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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/30/2025.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the drawings and claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
All previous rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-9 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanebuth et al. (US 20170335476) in view of Jehle et al. (DE 102019108028 A1, citations based on translation), and further in view of Wright et al. (US 4532018).
Regarding claim 1, Hanebuth teaches a method for performing electrolysis using an electrolysis stack having multiple electrolysis cells (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyzer 1 for performing electrolysis comprising cell block 2 having a plurality of electrolysis cells 4; Paragraph 0035, lines 3-5, and Paragraph 0036, lines 1-5), wherein each of the electrolysis cells comprises:
an anode space with an anode (see e.g. Fig. 1, first subcell 4.1 having an anode; Paragraph 0036, lines 7-8),
a cathode space with a cathode (see e.g. Fig. 1, second subcell 4.2 having a cathode; Paragraph 0036, lines 8-9),
a membrane that separates the anode space and the cathode space from each other (see e.g. Fig. 1, membrane 7 dividing subcells 4.1 and 4.2; Paragraph 0036, lines 5-7),
wherein the method comprises:
feeding an electrolysis medium to the electrolysis stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, starting liquid 50 pumped into subcells 4.1 and 4.2 of electrolysis cells 4; Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, and Paragraph 0039, lines 8-10),
providing electrical energy to the electrolysis stack for performing the electrolysis with the electrolysis medium fed to the electrolysis stack (see e.g. Paragraph 0050, lines 1-5, electrolysis current applied to electrolyzer during electrolysis), and
determining a degree of degradation of the membranes (see e.g. Paragraph 0050, checking membrane leaktightness, i.e. degree of degradation).
Hanebuth does not teach the electrolysis cells each comprising a recombination catalyst, but does teach the desire to prevent the hydrogen and oxygen gases from mixing across the membrane and creating an unsafe operating state (see e.g. Paragraph 0003).
Jehle teaches an electrolysis device (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising a recombination catalyst between an anode and cathode of the device for initiating recombination of oxygen and hydrogen in the electrolyte (see e.g. Paragraph 0007), thereby preventing mixing of the two gases at the electrodes which can form explosive mixtures (see e.g. Paragraph 0010, lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0003, lines 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis cells of Hanebuth to comprise a recombination catalyst as taught by Jehle to further prevent mixing of the produced gases and formation of unsafe explosive mixtures.
Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach the flow rate at which the electrolysis medium is fed to the electrolysis stack being determined and the degree of degradation being determined based on this flow rate. Hanebuth does however teach the degradation of the membranes being determined based on a flow rate of liquid across the membrane (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 5-9, membrane leaktightness, i.e. degree of degradation, determined based on flow rate of starting liquid between the two electrolyzer volumes, i.e. across the membrane).
Wright teaches a control system for a membrane-type electrolytic cell (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 3-7) wherein a water mass balance equation is utilized for a compartment of the cell which relates the mass flow rate of a water input process stream to a mass flow rate of water transported between two compartments of the cell across the membrane (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 60-68, and Col. 5, lines 18-22), which can be a function of membrane age, i.e. degradation over time (see e.g. Col. 6, line 67-Col. 7, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Hanebuth to comprise determining a flow rate to the electrolysis stack for evaluation of a water mass balance in the system as taught by Wright as an alternate suitable means of determining a liquid flow across the membrane, and thereby degree of membrane degradation, in an electrolysis system. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Hanebuth as modified by Jehle teaches the electrolysis medium comprising water (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0035, lines 5-6) and the recombination catalysts being configured for recombining oxygen and hydrogen to water (see e.g. Jehle Paragraph 0007, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Hanebuth as modified by Jehle teaches the recombination catalysts comprising a chemical composition involving platinum (see e.g. Jehle Paragraph 0015, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Hanebuth as modified by Jehle teaches the recombination catalysts being arranged within the anode space of the respective electrolysis cell (see e.g. Jehle Paragraph 0024, recombination catalyst as coating on anode).
Regarding claim 8, Hanebuth teaches an arrangement (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyzer 1; Paragraph 0035, line 1) comprising:
an electrolysis stack having multiple electrolysis cells (see e.g. Fig. 1, cell block 2 comprising a plurality of electrolysis cells 4; Paragraph 0036, lines 1-5), wherein each of the electrolysis cells comprises:
an anode space with an anode (see e.g. Fig. 1, first subcell 4.1 having an anode; Paragraph 0036, lines 7-8),
a cathode space with a cathode (see e.g. Fig. 1, second subcell 4.2 having a cathode; Paragraph 0036, lines 8-9),
a membrane that separates the anode space and the cathode space from each other (see e.g. Fig. 1, membrane 7 dividing subcells 4.1 and 4.2; Paragraph 0036, lines 5-7),
an electrolysis medium feed fluidly connected to the electrolysis stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, first and second feed lines 20 and 40 for pumping starting liquid 50 into subcells 4.1 and 4.2 of electrolysis cells 4; Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, and Paragraph 0039, lines 8-10),
a control unit (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 1-4, evaluation unit of test device) that is
connected electrically to a meter for receiving a measurement signal from the meter (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 4-8, evaluation unit receiving measurement values from the measuring device), and
configured for determining a degree of degradation of the membranes based on the measurement signal received from the meter (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 4-8, and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-9, evaluation unit determines flow rate between electrolyzer volumes, and thereby membrane leaktightness, i.e. degree of degradation, using measurement values from the measuring device).
Hanebuth does not teach the electrolysis cells each comprising a recombination catalyst, but does teach the desire to prevent the hydrogen and oxygen gases from mixing across the membrane and creating an unsafe operating state (see e.g. Paragraph 0003).
Jehle teaches an electrolysis device (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising a recombination catalyst between an anode and cathode of the device for initiating recombination of oxygen and hydrogen in the electrolyte (see e.g. Paragraph 0007), thereby preventing mixing of the two gases at the electrodes which can form explosive mixtures (see e.g. Paragraph 0010, lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0003, lines 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis cells of Hanebuth to comprise a recombination catalyst as taught by Jehle to further prevent mixing of the produced gases and formation of unsafe explosive mixtures.
Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach the control unit being connected electrically to the electrolysis stack for providing electrical energy to the electrolysis stack for performing the electrolysis with the electrolysis medium fed to the electrolysis stack with the electrolysis medium feed, but does teach the electrolysis stack receiving current, i.e. electrical energy, for performing electrolysis (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0050, lines 1-5, electrolysis current applied to electrolyzer during electrolysis).
Wright teaches a control system for a membrane-type electrolytic cell system (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 3-7 and 28-30) wherein a control unit is electrically connected to the cell system for providing power, i.e. electrical energy, to the cell system (see e.g. Fig. 1, automatic control unit 12 connected to membrane cell system 40 for providing operating set points such as power levels; Col. 3, lines 55-59, Col. 10, lines 54-62), thereby enabling operation of the cell system to be adapted to changing external constraints (see e.g. Col. 10, lines 34-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of modified Hanebuth to be connected electrically to the electrolysis stack for providing electrical energy to the stack for performing the electrolysis as taught by Wright to enable operation of the electrolysis stack to be adapted to changing external constraints.
Hanebuth as modified by Wright above does not explicitly teach the arrangement comprising a flow meter for measuring a flow rate of the electrolysis medium through the electrolysis medium feed, wherein the control unit is connected electrically to the flow meter to receive the measurement signal from the flow meter and determine the degree of degradation of the membranes based on the measurement signal form the flow meter. Hanebuth does however teach the degradation of the membranes being determined based on a flow rate of liquid across the membrane (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 5-9, membrane leaktightness, i.e. degree of degradation, determined based on flow rate of starting liquid between the two electrolyzer volumes, i.e. across the membrane).
Wright further teaches a water mass balance equation being utilized for a compartment of the cell that relates the mass flow rate of a water input process stream to a mass flow rate of water transported between two compartments of the cell across the membrane (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 60-68, and Col. 5, lines 18-22), which can be a function of membrane age, i.e. degradation over time (see e.g. Col. 6, line 67-Col. 7, line 2), wherein the input water flow rate may be obtained via a flow monitor, i.e. flow meter, and monitored by the control unit (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 45-49, and Col 22, lines 37-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of modified Hanebuth to comprise a flow meter for determining a flow rate to the electrolysis stack and sending measurement signals for evaluation of a water mass balance in the system with the control unit as taught by Wright as an alternate suitable means of determining a liquid flow across the membrane, and thereby degree of membrane degradation, in an electrolysis system. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 2-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanebuth, Jehle and Wright, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Gutermuth et al. (WO 2023006460 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hanebuth teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach the method further comprising issuing a warning, interrupting the electrolysis and/or performing maintenance on the membranes, in case the determined degree of degradation exceeds a threshold. Hanebuth does however teach a threshold being established to infer when a leak of at least one membrane has occurred and/or the membrane is considered defective (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0051 and Paragraph 0057, lines 5-9), as well as that the presence of a leak in the membrane may lead to an unsafe operating state that should be prevented by suitable measures (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0003, lines 4-9).
Gutermuth teaches a method of controlling operation of an electrolyzer plant (see e.g. Abstract) comprising performing an optimization procedure which may comprise determining a maintenance schedule based on a constraint such as degradation of electrolyzer membranes exceeding a critical safety threshold value (see e.g. Page 8, lines 22-24, and Page 9, lines 1-8 and 26-34), such optimization allowing for improved aspects of electrolyzer plant operation such as plant efficiency, plant lifetime, electrolyzer module lifetime, operational safety and/or maintenance patterns (see Page 3, lines 21-30, and Page 4, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Hanebuth to comprise performing an optimization procedure including scheduling maintenance of the membranes based on the determined degree of membrane degradation exceeding a threshold as taught by Gutermuth to allow for improved operational aspects such as efficiency, lifetime, operation safety and/or maintenance patterns.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hanebuth teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach the electrical energy being provided to the electrolysis stack depending on the determined degree of degradation of the membranes.
Gutermuth teaches a method of controlling operation of an electrolyzer plant (see e.g. Abstract) wherein electrolyzer set points such as a power, i.e. electrical energy, set point (see e.g. Page 1, lines 27-29) may be determined based on the degradation characteristics of electrolyzer components over time to enable the set points to be the most beneficial in terms of electrolyzer plant efficiency and reduction of electrolyzer module/plant degradation (see e.g. Page 6, line 32-Page 7, line 3, and Page 7, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Hanebuth to comprise providing the electrical energy to the electrolysis stack at a set point depending on the determined degree of membrane degradation as taught by Gutermuth to enable the stack to be at the most beneficial set point in terms of efficiency and reduction of degradation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hanebuth teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach a maintenance of the electrolysis stack being scheduled based on the determined degree of degradation of the membranes. Hanebuth does however teach that the presence of a leak in the membrane may lead to an unsafe operating state that should be prevented by suitable measures (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0003, lines 4-9).
Gutermuth teaches a method of controlling operation of an electrolyzer plant (see e.g. Abstract) comprising performing an optimization procedure which may comprise determining a maintenance schedule based on a constraint such as degradation of electrolyzer membranes exceeding a critical safety threshold value (see e.g. Page 8, lines 22-24, and Page 9, lines 1-8 and 26-34), such optimization allowing for improved aspects of electrolyzer plant operation such as plant efficiency, plant lifetime, electrolyzer module lifetime, operational safety and/or maintenance patterns (see Page 3, lines 21-30, and Page 4, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Hanebuth to comprise performing an optimization procedure including scheduling maintenance of the membranes based on the determined degree of membrane degradation exceeding a threshold as taught by Gutermuth to allow for improved operational aspects such as efficiency, lifetime, operation safety and/or maintenance patterns.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hanebuth teaches all the elements of the arrangement of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Hanebuth does not explicitly teach the control unit further being configured to issue a warning, interrupt the electrolysis and/or issue a signal indicating that maintenance on the membranes is supposed to be performed, in case the determined degree of degradation exceeds a threshold. Hanebuth does however teach a threshold being established to infer when a leak of at least one membrane has occurred and/or the membrane is considered defective (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0051 and Paragraph 0057, lines 5-9), as well as that the presence of a leak in the membrane may lead to an unsafe operating state that should be prevented by suitable measures (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0003, lines 4-9).
Gutermuth teaches a method of controlling operation of an electrolyzer plant (see e.g. Abstract) comprising performing an optimization procedure which may comprise determining a maintenance schedule based on a constraint such as degradation of electrolyzer membranes exceeding a critical safety threshold value (see e.g. Page 8, lines 22-24, and Page 9, lines 1-8 and 26-34), such optimization allowing for improved aspects of electrolyzer plant operation such as plant efficiency, plant lifetime, electrolyzer module lifetime, operational safety and/or maintenance patterns (see Page 3, lines 21-30, and Page 4, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of modified Hanebuth to be configured to perform an optimization procedure including scheduling maintenance of the membranes based on the determined degree of membrane degradation exceeding a threshold as taught by Gutermuth to allow for improved operational aspects such as efficiency, lifetime, operation safety and/or maintenance patterns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues that because Hanebuth discloses means for checking that the membrane is not leaking, it teaches away from the use of a recombination catalyst such as that of Jehle. This is not considered persuasive. The fact that Hanebuth checks that a membrane is not leaking does not mean that a membrane used in the electrolysis method of Hanebuth would never leak. On the contrary, it shows that membrane leakage can occur, as indicated by a monitored parameter exceeding a threshold (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0051), resulting in the mentioned mixing of hydrogen and oxygen gases across the membrane and creation of an unsafe operating state (see e.g. Hanebuth Paragraph 0003). Jehle then teaches the use of a recombination catalyst to prevent between an anode and cathode of the device for initiating recombination of oxygen and hydrogen in the electrolyte (see e.g. Jehle Paragraph 0007), thereby preventing mixing of the two gases at the electrodes which can form explosive mixtures (see e.g. Jehle Paragraph 0010, lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0003, lines 1-4). The addition of the recombination catalyst of Jehle would thereby assist in preventing the creation of the unsafe operating state mentioned by Hanebuth when leaks do in fact occur.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795