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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11 September 2025 is acknowledged.
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 20, 22 and 29 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.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the second side of the first gas diffusion electrode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further as to claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the second side of the second gas diffusion electrode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in particular for both “the second side” and “the second gas diffusion electrode” parts of the limitation.
As to claim 22, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 29, the claim recites that the first electrochemical cell and the second electrochemical cell are the cell according to claim 1. However, claim 1 recites a plurality of limitations that are already recited in claim 28, upon which claim 29 is dependent, including, a reservoir, a first gas diffusion electrode, a second electrode and a porous capillary spacer. Therefore, it is unclear as to if these identical new limitations intend to refer back to the limitations of claim 28 or to new and separate limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0224668 A1 to Jehle et al. (Jehle).
As to claim 1, Jehle teaches an electrochemical cell (100) operating as a synthesis cell for the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water, the cell (100) comprising a reservoir (34/36) for containing a liquid electrolyte, a first gas diffusion electrode (14) positioned outside the reservoir, a second gas diffusion electrode (16) positioned outside the reservoir (34/36) and a porous capillary spacer (22) sandwiched between the first gas diffusion electrode (14) and the second gas diffusion electrode (16), the porous capillary spacer (22) having an end that extends into the reservoir (the capillary layer contacts the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir and is thus considered extending into the reservoir, i.e. the bottom of the porous capillary spacer forms a part of the reservoir) such that the porous capillary layer is able to fill itself with the liquid electrolyte when the end of the porous capillary spacer is in liquid contact with the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir (Paragraphs 0023-0027; Figure 1).
As to claim 3, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the first and second electrodes (14/16) are separated from the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir (34/36) (Figure 1).
As to claim 8, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that during operation liquid electrolyte contacts the first and second electrode only after first being transported along the porous capillary spacer form the reservoir (Paragraph 0027).
As to claim 9, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the first and second electrodes (14/16) are spaced apparat from the reservoir (34/36) (Figure 1).
As to claim 14, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the first gas diffusion electrode is a porous nickel sheet, thus a metallic perforated plate (Paragraph 0023).
As to claim 15, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the first gas diffusion electrode (14) configured to generate a first gas, hydrogen, to form a first gas body (gas chamber) (40), a first side of the capillary spacer (22) adjacent to a first side of the first gas diffusion electrode (14), a second side of the porous capillary spacer is adjacent a fist side of the second electrode (16) and a second side of the first gas diffusion electrode (14) is adjacent the first gas body (40) (Paragraphs 0023-0027; Figure 1).
As to claim 16, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the second gas diffusion electrode is a porous nickel sheet, thus a metallic perforated plate (Paragraph 0023).
As to claim 18, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Jehle further teaches that the second gas diffusion electrode (16) is configured to generate a second gas, oxygen, to form a second gas body (gas chamber) (46), a second side of the second gas diffusion electrode (16) is adjacent the second gas body (46) (Paragraphs 0023-0027; Figure 1).
As to claim 23 and 24, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the average pore diameter of the porous capillary spacer is, for example, 10 microns (Paragraph 0026).
As to claim 27, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle further teaches that the porous capillary spacer (membrane) is made from a polysulfone (Paragraph 0005).
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016-023371 A to Ulrich (Ulrich).
As to claim 1, Ulrich teaches an electrochemical cell operating as a synthesis cell for the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water, the cell comprising a reservoir (4) for containing a liquid electrolyte, a first gas diffusion electrode (21/22) positioned outside the reservoir, a second gas diffusion electrode (31/32) positioned outside the reservoir (4) and a porous capillary spacer (13) sandwiched between the first gas diffusion electrode (21/22) and the second gas diffusion electrode (31/32), the porous capillary spacer (13) having an end that extends into the reservoir (4) such that the porous capillary layer is able to fill itself with the liquid electrolyte when the end of the porous capillary spacer is in liquid contact with the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir (Paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0028-0030; Figures 1 and 3).
As to claim 3, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the first and second electrodes (21/22/31/32) are separated from the liquid in the reservoir (4) (Paragraph 0030; Figure 3).
As to claim 8, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that during operation the liquid electrolyte contacts the electrodes (21/22/31/32) only after being transported along the porous capillary spacer (13) form the reservoir (4) (Paragraph 0030; Figure 3).
As to claim 9, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the first and second electrodes (21/22/31/32) are spaced apart from the reservoir (4) (Paragraph 0030; Figure 3).
As to claim 10, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that an area of contact between the first gas diffusion electrode (21/22) and the capillary spacer (13) is outside the reservoir (4) and an area of contact between the second gas diffusion electrode (31/32) and the capillary spacer (13) is outside the reservoir (4) (Figure 3).
As to claim 20, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the cell comprises gas capillary structures (23/33) at a second side of each of the first and second electrodes (21/22/31/32) (Paragraph 0029; Figure 3).
As to claim 22, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the cell is a zero-gap cell, i.e. the electrodes (21/22/31/32) contact the membrane structure including the capillary spacer layer (13) and that the capillary spacer layer is, for example, 0.25 mm thick (250 micron) (Paragraph 0013; Figure 3).
As to claims 23 and 24, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the average pore size of the capillary layer is from 100 nm to 10 microns (Paragraph 0022).
As to claim 27, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich further teaches that the capillary layer is formed form, for example, PTFE (Paragraphs 0010 and 0019).
As to claims 28 and 29, Ulrich teaches an electrochemical cell operating as a synthesis cell for the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water, the cell comprising a reservoir (4) for containing a liquid electrolyte, a first gas diffusion electrode (21/22) positioned outside the reservoir, a second gas diffusion electrode (31/32) positioned outside the reservoir (4) and a porous capillary spacer (13) sandwiched between the first gas diffusion electrode (21/22) and the second gas diffusion electrode (31/32), the porous capillary spacer (13) having an end that extends into the reservoir (4) such that the porous capillary layer is able to fill itself with the liquid electrolyte when the end of the porous capillary spacer is in liquid contact with the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir (Paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0028-0030; Figures 1 and 3). Ulrich further teaches that the cell should be provided in plurality in a stack, a PEM stack would be electrically connected, whether in parallel or in series (Paragraph 0031).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2013 214 392 A1 to Schellback (Schellback).
As to claim 1, Schellback teaches an electrochemical cell, such as a synthesis cell for generating gases from electrolyte, the cell comprising a reservoir (5) for containing a liquid electrolyte, a first gas diffusion electrode (1) positioned fully outside the reservoir, a second electrode (2) positioned partially outside the reservoir and a porous capillary spacer (2a) having an end that extends into the reservoir (5), wherein the first gas diffusion layer (1) and the second electrode (2) are sandwiched against opposite sides of the porous capillary spacer (2a), the porous capillary spacer (2a) is able to fill itself with the liquid electrolyte when the end of the porous capillary spacer is in liquid contact with the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir (5) (Paragraphs 0001 and 0049-0051; Figure 1).
As to claim 4, Schellback teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Schellback teaches that the second electrode (2) extends into the reservoir (5) and thus contacts the liquid electrolyte in the reservoir at a top edge of the reservoir (5) (Figure 1).
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 13 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jehle as applied to claim 1 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 13, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle fails to teach the specific geometric surface area of the first and second electrodes. However, mere changes in size/proportion are not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
As to claim 34, Jehle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jehle teaches that the first gas diffusion electrode and the second gas diffusion electrode are compressed against the capillary spacer (Figure 1). However, Jehle is silent as to the specific pressure of the compression. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the compression pressure to ensure appropriate cell contact in view of the operating conditions chosen for the apparatus (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 13 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich as applied to claim 1 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 13, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich fails to teach the specific geometric surface area of the first and second electrodes. However, mere changes in size/proportion are not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
As to claim 34, Ulrich teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ulrich teaches that the first gas diffusion electrode and the second gas diffusion electrode are compressed against the capillary spacer (Figure 1). However, Ulrich is silent as to the specific pressure of the compression. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the compression pressure to ensure appropriate cell contact in view of the operating conditions chosen for the apparatus (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794