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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0069, line 3, “water form a” should read “water from a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 12, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, “electrolyzers and adjust…water and adjust” should read “electrolyzers, adjust…water, and adjust”.
In claim 7, line 2, “m/s the” should read “m/s, and the”.
In claim 12, line 6, “water so that:” should read something like “water, and:” for grammatical sense.
In claim 14, line 7, “to recycle” should read “to the recycle”
In claim 18, line 3, “have a first” should read “having a first”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 and 17 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 1 recites the limitation "the water purification unit" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations of “a purification unit” and “a water demineralization unit” are previously introduced in lines 2-3 of the claim, but there is no previous explicit mention of a “water purification unit”, making it unclear which of the previous limitations is being referred to. For examination purposes, the “water purification unit” has been interpreted to refer to the aforementioned “purification unit”. The same is applied to recitations of “the water purification unit” in dependent claims 2-4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a recycle conduit" which “receive[s] the second portion of the purified feed” in lines 4-5. The limitation of “a recycle conduit” to which “the second portion of the purified feed is outputtable” is previously introduced in line 7 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the recitation of claim 3 is introducing a new limitation or referring to this previous limitation. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as referring to the previous limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the water purification system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of a “water purification system”. The limitations of “a purification unit”, “a water demineralization unit”, “water purification unit” and “a water purification control system” are previously introduced in lines 2-3 and 8-10 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation of claim 5 will be interpreted to refer to the “water purification control system”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The process of claim 11" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is an apparatus claim, not a process claim, so it is unclear what process is being referred to. For examination purposes, the preamble of claim 17 has been assumed to instead be meant to refer to the process of claim 12.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 describes the apparatus comprising the electrolyzer house. The “electrolyzer house” is already introduced as a limitation in line 4 of claim 1. Claim 9 therefore fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allebrod et al. (DE 102017108427 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 1, Allebrod discloses an apparatus for controlling purified water for hydrogen production (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004-0005, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6, electrochemical device in which treated fluid, i.e. purified water, is supplied for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen):
a purification unit positioned to purify a feed of water from a water demineralization unit for outputting a purified feed of water having a pre-selected level of purity (see e.g. Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 for providing water of a specified conductivity, i.e. purity, which may include a desalination unit 26 functioning as the final stage of a water desalination installation, i.e. being fed from prior components of the water desalination installation which equate to a water demineralization unit; Paragraphs 0041 and 0046) for feeding to electrolyzers of an electrolyzer house for generation of hydrogen via electrolysis (see e.g. Fig. 1, purified water fed to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6);
the purification unit positioned and arranged such that a first portion of the purified feed of water outputtable from the purification unit is feedable to the electrolyzers and a second portion of the purified feed of water is outputtable to a recycle conduit to bypass the electrolyzer house and feed the second portion of the purified feed of water to the water purification unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, path 30 from fluid quality unit 22 split between inlet 44 into cell unit 12, i.e. as first portion, and bypass path 36 which returns via closed fluid circuit 42 to fluid quality unit 22, i.e. as second portion; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8, and Paragraphs 0043 and 0050); and
a water purification control system configured to determine a demand for purified water at the electrolyzers, adjust a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the purification unit that is included in the first portion of the purified feed water, and adjust a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the purification unit that is included in the second portion of the purified feed of water so sufficient purified water is fed to the electrolyzers to meet the determined demand for the purified water (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12, and adjusting said flow rate by adjusting a proportion of supplied fluid from the fluid quality unit 22 through bypass path 36 vs through the cell unit 12; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 2, Allebrod discloses the water purification unit comprising a deionization unit positioned to deionize the feed of water and a polisher that is downstream of the deionization unit to receive deionized water from the deionization unit to form the purified water having the pre-selected level of purity (see e.g. Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 comprising desalination unit 26 as ion exchanger, i.e. deionizer, followed by particle filter, i.e. polisher, to provide the purified water of specified conductivity; Paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Allebrod discloses an electrolyzer house feed conduit connected between the electrolyzers and the polisher to receive the first portion of the purified feed of water (see e.g. Fig. 1, inlet 44 receiving fluid supply from particle filter 28 into cell unit 12 via conduit path 30; Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0043); and a recycle conduit connected between the water purification unit and the electrolyzer house to receive the second portion of the purified feed of water to bypass the electrolyzer house and feed the second portion to the water purification unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, bypass path 36 receiving fluid supply from particle filter 28 via conduit path 30 to bypass cell unit 12 and returning to fluid quality unit 22 via closed fluid circuit 42; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Allebrod discloses the water purification system being configured so that a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the polisher that is included in the first portion of the purified feed of water and a proportion of the purified feed of water output from the polisher that is included in the second portion of the purified feed of water are adjusted so that a flow of water passed through the polisher is at or above a pre-selected minimum flow and the flow of water passed through the polisher is at or below a pre-selected maximum flow while also feeding sufficient purified water to the electrolyzers to meet the determined demand for the purified water (see e.g. Fig. 1, monitoring unit 32 including control/regulating unit 46 for determining operating setpoint, including desired flow rate of fluid, for cell unit 12, and adjusting said flow rate by adjusting a proportion of supplied fluid from the particle filter 28 through bypass path 36 vs through the cell unit 12, the total flow through the fluid supply 18 and thereby filter 28 being continuously supplied at a particular high level, i.e. between a given max and min; Paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 8, Allebrod discloses the apparatus comprising the electrolyzer house (see e.g. Fig. 1, cell unit 12 formed by electrolysis cell stack 40; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 12, Allebrod discloses a process to control providing of purified 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, to electrochemical device for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen), the process comprising:
feeding water to a purification unit for purification of the water to form purified water for feeding to electrolyzers of an electrolyzer house for formation of hydrogen from the purified water via electrolysis (see e.g. Fig. 1, fluid quality unit 22 providing purified water to cell unit 12 comprising electrochemical cells 14,16 in electrolysis stack 40 for splitting to form hydrogen; Paragraphs 0038 and 0046, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6);
determining electrolyzer demand for the purified water (see e.g. 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) so that:
in response to detection of a first pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, feeding an entirety of the purified water output from a polisher of the purification unit to the electrolyzer house for feeding to the electrolyzers (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total flow of fluid from particle filter 28, i.e. polisher, of fluid quality unit 22 is through cell unit 12; Paragraph 0013, lines 7-9, Paragraph 0027, lines 15-18, Paragraphs 0042 and 0049);
in response to detection of a second pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, feeding a first portion of the purified water output from the polisher to the electrolyzer house for feeding to the electrolyzers and feeding a second portion of the purified water output from the polisher to a recycle conduit to feed the purified water to the purification unit (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 is routed through bypass path 36 and thereby back to fluid quality unit 22 via closed fluid circuit 42; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 12-18); and
in response to detection of a third pre-selected level of electrolyzer demand for the purified water, passing the purified water output from the polisher to the purification unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to fluid quality unit 22 via closed fluid circuit 42 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Regarding claim 13, Allebrod discloses the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the purification unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing at least a portion of the purified water output from the polisher to the recycle conduit to feed the purified water to the purification unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to fluid quality unit 22 via closed fluid circuit 42 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Regarding claim 15, Allebrod discloses forming hydrogen from the purified water fed to the electrolyzers via electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 16, Allebrod discloses the determining of the electrolyzer demand for the purified water being based on: (i) loading feedback from the electrolyzers (see e.g. Paragraph 0025, lines 1-8, cell unit operating state determined based on parameter such as individual cell power, i.e. loading).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Yoshida (U.S. 2024/0141522).
Regarding claim 4, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 2 as stated above. Allebrod does not teach a pressure head maintenance bypass conduit connected to the recycle conduit so that a portion of the first portion of the purified feed is passable to the water purification unit after bypassing the electrolyzers to maintain a pressure head for the electrolyzers.
Yoshida teaches a water electrolysis system (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a bypass flow path is connected to oxygen side inlet and outlet flow paths for a water electrolysis stack such that reaction water bypasses the stack to return to a water supply device (see e.g. Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6, Paragraph 0037, lines 7-13 and 21-25, and Paragraph 0040, lines 4-11), allowing pressure at the oxygen side of the stack to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side once activated, i.e. maintain a pressure head, and thereby preventing formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0017).
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 apparatus of Allebrod to comprise an additional bypass flow path that bypasses the electrolyzer house on an oxygen side to join the supply path returning, i.e. being recycled, to the purification unit as taught by Yoshida to allow pressure at the oxygen side of the electrolyzers to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side once activated, i.e. maintain a pressure head, and thereby prevent formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential.
Regarding claim 14, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the process of claim 12 as stated above. Allebrod further teaches the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the purification unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing a portion of the purified water output from the polisher to the recycle conduit to feed the second portion of the purified water to purification unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, control of flow rate through cell unit 12 based on determined operating state, e.g. such that total fluid flow goes through bypass path 36 and thereby back to fluid quality unit 22 while cell unit flow rate is zero; Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-3 and 12-15).
Allebrod does not teach the passing of the purified water output from the polisher to the purification unit such that the purified water bypasses the electrolyzers comprising passing a first portion of the purified water output from the polisher to an electrolyzer house feed conduit for maintaining a pressure head for feeding water to the electrolyzers and being recycled back to the purification unit. Allebrod does however teach startup being one of the operating states during which the electrolyzers may be completely bypassed (see e.g. Paragraph 0026, lines 4-7, flow rate through cell unit set to zero during startup).
Yoshida teaches a water electrolysis system (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a bypass flow path is connected to oxygen side inlet and outlet flow paths for a water electrolysis stack such that reaction water bypasses the stack to return to a water supply device (see e.g. Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6, Paragraph 0037, lines 7-13 and 21-25, and Paragraph 0040, lines 4-11), allowing pressure at the oxygen side of the stack to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side, i.e. maintain a pressure head, once activated, i.e. during startup, and thereby preventing formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0017).
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 process of Allebrod to comprise passing a portion of the purified water through an additional bypass flow path along the electrolyzer house feed that bypasses the electrolyzer house on an oxygen side to join the supply path returning, i.e. being recycled, to the purification unit as taught by Yoshida to allow pressure at the oxygen side of the electrolyzers to be maintained at a value that is not higher than that at a hydrogen side, i.e. maintain a pressure head, once activated, i.e. during startup, and thereby prevent formation of a disadvantageous reverse pressure differential.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Neubert et al. (U.S. 2010/0187128), and further in view of Puyenchet et al. (FR 2927907 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 6, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Allebrod further teaches an electrolyzer house feed conduit connected between the electrolyzers and the polisher to receive the first portion of the purified feed of water (see e.g. Fig. 1, inlet 44 receiving fluid supply from particle filter 28 into cell unit 12 via conduit path 30; Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0043); and the water purification control system including a controller (see e.g. Fig. 1, control/regulating unit 46; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2).
Allebrod does not teach a sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of purified water fed to the electrolyzer house that is communicatively connectable to the controller; and a recycle conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of purified water passed through the recycle conduit. Allebrod does however teach the respective flow rates through the electrolyzer house feed conduit and electrolyzer house bypass conduit being controlled/regulated by controllable valves (see e.g. Paragraph 0049 and Paragraph 0050, lines 4-16).
Neubert teaches a method and device for water electrolysis (see e.g. 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 measuring the quantity, i.e. flow rate, in accordance with regulation by a control valve (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 10-15).
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 apparatus of Allebrod to comprise a flow meter, i.e. flow rate sensor, in each of the electrolyzer feed and recycle conduits in addition to the controllable valves as taught by Neubert to facilitate adjustment and regulation of flow to be provided at a desired chosen quantity/rate in a path of an electrolysis device. 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.
Modified Allebrod does not teach the water purification control system including a purification unit feed conduit sensor positioned to detect a flow rate or velocity of water fed to the purification unit for purification.
Puyenchet teaches an installation for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water (see e.g. 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. 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. Fig. 1a, flow sensor 13 on water circuit leading into purification unit 11; Page 5, lines 3-4).
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 apparatus of modified Allebrod to comprise a flow sensor mounted on a purification unit feed conduit for measuring a flow rate into the purification unit as taught by Puyenchet to assist in checking the water supply to be delivered to the 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Gregorich et al. (U.S. 2022/0144679).
Regarding claim 7, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Allebrod does not teach the pre-selected minimum flow being a velocity of 0.6 m/s, and the pre-selected maximum flow being a velocity that is no greater than 4 m/s, but does teach the polisher comprising a microfilter and/or ultrafilter (see e.g. Paragraph 0042).
Gregorich teaches a water treatment system including an ultrafiltration membrane (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an effluent to be treated may be passed through the ultrafiltration membrane at a velocity within a range between approximately 0.5 m/s and 5 m/s, or more narrowly between values such as approximately 0.75 m/s and 4 m/s (see e.g. Paragraph 0045, lines 1-5 and 9-17), overlapping or closely encompassing the claimed range of the present invention, this velocity range enabling continuous and efficient separation, i.e. purification, and increasing the operating duration of the ultrafiltration membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0045, lines 17-23).
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 apparatus of Allebrod to have the flow through the ultrafilter polisher be maintained in a range of between approximately 0.5 m/s and 5 m/s, or more narrowly 0.75 m/s and 4 m/s, as taught by Gregorich to enable continuous and efficient separation, i.e. purification, and increase the operating duration of the ultrafiltration membrane. MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claims 9-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod.
Regarding claim 9, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 2 as stated above. Allebrod does not explicitly teach the purification unit being positioned such that piping for feeding the water from the water demineralization unit to the electrolyzer house is arranged so that there is a ratio of between 4:1 and 3:2 of a piping distance between the purification unit and the water demineralization unit as compared to a piping distance between the purification unit and the electrolyzer house. Allebrod does however teach the piping distance between the purification unit and the electrolyzer house being 0.5 m (see e.g. Fig. 1, length of conduit path 30 between fluid quality unit 22 and cell unit 12; Paragraph 0043, lines 1-4).
Allebrod further teaches fluid carrying components used to treat, i.e. increase purity of the fluid, preferably being in close proximity to the cell unit, such as less than 3 m away, advantageously less than 2 m (see e.g. Paragraph 0040), which would have ratios of up to 6:1 and 4:1 with respect to the purification unit-electrolyzer house distance, overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above), the close distance minimizing additional impurities in the fluid after cleaning (see e.g. Paragraph 0043).
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 apparatus of Allebrod to have the water demineralization unit in close proximity with the downstream purification unit, such as less than 3 m, or advantageously less than 2 m away, resulting in a ratio of up to 6:1 or up to 4:1 with respect to the purification unit-electrolyzer house distance, as taught by Allebrod to minimize additional impurities in the fluid after cleaning in the water demineralization unit.
Regarding claim 10, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 9 as stated above. 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 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);
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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Ballantine et al. (U.S. 2024/0271291).
Regarding claim 11, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 2 as stated above. Allebrod further teaches the electrolyzers being first electrolyzers and the electrolyzer house being a first electrolyzer house (see e.g. Paragraph 0009, lines 1-4 and 20-23, cell unit comprising a plurality of cells which may be in several stacks, i.e. houses). Allebrod does not explicitly teach the purification unit being a first purification unit, the feed of water being a first feed of water, the purified feed of water being a first purified feed of water, and the recycle conduit being a first recycle conduit, the apparatus also comprising: a second purification unit positioned to purify a second feed of water from the water demineralization unit for outputting a second purified feed of water having the pre-selected level of purity for feeding to second electrolyzers of a second electrolyzer house for generation of hydrogen via electrolysis; and the second purification unit positioned and arranged such that a first portion of the second purified feed of water outputtable from the second purification unit is feedable to the second electrolyzers and a second portion of the second purified feed of water is outputtable to a second recycle conduit to bypass the second electrolyzer house and feed the second portion of the second purified feed of water to the second water purification unit.
Allebrod does however teach that the fluid supply for the apparatus may comprise more than one closed fluid circuit for flowing through electrolyzers (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 14-15, at least one, i.e. one or more, closed fluid circuit), the closed fluid circuit comprising the purification unit with its respective inlets and outlets, the electrolyzers and house, and the recycle conduit for bypassing the electrolyzers (see e.g. Fig. 1, closed fluid circuit 42 formed in part by fluid supply 18 including fluid quality unit 22, cell unit 12 and bypass path 36; Paragraph 0039, 14-19, Paragraph 0040, line 1, and Paragraph 0050, line 1).
Ballantine teaches a system for efficient desalination and electrolysis of water (see e.g. Abstract) in which water from a desalinator, i.e. demineralization unit, may be fed to multiple parallel ion exchangers, i.e. purification units, (see e.g. Fig. 2, desalinated water from desalinator 102 further purified in plurality of ion exchange beds 202 connected in parallel; Paragraph 0015, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0016, lines 1-4 and 22-24) which may then be used to feed multiple electrolyzers (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 1-6 and 27-29).
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 apparatus of Allebrod to have the water demineralization unit also feeding a second closed fluid circuit including its own second purification unit with respective inlets and outlets, second electrolyzers and house, and second recycle conduit for bypassing the second electrolyzers as taught by Ballantine as a suitable fluid flow configuration for supplying purified demineralized water from a single demineralization unit to multiple electrolyzer stacks. 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allebrod in view of Park et al. (KR 102413307 B1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 17, Allebrod teaches all the elements of the process of claim 12 as stated above. Allebrod does not explicitly teach adjusting a flow of water being fed to the polisher in response to the determined electrolyzer demand for the purified water, but does teach the polisher being an ultrafilter/microfilter (see e.g. Paragraph 0042), as well as the determined electrolyzer demand corresponding to a change in electrolyzer operating current (see e.g. Paragraph 0025, operating power/current of cell unit controlled/regulated based on monitored operating state/parameter).
Park teaches a hydrogen generation device for producing hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0002) comprising a DI filter for providing ultrapure water to a decomposition cell for performing the electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraphs 0022-0024), wherein a flow rate of water to be received by the decomposition cell through the DI filter is controlled by a water flow control valve according to the amount of current in the cell, and corresponding amount of hydrogen and oxygen generated, to prevent oxygen and hydrogen generation from being inconsistent due to irregular water inflow, while preventing excess water flow into the decomposition cell (see e.g. Paragraphs 0024-0025).
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 process of Allebrod to comprise adjusting the flow rate of water being fed to the polisher in response to the determined electrolyzer demand, and corresponding current, as taught by Park to prevent oxygen and hydrogen generation from being inconsistent due to irregular water inflow, while preventing excess water flow into the electrolyzers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirai et al. (EP 1243671 A1) discloses a water electrolysis device in which a portion of demineralized water which has gone through further purification to be delivered to an electrochemical cell is branched off and may be recycled to upstream of the purification components.
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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights