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
11/18/2025.
Status of Rejections
The previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 over Suzuki et al (US 20220195613 A1) have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-10 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 20220195613 A1) in view of Phillips et al (“Minimising the ohmic resistance of an alkaline electrolysis cell through effective cell design”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 42, Issue 38, 21 September 2017, Pages 23986-23994 ) and Kaur et al (“Ohmic Heating: Concept and Applications—A Review”, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56:14, 2338-2351, 2016).
Claim 1: Suzuki discloses a method of controlling a load (“pressing force”) of a water electrolysis stack (see e.g. abstract; [0032]) in which a plurality of water electrolysis cells (see e.g. #10 on Fig 1) including an anode disposed on one side and a cathode disposed on an other side with a solid polyelectrolyte film (“ion exchange membrane”) interposed are stacked and housed (see e.g. [0029]), the method comprising:
determining an appropriate load based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0036]); and
changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack such that the load is the appropriate load (see e.g. [0045]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack. As stated above, Suzuki teaches using temperature to determine the appropriate load (see e.g. [0036]) because the temperature causes expansion of the cell (see e.g. [0004]; [0036]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that there a number of variables within the cell that can affect the temperature, including electrical resistance inside of the stack (see e.g. Philips - page 23988, “Ohmic resistance”; page 23990, “Effect of temperature on cell performance”; Kaur - abstract) and a water flow rate (see e.g. Philips – page 23991, “Effect of flow rate of ohmic resistance at different current densities”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Suzuki so that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack because these variables have a direct effect on the internal temperature and would cause expansion or contraction.
Claim 2: Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses performing normal hydrogen production by the water electrolysis cells (see e.g. [0032]); and performing hydrogen production by periodically performing load control by the method of controlling the load of the water electrolysis stack according to claim 1 (see e.g. Suzuki - [0045]).
Claim 4: Suzuki discloses a controller (“control device”, see e.g. abstract) configured to control a load (“pressing force”, see e.g. abstract) of a water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0032]) in which a plurality of water electrolysis cells (see e.g. #10 on Fig 1) including an anode disposed on one side and a cathode disposed on an other side with a solid polyelectrolyte (“ion exchange membrane”) film interposed are stacked and housed (see e.g. [0029]), the controller comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine an appropriate load based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0036]); and
change application of the load on the water electrolysis stack such that the load is the appropriate load (see e.g. [0045]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack. As stated above, Suzuki teaches using temperature to determine the appropriate load (see e.g. [0036]) because the temperature causes expansion of the cell (see e.g. [0004]; [0036]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that there a number of variables within the cell that can affect the temperature, including electrical resistance inside of the stack (see e.g. Philips - page 23988, “Ohmic resistance”; page 23990, “Effect of temperature on cell performance”; Kaur - abstract) and a water flow rate (see e.g. Philips – page 23991, “Effect of flow rate of ohmic resistance at different current densities”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the controller of Suzuki so that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack because these variables have a direct effect on the internal temperature and would cause expansion or contraction.
Claim(s 5, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur as applied to claim(s) 1 and 4 above, and in further view of Isono et al (US 20210296689 A1).
Claim 5: Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack comprises:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Suzuki – [0038]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Suzuki - [0038]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 6: Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack comprises:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Suzuki – [0038]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Suzuki - [0038]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07. As the servometer applies the force using a ballscrew (see e.g. Isono – [0152]), the rotation angle would be directly related the amount of force applied and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the current rotation angle would be representative of the applied force.
Claim 9: Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that the processor is further configured to:
determine whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Suzuki – [0038]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. [0038]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the controller to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 10: Suzuki in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack comprises:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Suzuki – [0038]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Suzuki - [0038]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the controller to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07. As the servometer applies the force using a ballscrew (see e.g. Isono – [0152]), the rotation angle would be directly related the amount of force applied and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the current rotation angle would be representative of the applied force.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 20240417868 A1) in view of Phillips and Kaur.
Claim 1: Smith discloses a method of controlling a load (“compression”, see e.g. abstract) of a water electrolysis (see e.g. [0019]) stack (see e.g. “Stack” on Fig 3) in which a plurality of water electrolysis cells (see e.g. [0004]) including an anode disposed on one side and a cathode disposed on an other side with a solid polyelectrolyte film (“proton exchange membrane”, see e.g. [0019]) interposed are stacked and housed (see e.g. Fig 1), the method comprising:
determining an appropriate load based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0043]); and
changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack such that the load is the appropriate load (see e.g. [0041]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack. As stated above, Smith teaches using temperature to determine the appropriate load (see e.g. [0043]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that there a number of variables within the cell that can affect the temperature, including electrical resistance inside of the stack (see e.g. Philips - page 23988, “Ohmic resistance”; page 23990, “Effect of temperature on cell performance”; Kaur - abstract) and a water flow rate (see e.g. Philips – page 23991, “Effect of flow rate of ohmic resistance at different current densities”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Smith so that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack because these variables have a direct effect on the internal temperature.
