DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 4/29/26:
claims 1-6, 9, 10, 16 and 19-21 are presently pending
claims 1-3 are withdrawn
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and the references are reapplied in a new grounds of rejection as set forth herein
the double patenting rejection of claims is withdrawn in light of the submitted terminal disclaimer
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0261252 to Kerstiens (hereinafter referred to as “KERSTIENS”) in view of US Pat. No. 4,113,601 to Spirig (hereinafter referred to as “SPIRIG”).
Regarding claim 4, KERSTIENS teaches a system for generating hydrogen (see KERSTIENS at Abstract, Fig. 1 and ¶4), comprising:
a reaction vessel having an outer shell, a central shaft, and two or more concentric inner tubes separated by annular spaces (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting gas generator 30; see also Fig. 3 depicting gas generator 30 having cathode tube 116 as the outer shell, anode bar 108 as the central shaft, and electrically conductive tubes 112 as the two or more concentric inner tubes which as shown in Fig. 4 are arranged with end caps 104 so as to provide for annular spaces as claimed), wherein the annular spaces define a flow path within the reaction vessel, wherein the flow path begins at an inner annular space around the central shaft, continues back and forth along adjacent annular spaces, and ends at an outer annular space beneath the outer shell, and wherein the central shaft and the outer shell serve as electrodes (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 depicting the conductive tubes 112 having small holes 130 so that the annular spaces between adjacent conductive tubes are fluidly connected so that a flow path beginning at the inner electrode, i.e. anode bar 108, and ending at the outer annular space as claimed can be allowed or provided for so as to pass back and forth from the inner annular space back and forth towards the outer shell as currently claimed);
a pump configured to pump an aqueous solution to the reaction vessel (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting air pressure system 16 which includes pressure regulator 60 and solenoid 64; see also ¶14 and ¶22 teaching the air pressure system as exerting pressure on the electrolytic solution within the reservoir tank 20 and thereby to the gas generator through fluid line 28 which can be termed a pump since it a mechanical arrangement of components to move liquids within the system); and
a power source, wherein the power source is electrically connected to the electrodes and is configured to pass a current through the aqueous solution via the electrodes so that at least some molecules within the aqueous solution dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting battery 36; see also ¶27 teaching the electrodes having power supplied thereto so as to cause electrolysis to occur).
While KERTSTIENS teaches the power source as set forth above, KERSTIENS fails to explicitly teach the power source being a power converter in communication with a source of alternating current and configured to convert the alternating current to direct current as claimed. However, SPIRIG teaches a water electrolysis apparatus for dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen (see SPIRIG at Abstract), in which the electrodes are powered from a public 220V AC supply and then rectified to provide a DC power source (see SPIRIG at col. 4 lines 12-15, 35-38, and claim 8). While KERSTIENS explicitly teaches the use of a vehicle battery (see KERSTIENS at ¶18), KERSTIENS also teaches other embodiments in which other power sources are used and in which the system is paired with a stationary engine (see KERSTIENS at ¶31).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in a stationary setup that it would be necessary to be able to power the system using an AC power source. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the system to transform the incoming AC power to DC power necessary to drive the electrolytic reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the starting DC power source of KERSTIENS so as to use generally provided AC power sources as taught by SPIRIG so as to allow the system to be useable with AC power outlets as are typically provided by utility companies.
Regarding claim 5, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system further comprising a pressure vessel in fluid communication with the reaction vessel, wherein the aqueous solution is stored in the pressure vessel prior to being delivered to the reaction vessel (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting solution reservoir tank 20 and ¶16 and ¶22).
Regarding claim 6, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the pressure vessel has a chamber that holds air and hydrogen above the aqueous solution (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting reservoir tank 20 having gas line 51 at the upper part of the vessel and which would necessarily hold the air and hydrogen above due to the density differences between the electrolyte solution and the produced gas from gas generator 30).
Regarding claim 10, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the aqueous solution flows from smaller inner tubes to larger outer tubes, thereby accommodating volumetric expansion of a fluid mixture (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 depicting the conductive tubes 112 having small holes 130 so that the annular spaces between adjacent conductive tubes are fluidly connected to allow or be capable of allowing the aqueous solution to flow from the inner tubes to larger tubes as claimed and which would be expected to allow for, i.e. accommodate, the volumetric expansion).
