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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 13-19 and 21-31 are pending examination.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "wherein transporting.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that claim 22 is dependent on claim 18. The “transporting” limitation is introduced in claim 19. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that claim 22 is dependent from claim 19.
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 from a plurality of PV arrays connected to each other (O’Rouke, p. 2 lines 19-20, p. 8 lines 6-37);
receiving, by one or more electrolyzers, the DC power directly from the solar generator 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 23, 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 and col 14 lines 29-59 ).
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.
Claims 14-16 and 18 are 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 and US 2016/0145749 of Nigel.
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 comprising a pressure swing absorption separator and separating the HHO gas into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-10, 27-36 and p. 7 lines 1-4).
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 and the plurality of electrolyzer are distributed throughout the campus and the electrolyzer receive the DC power from a respective PV array (O’Rouke, p. 6 line 10 thru p. 7 line 34 and p. 8 lines 5-37).
O’Rouke does not teach compressing the hydrogen gas or the centralization of the separator and compressor.
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.
O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs does not teach the centralization of the separator and compressor.
Nigel teaches of hydrogen generation by electrolysis (Nigel, [0001]).
Nigel teaches that a plurality of electrolyzers are connected to a centralized processing system including gas separators and storage components which allows for general simplification of electrolyte recirculation, purification and storage application of products (Nigel, [0067] – [0073] and Fig. 1).
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 to utilize a centralized location for the post-processing systems in order to facilitate simplification of such systems.
As to claims 15-16, O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs and Nigel teach to the method of claim 14.
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, Jacobs and Nigel 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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs, Nigel and Vanzo as applied to claims 17 and 19, respectively, above, and further in view of US 12,095,126 of Mitsuta and US 2014/0102885 of Devine.
As to claims 21 and 22, O’Rouke in view of Tyler, Jacobs, Nigel and Vanzo teach to the method of claims 17 and 19.
O’Rouke in view of Tyler and Jacobs do not teach the pressure of a storage tank or transporting the compressed hydrogen.
Nigel teaches that liquified oxygen and hydrogen can be stored in storage tanks while Vanzo teaches that liquidized oxygen and hydrogen can be transported to external locations via a transport vehicle comprising a storage tank (Nigel, [0068] – [0069] and Vanzo, col 3 lines 16-40).
Mitsuta teaches electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen and oxygen gases (Mitsuta, col 3 lines 14-42).
Mitsuta teaches that high pressure oxygen and hydrogen are stored in storage tanks that can withstand gas pressure between 1 to 100 MPa (approximately 145 to 14500 psi) which can be then supplied to automobiles fuel cells (Mitsuta, col 11 lines 29-40 and col 18 lines 46-67).
Devine teaches of systems for production, distribution and storing hydrogen generated by electrolysis (Devine, Abstract).
Devine teaches that storage tanks for high pressure hydrogen including either liquid hydrogen or compressed hydrogen such that the hydrogen can be transported off-site for further use (Devine, [0093] – [0095]). The transportation including a transport vehicle including boats and rail systems (Devine, Figs. 9 and 17).
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, Jacobs, Nigel and Vanzo as per Mitsuta and Devine so as to utilize a storage tank that can withstand the desired pressure in order to deliver the gas for use at another location.
Claims 23, 25-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/032355 of O’Rouke in view of US 2014/0102885 of Devine.
As to claim 23, 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 6-37);
receiving, by one or more electrolyzers, the DC power directly from the solar generator 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 23, p. 6 lines 26-35).
O’Rouke additionally teaches transmitting the HHO gas to a gas separator comprising a pressure swing absorption separator and separating the HHO gas into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 1-10, 27-36 and p. 7 lines 1-4).
O’Rouke does not teach the hydrogen is compressed, however, O’Rouke teaches that the hydrogen can be stored by liquified (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 3-9).
Devine teaches of systems for the production, shipping, distribution and storage of hydrogen generated by electrolysis (Devine, Abstract).
Devine teaches that generated hydrogen can be stored in either the liquid or gas (compressed) state such that either state is functional for transport to an off-site location for further use (Devine, [0093] – [0095]).
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 Devine so as to compress the hydrogen in order to allow for transport thereof to an off-site location for further use.
As to claim 25, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 23.
O’Rouke teaches the solar power generator comprises a plurality of PV arrays electrically connected to each other (O’Rouke, p. 8 lines 7-30).
As to claim 26, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 23.
O’Rouke teaches that the electrolyzer comprises a plurality of electrolyzers each having an anode and cathode immersed in an electrolyte and the plurality of electrolyzer are connected in series (O’Rouke, p. 9 lines 17-21, p. 11 lines 4-12 and Fig. 3).
As to claim 27, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 26.
O’Rouke teaches that the plurality of electrolyzer are distributed across a campus site and that the HHO gas is routed to the gas separator via a piping system (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 9-35 and Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 28, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 26.
O’Rouke teaches the electrolyte comprises potassium or sodium hydroxide (O’Rouke, p. 9 lines 18-19).
As to claim 29, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 26.
O’Rouke teaches the DC power is generated and used without any conversion (O’Rouke, p. 8 lines 6-23 and p. 9 lines 25-30).
As to claim 31, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 23.
O’Rouke additionally teaches using the hydrogen gas in conversion into organic liquid hydrogen carrier products (i.e. methanol), ammonia (i.e. a fertilizer) or being consumed to power a system or plant (i.e. factory) (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 5-9).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Devine is applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 10,826,426 of Tyler.
O’Rouke in view of Devine teaches to the method of claim 23.
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 and col 14 lines 29-59 ).
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 Devine 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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rouke in view of Devine is applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 2022/0081781 of Zhu et al.
As to claim 30, O’Rouke in view of Devine teach to the method of claim 23.
O’Rouke teaches that the generated hydrogen is conducted to a remote location for further processing and use (O’Rouke, p. 6 lines 3-9).
Devine teaches that the generated hydrogen is conducted to off-site locations for further use (Devine, [0093] – [0095]).
O’Rouke and Devine do not specifically teach the use of a pipeline to transport the hydrogen to an off-site location.
Zhu teaches that of hydrogen generation by renewable energy sources by electrolysis (Zhu, [0002] – [0004]).
Zhu additionally teaches that equivalent transport methods from an on-site location to an off-site location include using storage tanks or pipelines (Zhu, [0028] and [0048]).
Zhu teaches that such transportation allows for use of the hydrogen as fuel and like by humans (Zhu, [0048]).
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 Devine so as to substitute a pipeline for transport of the hydrogen gas in producing a predictable result in transporting the hydrogen off-site for further use by humans.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments is that the present claim set is not disclosed by the prior art references as per the Action filed on 2/11/2026. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, thus the arguments are moot.
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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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