it to a water storage system (water reservoir) (220) (Paragraphs 0068, 0069, 0073-0075 and 0094; Figure 2). Friesen further teaches that the apparatus comprises a sanitation unit (230) for supplying, for example, oxygen to the captured water (Paragraph 0101; Figure 2). However, Friesen is silent as to the specific source of the oxygen for oxygenating the captured water.
However, Fieret also discusses an oxygen generation system for oxygenating water and teaches the use of an electrolyzer module (102) to generate the oxygen for oxygenating water with the benefit that it also produces valuable hydrogen that can be sent to a fuel cell (128) for an additional source of electricity to power the cell (0022-0025 and 0028-0030; Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the sanitation unit of Fieret as an electrolyzer module, capable of being connected to a hydrogen storage system, with the reasonable expectation of providing oxygen to the captured water, with the added benefit of providing hydrogen to a fuel cell for additional power supply to the system, as taught by Fieret. Thus further rendering obvious connecting the fuel cell to the water capture unit as one of its alternate sources of energy for when photovoltaic energy is not available.
As to claim 3, the combination of Friesen and Fieret teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fieret further teaches that the hydrogen fuel cell (128) is coupled to a hydrogen pipe (between 114 and 130), capable of, at least temporarily, storing hydrogen (Paragraph 0024; Figure 1).
As to claims 4 and 13, the combination of Friesen and Fieret teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 3. Friesen further teaches that the electrical power sources of the apparatus, and thus the fuel cell and the PV panel of the combination, are electrically connected to a battery for providing stored energy in case other sources are not available (Paragraph 0075).
As to claims 5, 6 and 7, the combination of Friesen and Fieret teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Friesen further teaches that the apparatus comprises a plurality of pumps to pump the captured water through the system components and to a water supply (270), the pumps connected to the controller and the power source, and thus the fuel cell of the combination (Paragraph 0094; Figure 1).
Claims 8, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Friesen and Fieret as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 101275237 B to Kelly et al. (Kelly).
As to claims 8, 9, 10 and 11, the combination of Friesen and Fieret teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Kelly also discusses water electrolysis for the generation of hydrogen and teaches that heat should be transferred from a PV array, where heat can have a negative effect, to the electrolyzer module where heat can be advantageous by providing a thermal loop containing a circulating heat exchange fluid, circulated via pump, in thermal communication with the electrolyzer module and the PV array (a heat load) (Paragraph 0036 and 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the solar thermal loop of Kelly to the apparatus of the combination in order to advantageously transfer heat as taught by Kelly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen in view of Fieret and further in view of KR 20190032999 A to Lee et al. (Lee).
As to claim 15, Friesen teaches a system for generating a supply of water comprising a water capture unit (204a/b/c/d) comprising a hydropanel, a condenser electrically connected to a photovoltaic panel and alternate sources of energy such as a battery and the power grid, the water capture unit collecting water and supplying it to a water storage system (water reservoir) (220) (Paragraphs 0068, 0069, 0073-0075 and 0094; Figure 2). Friesen further teaches that the apparatus comprises a sanitation unit (230) for supplying, for example, oxygen to the captured water (Paragraph 0101; Figure 2). However, Friesen is silent as to the specific source of the oxygen for oxygenating the captured water.
However, Fieret also discusses an oxygen generation system for oxygenating water and teaches the use of an electrolyzer module (102) to generate the oxygen for oxygenating water with the benefit that it also produces valuable hydrogen that can be sent to a fuel cell (128) for an additional source of electricity to power the cell, the hydrogen sent form the electrolyzer module to the fuel cell via a pipe, considered to at least temporarily store the hydrogen (0022-0025 and 0028-0030; Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the sanitation unit of Fieret as an electrolyzer module connected to a hydrogen storage system connected to a fuel cell, with the reasonable expectation of providing oxygen to the captured water, with the added benefit of providing hydrogen to a fuel cell for additional power supply to the system, as taught by Fieret. Thus further rendering obvious connecting the fuel cell to the water capture unit as one of its alternate sources of energy for when photovoltaic energy is not available.
However, the combination fails to further teach that the apparatus comprises a thermal loop for circulating a heat exchange fluid thermally connected to the electrolyzer module, the fuel cell and a heat load. However, Lee also discusses interconnected water electrolysis modules and fuel cells and teaches that the system should comprise a heat exchange system (thermal loop) for transferring heat from the fuel cell to the electrolyzer via a fluid (cooling water) and heat collector (heat load) in order to maximize the hydrogen production efficiency (Paragraphs 0075 and 0076; Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of the combination with a thermal loop including a heat exchange fluid thermally connected to the electrolyzer module, the hydrogen fuel cell and a heat load, in order to transfer heat and maximize the hydrogen production efficiency as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794