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 07/20/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8 and 16 is/are obviated by applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claim(s) 1 and 17 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections of claims 18-20 are maintained.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-15 and 17-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 23, “electrolyzers, and adjust” should read “electrolyzers,
In claim 1, line 40, “the the purification” should read “
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod et al. (DE 102017108427 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 18, Allebrod teaches process to control providing electrolyzer water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0049, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6, control of supply of treated fluid, i.e. purified water, electrochemical device for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen), comprising:
feeding water having a first pre-selected level of purity from a water demineralization unit to a plurality of purification units via first piping for the water having the first pre-selected level of purity (see e.g. Fig. 1, water fed to fluid quality unit 22 including particle filter 28 and at least one desalination unit 26 which functions as the final stage of a water desalination installation, i.e. being fed water of a certain quality from prior components of the water desalination installation which equate to a water demineralization unit; Paragraphs 0041-0042);
feeding purified water having a second pre-selected level of purity from the purification units to electrolyzers of electrolyzer houses via second piping for the purified water having the second pre-selected level of purity (see e.g. Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 providing purified water of a certain conductivity, i.e. purity, to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 which may be one of a plurality of stacks; Paragraph 0009, lines 20-23, Paragraphs 0038 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6); and
controlling the feeding of the purified water having the second pre-selected level of purity to account for a determined electrolyzer water demand of the electrolyzers of the electrolyzer houses (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, including desired flow rate of fluid; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049).
Allebrod does not explicitly teach the first piping having a first pre-selected quality level and the second piping having a second pre-selected quality level. Allebrod does however teach pipe components for water circuits of electrolyzers often being made stainless steel, i.e. steel of a certain quality level (see e.g. Paragraph 0002).
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 first and second piping of Allebrod to be made of stainless steel, i.e. steel of a certain quality level, as taught by Allebrod as a typical suitable material for pipe components for water circuits of electrolyzers. 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. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 19, Allebrod teaches recycling a portion of the purified water having the second pre-selected level of purity output from the purification units to the purification units via recycle conduit arrangements so that the recycled portion of the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers of the electrolyzer houses (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that flow through cell unit 12 is reduced and part of the fluid from fluid quality unit 22 is routed through bypass path 36 and thereby back to fluid quality unit 22 via closed fluid circuit 42; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraphs 0040 and 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 20, Allebrod teaches operating the electrolyzers to form hydrogen from the purified water having the second pre-selected level of purity via electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-15 and 17 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claim(s) 1 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the water purification control system configured to determine the demand for the purified water at the electrolyzers based on (i) loading feedback from the electrolyzers, (ii) the flow rate or velocity of purified water detected by the recycle conduit sensor, (iii) the flow rate or velocity of water being fed to the purification unit detected by the purification unit feed conduit sensor, [and] (iv) the flow rate or velocity of water detected by the sensor positioned to detect the flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzer house”. The closest prior art is Allebrod, Neubert et al. (U.S. 2010/0187128) and Puyenchet et al. (FR 2927907 A1, citations based on translation).
Allebrod teaches an apparatus for providing purified water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraphs 0004-0005, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6) comprising a purification unit for purifying water to be feed to electrolyzers for generation of hydrogen (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 providing water of a specified conductivity, i.e. purity, to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraphs 0038, 0041 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6) and a control system configured to determine a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0051), wherein the control system is configured to determine the demand for purified water at the electrolyzers based on loading feedback from the electrolyzers (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0025, lines 1-8, cell unit operating state determined based on parameter such as individual cell power, i.e. loading). Allebrod does not teach the demand also being determined based on flow rates of velocities detected by a recycle conduit sensor, a purification unit feed conduit sensor, and a sensor positioned to detect flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzers. Allebrod does however teach flow rates through an electrolyzer feed conduit and an electrolyzer bypassing recycle conduit being controlled via valves (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 4-16).
Neubert teaches a method and device for water electrolysis (see e.g. Neubert Abstract) in which a water is sent through a feed line to an electrolysis unit at a chosen quantity by adjustment with a flow meter, i.e. sensor, measuring the quantity, i.e. flow rate, in accordance with regulation by a control valve (see e.g. Neubert Paragraph 0065, lines 10-15).
Puyenchet also teaches an installation for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water (see e.g. Puyenchet Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 1-2), comprising a final water purification unit, i.e. a polisher, for delivering purified water to an electrolysis stack (see e.g. Puyenchet Fig. 1a, purification unit 11 upstream of electrolysis stack 4; Page 2, 5th paragraph, lines 1-3, and Page 4, paragraph starting “The gases…”, lines 1-4), wherein a flow sensor may by mounted on an inlet leading into the purification unit to check the water supply to the stack (see e.g. Puyenchet Fig. 1a, flow sensor 13 on water circuit leading into purification unit 11; Page 5, lines 3-4).
Neither of these references teaches the flow rates detected by these sensors being used to determine a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers.
There is no teaching or motivation that makes determining the demand for purified water at the electrolyzers also based on the flow rates or velocities detected by various conduit sensors, including a recycle conduit sensor, a purification unit feed conduit sensor, and a sensor positioned to detect flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzers, obvious.
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claim(s) 12 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “wherein the determining of the electrolyzer demand for the purified water is based on (i) loading feedback from the electrolyzers, (ii) a flow rate or velocity of purified water detected by a sensor of a recycle conduit, (iii) a flow rate or velocity of water being fed to the purification unit detected by a purification unit sensor, [and] (iv) a flow rate or velocity of water being passed through an electrolyzer house feed conduit for feeding to the electrolyzers detected by an electrolyzer house feed conduit sensor”. The closest prior art is Allebrod, Neubert and Puyenchet.
Allebrod teaches a process for providing purified water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraphs 0004-0005, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6) comprising a purifying water with a purification unit for feeding to electrolyzers for generation of hydrogen (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 providing water of a specified conductivity, i.e. purity, to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraphs 0038, 0041 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6) and determining a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0051), wherein the determining of the demand for purified water at the electrolyzers is based on loading feedback from the electrolyzers (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0025, lines 1-8, cell unit operating state determined based on parameter such as individual cell power, i.e. loading). Allebrod does not teach the demand also being determined based on flow rates of velocities detected by a recycle conduit sensor, a purification unit feed conduit sensor, and a sensor positioned to detect flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzers. Allebrod does however teach flow rates through an electrolyzer feed conduit and an electrolyzer bypassing recycle conduit being controlled via valves (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 4-16).
Neubert teaches a method and device for water electrolysis (see e.g. Neubert Abstract) in which a water is sent through a feed line to an electrolysis unit at a chosen quantity by adjustment with a flow meter, i.e. sensor, measuring the quantity, i.e. flow rate, in accordance with regulation by a control valve (see e.g. Neubert Paragraph 0065, lines 10-15).
Puyenchet also teaches an installation for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water (see e.g. Puyenchet Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 1-2), comprising a final water purification unit, i.e. a polisher, for delivering purified water to an electrolysis stack (see e.g. Puyenchet Fig. 1a, purification unit 11 upstream of electrolysis stack 4; Page 2, 5th paragraph, lines 1-3, and Page 4, paragraph starting “The gases…”, lines 1-4), wherein a flow sensor may by mounted on an inlet leading into the purification unit to check the water supply to the stack (see e.g. Puyenchet Fig. 1a, flow sensor 13 on water circuit leading into purification unit 11; Page 5, lines 3-4).
Neither of these references teaches the flow rates detected by these sensors being used to determine a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers.
There is no teaching or motivation that makes determining the demand for purified water at the electrolyzers also based on the flow rates or velocities detected by various conduit sensors, including a recycle conduit sensor, a purification unit feed conduit sensor, and a sensor positioned to detect flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzers, obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-17, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 12, particularly regarding the references not teaching the use of flow rate/velocity sensors to determine the demand for water at/how it is to be routed to the electrolyzers, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC 102 over Allebrod have been withdrawn.
On pages 17-19, Applicant argues that Allebrod fails to teach a common water demineralization unit supplying water to different purification units via piping with a first quality level and the purification units sending purified water to different electrolyzers via a piping with a second quality level, particularly that there is no suggestion of a single demineralization unit supplying multiple different purification units via different purification feed conduits and that Allebrod teaches the same type of material utilized in all piping and this does not support a common knowledge argument that different stainless steel materials would be used in different piping. This is not considered persuasive. Firstly, claim 18 does not require the demineralization unit to be connected to the different purification units via different purification feed conduits, i.e. in parallel, instead only requiring “feeding water…from a water demineralization unit to a plurality of purification units”. As stated in the rejection, Allebrod teaches a plurality of purification units including the particle filter and at least one desalination unit, e.g. several ion exchangers, serving as the final stage of a water desalination installation as the demineralization unit, i.e. the singular water desalination installation feeding the several ion exchangers and particle filter (see e.g. Allebrod Paragraphs 0041-0042), thus meeting the claimed limitation regardless of whether the units are in parallel or in series. The same applies to the further teaching of several electrolyzers/electrolyzer housed being fed purified water by the purification units (see e.g. Allebrod Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 providing purified water of a certain conductivity, i.e. purity, to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 which may be one of a plurality of stacks; Paragraph 0009, lines 20-23, Paragraphs 0038 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6). Secondly, the rejection was not relying on common knowledge to state that it would be obvious to have different stainless steel materials for different piping, but was instead stating, as taught by Allebrod and remarked by applicant, that stainless steel is a suitable material to be used for all of the piping. The claim does not require the “first pre-selected quality level” of the first piping and “second pre-selected quality level” of the second piping to be different quality levels, so the selection of the same stainless steel material for both quality levels therefore meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshino et al. (U.S. 2008/0254333) discloses an electrolytic apparatus in which fluid supply conditions may be adjusted by providing a flow rate adjusting valve to adjust a piping diameter.
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
