DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim uses the terms “inner part” for the stack. Claim 1 states “internal part” for the stack. If these elements are the same then the claim would be more appropriately written with the same terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should more appropriately begin with “The electrochemical stack”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the fluid” may be more appropriately written as “the inert fluid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim phrasing may be more appropriately written as “wherein by controlling the pressure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-9 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 reactions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what reactions are being referred to.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the electrical insulation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coupling" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “normally closed valve” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the term normal. There does not appear to be any standard or guidelines indicating what time frame for example would satisfy normal.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the construction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the free volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the active part " in line 1, page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “intrinsically safe” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the phrase. It is unclear what is required to make the container safe and what is required that it would be intrinsically safe.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the reactions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seymour et al. (US 2021/0020975).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Seymour discloses an electrochemical stack (abstract, 100) capable of operating at high absolute pressure [0017] (= an electrochemical stack suitable for working, using or producing gas at high absolute pressures; it is noted that the claimed “for working, using or producing gas at high absolute pressures” is directed towards the intended use of the claimed stack and not structurally limiting) comprising:
End walls for example (332, 334) [0166] (Figure 3A) (= two end heads; it is noted that additional elements of the device of Seymour read on the claimed end heads, see for example Figure 6 and 16) and
A housing (310) [0166] (= a container member together forming a container suitable for resisting high pressures; the claimed “for resisting high pressures” is directed towards the intended use of the container and does not particularly further structurally limit the claimed container) and
A cell-stack (e.g. 142, 132) having an internal part [0065], [0179] (Figure 1) where electrochemical reactions using gas take place (= an internal part of the stack, where the reactions using or producing gas take place).
Regarding claim 2, the cell stack of Seymour has an inner part and an outer part (Figures 1-2, 6, 16, etc.). The claimed “designed to operate” is not structurally limiting. The instant claim does not indicate a low relative working pressure or provide a specific pressure range. Moreover, Seymour discloses low pressure [0184].
Regarding claim 3, since the device of Seymour is assembled it reads on the claimed “wherein said two end heads are designed and built with the space necessary to ensure the assembly of the container”.
Regarding claim 4, Seymour discloses an insulating gasket (380), electrical insulation and a seal (e.g. o-ring) to avoid leaks [0174], [0196]-[0197], [0200] (Figure 3b, 3c). It is unclear what coupling is being referred to.
Regarding claim 5, Seymour discloses pressurizing with an inert gas in the cell regions [0018]. Given the structure of the electrochemical stack and cell of Seymour there is present a free volume. Moreover, Seymour discloses gas-only areas [0271]-[0272].
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “it is possible” does not appear to positively recite any structural claim language. Seymour discloses control of the pressure of the fluid (abstract, [0016], [0308]).
Regarding claim 7, Seymour discloses the inclusion of pipes [0071] and valves [0027], [0036]-[0037]. The claimed ‘normally closed’ is indefinite as described above. The claimed “to the construction” is not particularly limiting in regards to an arrangement. The elements of the stack of Seymour are in communication since they are part of a single apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is indefinite as described above. Since the device of Seymour completes operations it can be considered intrinsically safe. Seymour additionally discloses the concept of failure modes which would be considered a safety parameter [0160]. The instant claim does not particularly indicate the element of the container that provides intrinsic safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0304177 – electrolyzer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795