Claim 2: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses performing normal hydrogen production by the water electrolysis cells (see e.g. [0019]); and performing hydrogen production by periodically performing load control by the method of controlling the load of the water electrolysis stack according to claim 1 (see e.g. Smith - [0005]).
Claim 3: Smith discloses a water electrolysis apparatus (see e.g. abstract; [0019]) including a water electrolysis stack (see e.g. “Stack” on Fig 3) in which a plurality of water electrolysis cells (see e.g. [0004]) including an anode disposed on one side and a cathode disposed on an other side with a solid polyelectrolyte film (“proton exchange membrane”, see e.g. [0019]) interposed are stacked and housed (see e.g. Fig 1) the water electrolysis apparatus comprising:
a pressurizer that is provided in the water electrolysis stack and is configured to apply a load to the water electrolysis cells by pressing the water electrolysis stack (“compression mechanism”, see e.g. [0004]);
at least one sensor of a sensor that is configured to measure a temperature of an inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0043]; [0049]); and
a controller that is configured to receive signals from the pressurizer and the at least one sensor (“data acquisition unit”, see e.g. [0004]; [0059]) and is connected to transmit a signal to the pressurizer (see e.g. [0050]),
wherein the controller is configured to determine an appropriate load based on a condition of the inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0043]), and instruct the pressurizer to change application of the load on the water electrolysis stack such that the load is the appropriate load (see e.g. [0041]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack. As stated above, Smith teaches using temperature to determine the appropriate load (see e.g. [0043]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that there a number of variables within the cell that can affect the temperature, including electrical resistance inside of the stack (see e.g. Philips - page 23988, “Ohmic resistance”; page 23990, “Effect of temperature on cell performance”; Kaur - abstract) and a water flow rate (see e.g. Philips – page 23991, “Effect of flow rate of ohmic resistance at different current densities”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Smith so that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack because these variables have a direct effect on the internal temperature.
Claim 4: Smith discloses a controller configured to control a load (see e.g. [0004]; [0059]) of a water electrolysis (see e.g. [0019]) stack (see e.g. “Stack” on Fig 3) in which a plurality of water electrolysis cells (see e.g. [0004]) including an anode disposed on one side and a cathode disposed on an other side with a solid polyelectrolyte film (“proton exchange membrane”, see e.g. [0019]) interposed are stacked and housed (see e.g. Fig 1), the controller comprising a processor (see e.g. [0059], wherein the processor is configured to:
determining an appropriate load based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. [0043]); and
changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack such that the load is the appropriate load (see e.g. [0041]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack. As stated above, Smith teaches using temperature to determine the appropriate load (see e.g. [0043]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand that there a number of variables within the cell that can affect the temperature, including electrical resistance inside of the stack (see e.g. Philips - page 23988, “Ohmic resistance”; page 23990, “Effect of temperature on cell performance”; Kaur - abstract) and a water flow rate (see e.g. Philips – page 23991, “Effect of flow rate of ohmic resistance at different current densities”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the controller of Smith so that the appropriate load is determined based on a condition of an inside of the water electrolysis stack obtained from an electrical resistance of the inside of the water electrolysis stack and a water flow rate of the inside of the water electrolysis stack because these variables have a direct effect on the internal temperature.
Claim(s 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur as applied to claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 above, and in further view of Isono et al (US 20210296689 A1).
Claim 5: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack comprises:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Smith– [0044], [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 6: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that changing application of the load on the water electrolysis stack comprises:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Smith– [0044], [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07. As the servometer applies the force using a ballscrew (see e.g. Isono – [0152]), the rotation angle would be directly related the amount of force applied and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the current rotation angle would be representative of the applied force.
Claim 7: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses the following:
the pressurizer comprises an actuator (see e.g. Smith – [0047]); and the controller is further configured to:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Smith– [0044], [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07. As the servometer applies the force using a ballscrew (see e.g. Isono – [0152]), the rotation angle would be directly related the amount of force applied and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the current rotation angle would be representative of the applied force.
Claim 8: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses the following:
the pressurizer comprises an actuator (see e.g. Smith – [0047]); and the controller is further configured to:
determining whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator (see e.g. Smith– [0044], [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 9: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that the processor is further configured to:
determine whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator Smith– [0044]; [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 10: Smith in view of Phillips and Kaur discloses that the processor is further configured to:
determine whether the load is below or above an appropriate range (see e.g. Smith– [0044]); and
when the load is below the appropriate range, increasing the application of the load by operating an actuator, and when the load is above the appropriate range, reducing the application of the load by operating the actuator Smith– [0044]; [0047]).
Smith does not explicitly teach that the actuator is a servomotor. Isono teaches the servmotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a pressing force onto a cell (see e.g. [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method to use a servomotor as the actuator as taught in Isono because servomotors are suitable types of actuators for applying a compression force to a cell. See MPEP § 2144.07. As the servometer applies the force using a ballscrew (see e.g. Isono – [0152]), the rotation angle would be directly related the amount of force applied and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the current rotation angle would be representative of the applied force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 over Suzuki and Smith have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795