DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species A in the reply filed on 12/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/20/2025.
Currently claims 13-19 are pending examination.
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/032355 of O’Rouke in view of US 10,826,426 of Tyler et al.
As to claim 13, O’Rouke teaches of a method, comprising:
generating, by a solar power generator, DC power (O’Rouke, p. 2 lines 19-20, p. 8 lines 6-23);
receiving, by one or more electrolyzers, the DC power and generating, by the one or more electrolyzers and via an electrolysis process, oxyhydrogen (HHO) using the DC power (O’Rouke, p. 5 line 34 thru p. 6 line 9, p. 6 lines 26-35).
O’Rouke does not teach the flat-on-ground configuration of the solar power generator, but does teach sun tracking ability (O’Rouke, p. 9 lines 1-6).
Tyler teaches to photovoltaic arrays (Tyler, Abstract).
Tyler additionally teaches that configuring photovoltaic arrays in a flat-on-ground orientation is beneficial over a tracking orientation because it allows for more efficient cleaning and reduces costs (Tyler, col 5 line 51 thru col 6 line 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rouke as per Tyler to swap the tracking configuration of the PV system for a flat-on-ground configuration to reduce cost and allow for more efficient and automated cleaning.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Tyler as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2015/0211131 of Jacobs.
As to claim 14, O’Rouke in view of Tyler teaches to the method of claim 13.
O’Rouke additionally teaches transmitting the HHO gas to a gas separator and separating the HHO gas into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-10 and 27-36).
O’Rouke further teaches the one or more electrolyzers is a plurality of electrolyzer such that the electrolyzers, solar generator and separators are located within a campus site (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-10 and 11-28).
O’Rouke does not teach compressing the hydrogen gas.
Jacobs teaches of system and method for water electrolysis (Jacobs, [0001]).
Jacobs additionally teaches that the hydrogen gas can be easily collected and compressed by a compressor to allow storage of the hydrogen gas for further use (Jacobs, [0283]).
As O’Rouke teaches separation and storage of the hydrogen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-9), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rouke as per Jacobs to utilize a compressor to compress the hydrogen gas for storage under pressure.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2016/0145749 of Nigel.
As to claims 15-16, O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs teaches to the method of claim 15.
O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs do not specifically teach the purity of the hydrogen gas is 99.999%, thus above a threshold.
Nigel teaches of hydrogen generation by electrolysis (Nigel, [0001]).
Nigel additionally teaches that a gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas with electrolyte therein is separated from the electrolyte, dried of any residual water and gas separated into oxygen and hydrogen gases prior to storage of purified hydrogen such that known desired purities including 99.999% (Nigel, [0009] – [0014] and [0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed, to modify O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs as per Nigel so separate and purify the gas mixture in order to obtain the desired purity of hydrogen gas.
As to claim 18, O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs teaches to the method of claim 14.
O’Rouke additionally teaches separating, collecting and storing the oxygen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 line 37 thru p. 7 line 1).
O’Rouke does not teach compressing the oxygen gas or the purity thereof.
Jacobs teaches of system and method for water electrolysis (Jacobs, [0001]).
Jacobs additionally teaches that the electrolysis gas products can be easily collected and compressed by a compressor to allow storage of the gas for further use (Jacobs, [0283]).
As O’Rouke teaches separation and storage of the oxygen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 line 37 thru p. 7 line 1), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rouke as per Jacobs to utilize a compressor to compress the oxygen gas for storage under pressure.
As modified, O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs do not teach the oxygen purity.
Nigel teaches of water electrolysis (Nigel, [0001]).
Nigel additionally teaches that a gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas with electrolyte therein is separated from the electrolyte, dried of any residual water and gas separated into oxygen and hydrogen gases prior to storage of purified oxygen (Nigel, [0042] – [0047] and [0050]).
Nigel additionally teaches that known purified gas concentration include at least 99% purity for hydrogen gas, thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that oxygen gas would have the same purities available for commercial sale or use of processed oxygen gas (Nigel, [0053] and [0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs as per Nigel so as to store the oxygen gas with the desired purity level for commercial sale and use.
Claims 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs and Nigel as applied to claim 15 and 18 above, and further in view of US 4,910,963 of Vanzo.
As to claims 17 and 19, O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs and Nigel teach to the methods of claims 15 and 18, respectively.
O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs and Nigel do not specifically teach transporting the gases to a location external to the campus site.
Vanzo teaches of electrolysis to produce, separate and store oxygen and hydrogen (Vanzo, Abstract).
Vanzo additionally teaches that the oxygen and hydrogen are transported in storage containers to another geological site for use such that a first site can be rural an and a second site can be urban requiring energy (Vanzo, col 2 lines 39-68).
As O’Rouke teaches production and storage at a first site and then use later for use including power generation (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-10 and p. 6 line 37 thru p. 7 line 1), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Rouke as per Vanzo so as to utilize two separate sites, one for gas generation and one for gas use so as to reduce cost of the gas generation while allowing the product to be use where required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights