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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "706" and "712" have both been used to designate “memory device(s)” in Fig. 7. Based on paragraph 0097 of the instant specification, “712” should be labeled as a “sub-systems port”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “322” in Fig. 3, “410” and “412” in Fig. 4A, and “606” and “608” in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2, “receiving, from” should read “receiving[[,]] measurements from”.
In claim 11, line 4, “determining, an operational” should read “determining[[,]] an operational”.
In claim 17, line 4, “receiving, from” should read “receiving[[,]] measurements from”.
In claim 17, line 6, “determining, an operational” should read “determining[[,]] an operational”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the hydrogen generator" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of a “hydrogen generator” in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the hydrogen generator" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of a “hydrogen generator” in the claim.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. 2022/0113271) in view of Biskoping et al. (WO 2023152130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a hydrogen generation system (see e.g. Fig. 1, gas generation system 1 in which H2 gas is produced; Paragraph 0022, lines 1-2) comprising:
a hydrogen generator comprising:
an electrochemical stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolysis cell 10 as generation device; Paragraph 0022, lines 2-3 and 7-8); and
a plurality of sensors measuring a concentration of hydrogen and oxygen generated from the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0022, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0032, lines 1-4); and
a control system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see e.g. Fig. 1, management device 40 including control unit 43 which may be a processor and storage unit 42 which may be a non-volatile memory storing a program which may be executed by the control unit 43 for realizing the functions thereof; Paragraph 0036, lines 1-4 and 12-15, and Paragraph 0037, lines 1-10):
determine an operational status of the hydrogen generator based on the concentration of gas generated from the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device determines if there is a possibility of the electrolysis cell being damaged);
obtain, based on a value of the concentration of gas generated from the electrochemical stack, a rule from a ruleset database (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device compares detected concentration to predetermined threshold associated with a determination to stop generation of hydrogen and oxygen); and
execute a rule from a ruleset to alter an operational parameter of the electrochemical stack based on the determined operational status of the hydrogen generator (see e.g. Paragraph 0068, management device commands stoppage of hydrogen and oxygen generation based on the determination).
Kato does not teach the processor of the control system further being caused to verify the operational status of the hydrogen generator through an additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack.
Biskoping teaches a method for operating electrolyser stacks (see e.g. Abstract) in which performance of an electrolyser stack can be evaluated by measuring current density of the stack and comparing it to a calibration curve relating the current density to an impurity gas concentration, such as a concentration of hydrogen within produced oxygen, in addition to the use of physical gas concentration sensors, thereby providing a redundancy to the physical sensors and increasing reliability of the system (see e.g. Page 4, lines 6-9 and 27-33, and Page 5, lines 12-19).
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 processor of Kato to further be caused to evaluate performance, i.e. verify operational status, of the hydrogen generator by measurement of a current density of the electrochemical stack as taught by Biskoping to provide a redundancy to the physical sensors and increase reliability of the hydrogen generation system.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kato teaches the plurality of sensors comprising an oxygen sensor measuring a concentration of output oxygen generated from the electrochemical stack and a hydrogen sensor measuring a concentration of output hydrogen generated from the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Kato Fig. 1, catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0032, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Kato as modified by Biskoping teaches the additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack comprising an alternating current impedance spectroscopy measurement (see e.g. Biskoping Page 8, lines 20-26, AC electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analysis used as input and/or to update calibration curve).
Regarding claim 11, Kato teaches a method for operating a hydrogen generation system (see e.g. Fig. 1, operation by management device 40 of gas generation system 1 in which H2 gas is produced; Paragraph 0022, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0036, lines 1-2), the method comprising:
receiving measurements from a plurality of sensors measuring a concentration of hydrogen and oxygen generated from an electrochemical stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, management device 40 receiving signals of detected concentration from catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0022, lines 4-6,and Paragraphs 0063-0064);
determining an operational status of the electrochemical stack based on the received measurements of concentration of gas (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device determines if there is a possibility of the electrolysis cell being damaged);
obtaining, based on a value of the concentration of gas generated from the electrochemical stack, a rule form a ruleset database (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device compares detected concentration to predetermined threshold associated with a determination to stop generation of hydrogen and oxygen); and
executing a rule from a ruleset to alter an operational parameter of the electrochemical stack based on the determined operation status of the hydrogen generator (see e.g. Paragraph 0068, management device commands stoppage of hydrogen and oxygen generation based on the determination).
Kato does not teach verifying the operational status of the hydrogen generator through an additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack.
Biskoping teaches a method for operating electrolyser stacks (see e.g. Abstract) in which performance of an electrolyser stack can be evaluated by measuring current density of the stack and comparing it to a calibration curve relating the current density to an impurity gas concentration, such as a concentration of hydrogen within produced oxygen, in addition to the use of physical gas concentration sensors, thereby providing a redundancy to the physical sensors and increasing reliability of the system (see e.g. Page 4, lines 6-9 and 27-33, and Page 5, lines 12-19).
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 Kato to further comprise evaluating performance, i.e. verifying operational status, of the hydrogen generator by measurement of a current density of the electrochemical stack as taught by Biskoping to provide a redundancy to the physical sensors and increase reliability of the hydrogen generation system.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kato teaches the plurality of sensors comprising an oxygen sensor measuring a concentration of output oxygen generated from the electrochemical stack and a hydrogen sensor measuring a concentration of output hydrogen generated from the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Kato Fig. 1, catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0032, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Kato as modified by Biskoping teaches the additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack comprising an alternating current impedance spectroscopy measurement (see e.g. Biskoping Page 8, lines 20-26, AC electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analysis used as input and/or to update calibration curve).
Regarding claim 17, Kato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to perform (see e.g. Fig. 1, storage unit 42 which may be a non-volatile memory storing a program which may be executed by control unit 43 which may be a processor for realizing the function of management device 40; Paragraph 0036, lines 1-4 and 12-15, and Paragraph 0037, lines 1-10):
receiving measurements from a plurality of sensors measuring a concentration of hydrogen and oxygen generated from an electrochemical stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, management device 40 receiving signals of detected concentration from catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0022, lines 4-6,and Paragraphs 0063-0064);
determining an operational status of the electrochemical stack based on the received measurements of concentration of gas (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device determines if there is a possibility of the electrolysis cell being damaged);
obtaining, based on a value of the concentration of gas generated from the electrochemical stack, a rule form a ruleset database (see e.g. Paragraph 0067, management device compares detected concentration to predetermined threshold associated with a determination to stop generation of hydrogen and oxygen); and
executing a rule from a ruleset to alter an operational parameter of the electrochemical stack based on the determined operation status of the hydrogen generator (see e.g. Paragraph 0068, management device commands stoppage of hydrogen and oxygen generation based on the determination).
Kato does not teach the computing device also being caused to verify the operational status of the hydrogen generator through an additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack.
Biskoping teaches a method for operating electrolyser stacks (see e.g. Abstract) in which performance of an electrolyser stack can be evaluated by measuring current density of the stack and comparing it to a calibration curve relating the current density to an impurity gas concentration, such as a concentration of hydrogen within produced oxygen, in addition to the use of physical gas concentration sensors, thereby providing a redundancy to the physical sensors and increasing reliability of the system (see e.g. Page 4, lines 6-9 and 27-33, and Page 5, lines 12-19).
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 computing device of Kato to further be caused to evaluate performance, i.e. verify operational status, of the hydrogen generator by measurement of a current density of the electrochemical stack as taught by Biskoping to provide a redundancy to the physical sensors and increase reliability of the hydrogen generation system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kato teaches the plurality of sensors comprising an oxygen sensor measuring a concentration of output oxygen generated from the electrochemical stack and a hydrogen sensor measuring a concentration of output hydrogen generated from the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Kato Fig. 1, catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0032, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Kato as modified by Biskoping teaches the additional diagnostic measurement of the electrochemical stack comprising an alternating current impedance spectroscopy measurement (see e.g. Biskoping Page 8, lines 20-26, AC electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analysis used as input and/or to update calibration curve).
Claims 4-8, 10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Biskoping, as applied to claims 1, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Krellner (U.S. 2008/0134752).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, modified Kato teaches all the elements of the system of claim 1, method of claim 11 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 as stated above. Modified Kato does not teach the plurality of sensors comprising a first gas sensor and a corresponding redundant second gas sensor, the first gas sensor and the redundant second gas sensor located in proximity to each other, instead only teaching one gas sensor being provided for each desired measurement (see e.g. Kato Fig. 1, catalytic combustion type gas sensors 20-1 and 20-2 respectively measuring hydrogen concentration in output oxygen path 18 and oxygen concentration in output hydrogen path 19; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0032, lines 1-4).
Krellner teaches a sensor system including a first sensor for detection of data such as oxygen levels in an environment and a second sensor for detecting the oxygen levels, with a processor responsive to both of the sensors (see e.g. Fig. 1, sensor system 10 with adjacent sensors 12 and 12’; Paragraph 0013, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0024, lines 1-8), this sensor system enabling continuous gathering of pertinent data while maintaining accuracy by use of one sensor to gather data while the other is calibrated (see e.g. Paragraph 0005).
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 sensors of modified Kato to comprise, for each targeted measurement, a sensor system with a first sensor and second redundant sensor as taught by Krellner to enable continuous gathering of pertinent data while maintaining accuracy by use of one sensor to gather data while the other is calibrated.
Regarding claim 5, Kato as modified by Krellner teaches the instructions causing the processor to determine a difference between a first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and a second gas concentration measurement form the redundant second gas sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 18-21, comparing and determining difference between outputs of the first and second sensors); and
obtain, based on the determined difference and from a database of a redundant sensor rule set, an operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Kato Paragraph 0067, determination of stopping generation based on received detection result).
Regarding claim 6, Kato as modified by Krellner teaches the instructions causing the processor to execute the operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator in response to the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement from the redundant second gas sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Kato Paragraphs 0067-0068, management device commands stoppage of hydrogen and oxygen generation based on the received detection result).
Regarding claim 7, Kato as modified by Krellner teaches the database of the redundant sensor rule set comprising a plurality of redundant sensor rules each associated with threshold values of the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement form the redundant second gas sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 18-24, output of error signal or output of measurement reading done based on determined difference being above or below a predetermined amount, i.e. threshold).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kato teaches the operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator comprising an automatic shut down operation of the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Kato Paragraph 0068, management device turns off power supply of electrolysis cell and stops water circulation).
Regarding claim 10, Kato as modified by Biskoping and Krellner teaches the instructions causing the processor to generate a model of the hydrogen generator based on one or more historical gas concentration measurements of the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Biskoping Page 4, lines 31-33, and Page 7, lines 14-22, updated calibration curve relating current density to gas concentration generated using stored values for the electrolyser stack at different points in time); and
alter a parameter of the model based on the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement from the redundant second sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Biskoping Page 4, lines 31-33, gas concentration being one of the parameters of the calibration curve being updated).
Regarding claim 15, Kato as modified by Krellner teaches determining difference between a first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and a second gas concentration measurement form the redundant second gas sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 18-21, comparing and determining difference between outputs of the first and second sensors);
obtaining, based on the determined difference and from a database of a redundant sensor rule set, an operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Kato Paragraph 0067, determination of stopping generation based on received detection result); and
executing the operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator in response to the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement from the redundant second gas sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Kato Paragraphs 0067-0068, management device commands stoppage of hydrogen and oxygen generation based on the received detection result).
Regarding claim 16, Kato as modified by Biskoping and Krellner teaches generating a model of the hydrogen generator based on one or more historical gas concentration measurements of the electrochemical stack (see e.g. Biskoping Page 4, lines 31-33, and Page 7, lines 14-22, updated calibration curve relating current density to gas concentration generated using stored values for the electrolyser stack at different points in time); and
altering a parameter of the model based on the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement from the redundant second sensor (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 23-26, if determined difference less is than a predetermined amount, outputting measurement for subsequent response; see e.g. Biskoping Page 4, lines 31-33, gas concentration being one of the parameters of the calibration curve being updated).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Biskoping and Krellner, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Scheffler et al. (U.S. 2013/0186777).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kato teaches all the elements of the system of claim 5 as stated above. Modified Kato does not explicitly teach the operational rule for controlling the hydrogen generator comprising causing at least one of the plurality of sensors to self-calibrate based on the determined difference between the first gas concentration measurement from the first gas sensor and the second gas concentration measurement from the redundant second sensor. Krellner does however teach both sensors being able to self-calibrate (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0011, lines 12-14), as well as an error signal being output when the determined difference is greater than a predetermined amount (see e.g. Krellner Paragraph 0030, lines 21-22).
Scheffler teaches a sensor system including at least one gas sensor and a control system determining an operational status thereof (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 1-4), wherein, upon determination that the operational status is non-confirming based on one or more predetermined thresholds, the control system initiates automated calibration of the sensor (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 5-8) as an exemplary task to be performed upon a non-conforming result of a sensor life or health test (see e.g. Paragraph 0196).
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 operational rule of modified Kato to comprise automatic self-calibration of one or both of the sensors based on the difference between the two measurements exceeding a threshold as taught by Scheffler as an exemplary task that may be performed upon indication of a sensor being non-confirming or in a state of error. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Demarest et al. (U.S. 2004/0099045) discloses a hydrogen generation system in which two sensors may be provided in close proximity along a product gas stream from an electrochemical cell to provide redundant monitoring.
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