Regarding claim 16, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system further having a reaction product that includes green hydrogen (KERSTIENS at ¶15 teaching the gases produced including hydrogen which could be produced from electricity from a renewable energy source so as to be considered “green hydrogen” as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the reaction vessel further comprises non-conductive end caps holding the outer shell, the central shaft, and the one or more concentric inner tubes in place, and wherein the end caps are positioned on both ends of the reaction vessel (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 depicting end caps 104 which act to hold the electrodes 108, 116, and concentric tubular electrodes 112; see also KERSTIENS at ¶27 teaching the end caps being made of plastic).
Regarding claim 21, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the flow path comprises a first flow direction along the inner annular space and opposite flow directions in adjacent annular spaces (see KERSTIENS at ¶26 teaching the small holes 130 being located at each end of the tubular bipolar electrodes such that a flow path could extend from one end to another end and through small hole and back to the other end so as to flow in opposite directions as stated).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP2003175389A to Shusaku et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “SHUSAKU”) and KR101750308B1 to Kil et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “KIL”).
Regarding claim 9, while KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system with the reaction vessel as claimed (see teachings of KERSTIENS set forth in the rejection of claim 4), KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG fails to explicitly teach the reaction vessel wherein the outer tube has a wall thickness exceeding that of inner tubes of the reaction vessel as claimed.
However, KIL teaches a hydrogen gas generation system having a reaction vessel with concentrically arranged electrodes (see KIL at Abstract and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Moreover, KIL depicts the outer tube having a wall thickness exceeding that of inner tubes of the reaction vessel (see KIL at Fig. 2 depicting inner cell electrodes 24 being thinner than outer tank electrolytic tank 23). Furthermore, SHUSAKU is directed towards another electrolysis device containing concentrically arranged tube electrodes (see SHUSAKU at Abstract and Fig. 4) in which the exterior tube is depicted as having a larger thickness than the interior electrode tubes (see Fig. 4).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the exterior tube having a larger or increased thickness than that of the inner tubes would allow for increased protection of the reaction vessel since the outer tube functions as not only the last electrode (see KIL at Fig. 2 and ¶35) but also as the reactor outer wall (see SHUSAKU at Fig. 4 and ¶7 teaching 201 being a metal container). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit and need to have the outer electrode which also acts as the reactor container to be thicker to provide increased protection to the reaction vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the thickness of the outer tubular cathode of KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG to be thicker as shown by SHUSAKU and KIL in order to provide increased protection of the reactor vessel thereby arriving at the system as claimed.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0236921 to Yang, (hereinafter referred to as “YANG”).
Regarding claim 19, while KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the reaction vessel comprises at least five concentric tubes (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 depicting anode bar 108, four bipolar conductive tubes 112, and cathode tube 116), KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG fails to explicitly teach the reaction vessel comprising at least six concentric tubes as claimed.
However, YANG teaches a water electrolysis system in which an anode and cathode makeup a reaction vessel and in which a plurality of tubular concentric bipolar electrodes, i.e. five, are positioned between the cathode and anode (see YANG at Fig. 1 depicting anode 12, cathode 11 and five bipolar electrodes 14; see also ¶38-¶39).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that instead of having four intermediate bipolar electrodes that the system could include five or more bipolar electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included six bipolar electrodes as taught by YANG in the system of KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG since it was also known to be useable in a water electrolysis device and would increase the surface area available to generate the gaseous product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant notes that in a related case that an interview was held and claim amendments agreed upon which were successfully used to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art – including KERSTIENS. See Remarks at page 6, second paragraph.
However, it is noted that the current claims are not commensurate in scope with the claims of the referenced application. Specifically, the current claim amendments merely require the reaction vessel having concentric tubes with annular spaces, wherein the annual spaces define a flow path that begins at an inner annular space around the central shaft, continues back and forth along adjacent annular spaces and ends at an outer annular space as claimed. Since the system isn’t limited to be configured to require the flow path, all that seems to be required is the capability of a flow path within the system as claimed.
Consequently, for at least the reasons set forth herein, the examiner is of the opinion that the current claims are not distinguished over the prior art for at least the reasons given herein and set forth in the rejections of the claims.
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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights