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 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 9 and 14-15 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sump region of the vessel" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The record does not clearly show that vessels inherently include a sump region.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said device" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that this rejection is made since claim 1 recites “a heat exchanger device” such that it is not perfectly clear which device is being referred to by “said device”. The Office will assume that the claim instead recites “wherein said at least one combined gas-liquid separator and gas cooling device” for purposes of further examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14, from which claim 15 depends, recites “a temperature control device arranged downstream of the combined gas-liquid separator and gas cooling device … configured to set a target temperature of a product gas depleted electrolysis medium withdrawn from the combined gas-liquid separator and gas cooling device before the product gas depleted electrolysis medium is supplied to the electrolysis cell stack”. The configuration of the temperature control device inherently requires exchange of heat with the product gas depleted electrolysis medium in order to change the temperature thereof, such that the temperature control device of claim 14 must be a heat exchange device. Claim 15 recites “wherein the electrolysis arrangement does not comprise a heat exchanger device arranged downstream of the combined gas-liquid separator and gas cooling device”. Thus claim 15 removes a limitation that is required by claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 8, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Brunori (EP 2589425).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brunori teaches (see fig. 1, reproduced herein, paragraphs [0032], [0039], and [0041]-[0042]) an apparatus for separating a product gas from an electrolysis medium and for drying the product gas separated from the electrolysis medium. The apparatus included a vessel (105) having a liquid part (107) and a gas phase part located adjacent to each other, with the gas phase part above the liquid part, an inlet (106), an outlet for degassed electrolysis medium (115), an outlet for product gas (112), and a heat exchanger (111) comprising heat transfer elements disposed within the gas phase part of the vessel and configured to condense water contained in the separated product gas.
Regarding claim 2, Brunori teaches (see paragraph [0061]) that a coolant (R134A) flowed through the heat exchanger (111).
Regarding claim 8, the inlet (106) of Brunori was arranged above the liquid phase part (i.e. in the gas phase part).
Regarding claim 9, the outlet (115) for the degassed electrolysis medium was located at the bottom (i.e. the sump region) of the vessel.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the gas-liquid separator of claim 1 as set forth above, the system of Brunori further included an electrolysis cell stack (102), a DC current source (inherently present for applying the potential difference that enables electrolysis to occur), at least on circulation pump (117) and a temperature control device (118) as claimed.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the system of Brunori does not include additional heat exchange elements or gas-liquid separators for the dried and cooled hydrogen gas.
Claims 1, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kawabata et al (US 2016/0332110).
See fig. 10 of Kawabata et al, reproduced herein on the next page.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the vessel is numbered 13, the liquid phase part is designated by the liquid surface level seen in the figure, with the gas phase part being located above the liquid surface level, the inlet is either a or b, the outlet for degassed electrolyte passes through valve 9, the outlet for gas is numbered 77, the heat exchanger device is numbered 16.
Regarding claim 9, the outlet for the degassed electrolysis medium was arranged at a bottom portion (i.e. the sump region) of the vessel.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the further heat exchanger device is numbered 15 and is configured to cool the electrolysis medium within the liquid phase part of the vessel.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated (claims 1-2, 8, 9, ) or anticipated (claims 3-4, 7) by Holler et al (US 2013/0032472).
Holler et al teach (see figure, abstract, paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) an apparatus for separating a product gas (hydrogen) from an electrolysis medium (water) combined with dying the product gas comprising a vessel (11) defining a liquid phase part located adjacent to and beneath a gas phase part. The vessel included an inlet (connected to line 23), an outlet for degassed electrolysis medium (connected to line 21), and an outlet for separated product gas (connected to line 13) and a heat exchanger (12) configured to cool the product gas that has been separated from the electrolysis medium to condense any condensable components still remaining in the separated product gas.
Regarding claims 3-4, although not described in text, Holler et al show fins as claimed extending from the cooling tube (12).
Regarding claim 7, the figure of Holler et al shows water dripping from the cooling tube/fins, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the cooling fins were separated by at least a minimum distance that prevented capillary forces of the water between the fins.
Regarding claim 8, Holler et al show the inlet being in the upper portion of the vessel (i.e. above the liquid surface level and thus in the region of the gas phase part).
Regarding claim 9, Holler et al show the outlet for the degassed electrolyte being located at the bottom (i.e. “the sump region”) of the vessel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunori (EP 2589425) as applied to claim 1 or 2 above, and further in view of Tutak et al (US 4,249,596).
Brunori teaches the general features of the combined gas-liquid separator and gas drying apparatus, but fails to teach the additional features of fins located around the cooling tubes.
Tutak et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2) a device for cooling and drying a gas comprising cooling tubes (26) through which a coolant can flow and fins (52) arranged in a stack through which the cooling tubes extended via recesses in the fins. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that the fins increased the transfer of heat out of the gas flowing past the fins and into the coolant flowing through the cooling tube through increasing the surface area for heat transfer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cooling tube and surrounding fins taught by Tutak et al with the device of Brunori for the purpose of increasing heat transfer out of the gas phase and into the coolant by increasing the surface area of heat transfer by using a stack of fins as taught by Tutak et al.
Regarding claim 4, the cooling tubes of Tutak et al extended in a direction perpendicular to the main plane of the fins.
Regarding claim 6, the cooling tubes of Tutak et al were positioned horizontally and the fins were arranged vertically to allow condensed liquids to fall under the influence of gravity from the gas phase part to the liquid phase part.
Regarding claim 7, the stack of fins of Tutak et al inherently included a minimum spacing distance that was greater than the distance at which capillary forces otherwise the liquid would not have been able to fall under the influence of gravity.
Regarding claim 10, Brunori fail to teach baffles being placed in the gas phase part of the vessel.
Tutak et al teach providing baffles (18, see figs. 1 and 2) positioned to force the gas being dried to alternately flow across the surfaces of the fins through the length of the vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the known improvement of baffles that creating an alternating flow of gas to be dried across the fins of a heat exchanger as taught by Tutak et al in the heat exchanger of Brunori to yield a predictable result of improvements in transfer of heat out of the gas to be dried. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Regarding claim 11, the baffles of Tutak et al were connected to an inner surface of the wall of the vessel.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunori (EP 2589425) in view of Tutak et al (US 4,249,596) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ares et al (US 6,895,774).
Tutak et al teach a single cooling tube passing through the fins multiple times.
Thus, Tutak et al and Brunori fail to teach the heat exchanger device comprising feeding and discharging tubes that merge into the cooling tubes, wherein the feeding and discharging tubes were arranged perpendicular to the cooling tubes and parallel to the fins.
Ares et al teach (see figs. 3 and 6) a gas drier comprising feeding and discharging tubes connecting multiple cooling tubes in parallel, wherein the feeding and discharging tubes were arranged perpendicular to the cooling tubes and parallel to the fins surrounding the cooling tubes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the known improvement of feeding and discharging tubes connecting multiple cooling tubes in parallel as taught by Ares et al in the heat exchanger of Brunori as modified by Tutak et al to yield a predictable result of improvements in transfer of heat out of the gas to be dried. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunori (EP 2589425) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabata et al (US 2016/0332110).
Brunori fail to teach the gas-liquid separator including a further heat exchanger device disposed within the liquid phase part of the vessel.
Kawabata et al teach (see prior art fig. 10 and paragraphs [0017]-[0018]) that it was known to place a cooling device (15a, 15b) within the liquid phase part of a gas-liquid separator for cooling the electrolysis medium within the liquid phase part of the vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a further cooling device in the liquid phase part of the gas-liquid separator of Brunori as taught by Kawabata et al for the purpose of effecting cooling of the electrolysis medium within the gas-liquid separator vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794