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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the cancellation of the previously pending claims 1-15 and presentation of new claims 16-30, unless expressly recited below, all grounds of rejection set forth in the prior Office action are considered to be overcome by the amendment.
The Office notes that Applicant did not present any arguments with respect to claim 30. Claim 30 lacks many of the structural features of claim 16 and thus the arguments presented with respect to claim 16 do not adequately convey similar effects on claim 30.
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 16-29 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 16 recites the limitation “the generator” in the next to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the electric generator” to accurately agree with both the earlier and later recitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the generator” in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the electric generator” to accurately agree with the earlier recitations in the claims.
Claim 23 recites “comprising two driving mechanisms that each use a single and same chain or belt”. It is unclear if this claim is adding additional driving mechanisms beyond the first and second driving mechanisms already reciting or if the claim is referring back to the first and second driving mechanisms. Further “that each use a single and same chain or belt” is unclear. This may mean that a single chain or belt is used for both driving mechanisms or it may mean that each driving mechanism uses a single chain or belt. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume that claim 23 further limits the first and second driving mechanisms as each using its own single chain or belt (i.e. two chains or belts are present, one for each of the two driving mechanisms).
Claim 25 depends from cancelled claims 1-4. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume claim 25 to be dependent upon claim 16. However, “the driving mechanism” in lines 1-2 of claim 25 also lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites “a first driving mechanism”, while claim 17 recites “a second driving mechanism”. Thus, it is unclear which driving mechanism is being further limited by claim 25. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume that claim 25 is referring to the first driving mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Borsos (US 2,513,136 A).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Horvath (US 4,084,375 A).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2000-320448 A).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Oussalem (FR 2851304 A).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lee (KR 10-2009-113968 A).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by O’Neil (US 2013/0001956 A1).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kim (KR 10-2013-0055824 A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches (see annotated copy fig. 4 provided herein, machine translation at pages -) an apparatus for the electrolytic production of hydrogen comprising a first chamber (right hand portion), a lower part (lower half) and an upper part (upper half), a gas production unit (electrodes constituting an electrolytic cell, not numbered) located within the lower part and including an electrolytic cell and structured such that the hydrogen and oxygen gases are kept separate (i.e. they cannot mix), an electric generator located in the upper part, a first driving mechanism located within the first chamber, and a hydrogen outlet located in a top part of the first chamber. The first chamber was located between the lower and upper parts, and was configured for communication with the gas production unit in such a way that hydrogen bubbles generated within the water of the first chamber were directed upwards due to the buoyancy force acting on the bubbles, wherein the first driving mechanism was actuated by the ascending bubbles and to drive the electric generator, which was connected to the electrolytic cell (“[i]f the airbags are buoyant at a sufficient distance, the energy required for electrolysis can be obtained through this process”).
Lee fails to teach the gas production unit included a hydrogen nozzle and an oxygen nozzle.
Horvath teaches (see fig. 1, abstract, col. 4, lines 7-21 and 39-50) a similar apparatus for the production of hydrogen including an electric generator and driving mechanism for generating electricity for conducting electrolysis by use of the buoyancy of the generated hydrogen gas bubbles, wherein funnels (33, 34) (i.e. nozzles as claimed) were provided directly above electrodes for directing the streams of hydrogen and oxygen toward their respective driving mechanisms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the funnels of Horvath above the electrodes of Lee for the purpose of directing the gas bubbles generated at the electrodes of the gas production unit to their respective driving mechanisms.
Regarding claim 17, Lee shows a second chamber (left hand side) filled with water and communicating with the upper part but being separated from the first chamber, a second driving mechanism in the second chamber, an oxygen outlet at the top of the second chamber, and oxygen bubbles generated by the gas production unit exerting their buoyancy force on the second driving mechanism. As discussed with respect to claim 16 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a funnel (i.e. a nozzle as claimed) as taught by Horvath to the apparatus of Lee for the purpose of direct the stream of oxygen bubbles to the second driving mechanism. Note that Horvath teaches a single electric generator being actuated by both a first driving mechanism and a second driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 18, the electrodes of Lee were immersed in water.
Regarding claim 19, the first and second chambers of Lee were in communication through a passage located in the lower part. Although the lower end of the wall separating the chambers of Lee did not extend to a location lower than where the gas bubbles entered the water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have extended the separating wall of Lee to a location below the nozzles of Horvath to help prevent mixing of the hydrogen and oxygen gas bubbles.
Regarding claim 20, Horvath teaches a single electric generator being actuated by both a first driving mechanism and a second driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 21, the driving mechanisms taught by Lee include a vertical belt forming a closed loop that turned around upper and lower gear wheels and included bowls fixed to the belt.
Regarding claim 23, Lee shows each of the two chambers having its own driving mechanism with a single closed loop belt.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tilyer (US 2003/0145589 A1).
Lee fails to teach providing a notch in the chambers.
Tilyer teaches (see abstract, figs. 1, 3, and 5, paragraph [0043]) providing a notch (78) in a bowl that captures gas bubbles along an endless chain driving mechanism for capturing the buoyant force of the bubbles to generate electricity. The notch is provided to minimize bubble loss as the bowls moved upwards.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the bowls of Lee according to the suggestion of Tilyer by adding a notch corresponding to the location of the gas nozzles for the purpose of minimizing bubbles loss as taught by Tilyer.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Welch (US 5,555,728).
Lee and Horvath fail to teach that the chain or belt was inclined to the vertical.
Welch teaches (see fig. 1, claim 1, col. 3, lines 32-54) a driving mechanism lifted by buoyancy of a gas for generating electricity that included an endless chain with attached “buckets” for capturing the gas and using the buoyancy of the gas to cause movement of the chain. Welch teaches that at least one of the vertical portions of the chain is arranged at an inclination to the vertical and that this arrangement helps the mechanism start by allowing the gas to pass successively upwards into the following buckets when the mechanism is first started.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the driving mechanism of Lee according to the suggestion of Welch by inclining the chain with respect to the vertical to permit the gas to successively pass upwards from bucket to bucket for generating sufficient buoyant force at the time of starting the driving mechanism.
Claims 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cook (US 271,040 A).
Regarding claim 25, Lee fail to teach the driving mechanism being in the form of a wheel with several bowls fixed to the wheel.
Cook teaches, within the field of electric generators relying on buoyancy of bubbles, providing a driving mechanism that captured rising gas bubbles, wherein the driving mechanism was a wheel (see fig. 1) with several bowls attached to the wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the driving mechanism comprising a wheel of Cook in place of the belt driving mechanism of Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.B. The functions of the driving mechanisms of Cook and Lee were identical for turning an electrical generator using the buoyancy force of gas bubbles in a liquid.
Regarding claim 28, Lee fails to teach providing additional modules located above the apparatus.
Cook teaches (see figs. 1 and 2, page 1, lines 17-28) providing multiple stacked modules that utilized buoyancy of gas bubbles to turn driving mechanisms, wherein each modules included a driving mechanism (C) that was driven by the buoyant force of gas bubbles while then transferring the gas bubbles to the next driving mechanism located above to generate additional rotational energy. The entire stack of modules included only a single gas production unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided additional apparatus of Lee located vertically above the original apparatus as suggested by Cook for the purpose of extracting additional rotational energy (and thereby electricity). Since only a single gas production unit was needed to feed the multiple stacked modules, only the lower most module would have had a gas production unit and any module located above the lower most module would not have needed a gas production unit.
Regarding claim 29, Lee does not describe the identity of the first chamber and/or second chamber.
Cook teaches, within the field of electric generators relying on buoyancy of bubbles, providing a driving mechanism that captured rising gas bubbles, wherein the driving mechanism was located within a well (see page 1, lines 29-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have positioned the apparatus of Lee inside of a well as suggested by Cook for the purpose of utilizing the deep structure of a well to enhance the buoyant force generated.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sivret (US 2014/0158529).
Lee fails to teach providing a starting battery to the apparatus.
Sivret teaches (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0035], [0039]) an apparatus for conducting electrolysis at a submerged location, wherein a generator is used to generate electricity by turning a generator via a gas lift effect from the hydrogen and oxygen that are generated by electrolysis, wherein the system further included a battery for connection to the electrodes of the electrolysis cell, while excess electricity is passed to an electric grid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the battery was a starting battery in that it stored sufficient electricity to generate enough gases to “jump start” the system to turn the generator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the battery taught by Sivret to the apparatus of Lee for the purpose of storing sufficient electricity to generate enough gases to “jump start” the system to propel the first driving mechanism.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2009-0113968 A) in view of Horvath (US 4,084,375 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bunn, Jr et al (US 4,002,552).
Lee fails to teach at least two liquid detectors being located within the chamber.
Bunn, Jr et al teach (see abstract, figs. 2 and 3, and col. 2, lines 9-28) providing multiple liquid detectors within an electrolytic cell which are effective for ensuring that the electric current for electrolysis is not conducted when the liquid level is below the electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the liquid detectors taught by Bunn, Jr et al to the electrolysis apparatus of Lee for the purpose of ensuring that the electrolysis is only conducted when sufficient liquid (water) is present in the electrolysis cell.
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 HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights