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 .
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, sets forth the limitation of what appears to be option 1 of “placing a solute diminish layer” (see claim 1 at line 19); however, the claim fails to specify how the newly set forth “solute diminish layer” relates to the previously set forth “solute diminish device” (see claim 1 at line 4). Specifically, it is unclear if the same element is being referred to or if the solute diminish layer is a component of the solute diminish device or if they are completely different elements.
Additionally, in claim 1 in the last 5 lines of the claim, the claim requires “any combination of one or more options, comprising: …” what appears to be three different placing limitations (see claim 1 at lines 19-21). However, in the apparent three options it is noted that the second option references the first option and the third option references the second option. As such, it would seem that while option 1 is a standalone option, option 2 includes option 1 and an additional limitation. Likewise, option 3 would seem to include option 2 – and by extension option 1 – and an additional limitation. Consequently, it is unclear how “any combination of one or more options” can be selected when the apparent options already seem to include each other. This phrasing would also seem to call into question what exactly the listed options are. Is it truly the three placing steps, or is it meant to cover something else?
Furthermore, it is noted that several other claims also seem to suffer from similar issues (see e.g. claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 with listed options which seem to build off of and require aspects of previous options). For example, claim 3 requires the “building said liquid flow controller by actions selected from any combination of one or more options …” (see claim 3 at lines 3-4), and then appears to list 10 different options in the remainder of the claim. However, some of the later options would seem to reference and require earlier options (see option 6 requiring building said liquid control single sheet which isn’t set forth in the claims until option 4 of the claim directed towards “building said liquid control sheet stack”). As such, it is unclear how this one option could be selected and what would be required by the claim limitation if it were the one selected.
Another example is from claim 8 which includes steps 1-6. While in this claim the “options” are at least clearly set forth, but the steps appear to be consecutive operations that need to be performed one after the other (see e.g. step 1 related to a convolution calculation, with step 2 applying a ReLU activation step apparently to the convolution calculation step to generate a feature map, with step 3 further manipulating the feature map, etc.).
As a result, each of claims 3-6 and 8-11 are deemed to be indefinite due to a lack of clarity related to the phrasing of the listed options including the any combination of one or more of in which the recited options harken back to and/or require portions of earlier recited options.
Regarding claim 3, the claim sets forth a “multiple track injection single sheet” (see claim 3 at line 14). However, a later limitation refers back to this limitation and requires “one or more tracks” (see claim 3 at line 16). As such, it is unclear if multiple tracks, i.e. more than one are required, or if the explicitly listed single track at the lower end of the range is meant to apply. As such, the claim is also unclear for at least this reason as well.
Regarding claim 6, the term “significant” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite (see claim 6 at lines 3, 9, 12 and 13). The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach am AI method using image monitoring and recycled pressure in the conversion of liquid to gas including the steps with a liquid flow controller in the liquid conversion solution chamber inside a conversion cell with a solute diminish layer at one side of the liquid flow controller as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2023/0374681 to Yellepeddi et al., teaching an EIS monitoring system for electrolyzers
US Pub. No. 2023/0315054 to Aghatehrani et al., teaching a method of assessing, monitoring, and/or controlling hydrogen-production installations
US Pub. No. 2022/0112612 to Montalvo et al., teaching a parallel configuration of electrolysis cells
US Pub. No. 2021/0254227 to Lee teaching a water electrolysis system and control method thereof
US Pub. No. 2002/0134687 to Nakajima et al., teaching an electrolytic cell and process for the production of hydrogen peroxide solution and hypochlorous acid
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