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
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top part" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas unit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the gas production unit” to accurately agree with the earlier recitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper chamber " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the gas production unit” to accurately agree with the earlier recitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the gas unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the gas production unit” to accurately agree with the earlier recitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "both chambers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3 which depends from claim 1, there is only a single chamber recited in the dependency chain of claim 4. It is suggested to amend this claim to depend from claim 2 to provide proper antecedent basis. Further examination on the prior art will be conducted assuming this claim depends from claim 2 instead of claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the driving mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend this to “the first driving mechanism”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the chain or belt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 9 depends from claim 5 which depends from claims 2 and then claim 1, there is no earlier recitation of a chain or belt in the dependency chain of claim 9. It is suggested to amend this claim to depend from claim 6 to provide proper antecedent basis. Further examination on the prior art will be conducted assuming this claim depends from claim 6 instead of claim 5.
Claim 13 recites “as defined in any previous claims” in line 3. This renders the claim unclear since it was amended to be an “[a]pparatus according to claim 1” and as written the claim could instead depend from any of claims 1-12.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2000-320448).
See English abstract and figs. 1 and 2.
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 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759).
Watanabe teaches (see figs. 1 and 2) an apparatus for the electrolytic production of hydrogen comprising a lower part and an upper part, a gas production unit (1) located within the lower part and including an electrolytic cell and a hydrogen nozzle (the output of hydrogen line “H2” into a chamber (3) is considered to inherently be a nozzle), an electric generator (7) a first driving mechanism (chambers 3, chain 2), and a hydrogen outlet (4) located above the first driving mechanism. Between the lower part and the upper part is a first area filled within water in communication with the gas unit via the hydrogen nozzle such that hydrogen bubbles generated within the water of the first area are directed in an upwards direction due to the buoyancy force acting on the bubbles, wherein the first driving mechanism was adapted to be actuated by the ascending bubbles and the generator is actuated by the first driving mechanism to generate electricity which is connected to the electrolytic cell.
Watanabe fails to teach the first area being a chamber containing the water.
Hunt teaches (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0017] and [0018]) a similar apparatus for electrolytic production of hydrogen comprising a first driving mechanism lifted by buoyancy of the hydrogen gas for generating electricity. Hunt teaches placing a chamber (frame 136) around the device and that the electrolysis occurs in the lower part and there being a hydrogen outlet at the top of the upper part of the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have surrounded the apparatus of Watanabe by chamber according to the teachings of Hunt for the purpose of providing an extra layer of containment of the gases being produced by electrolysis.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the gas production unit (1) in fig. 2 of Watanabe was located in water. Selection of a suitable water source, such as a lake or a sea would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the first driving mechanism of Watanabe et al included a vertical chain (2) forming a closed loop that turned about two gear wheels, wherein bowls (3) were fixed to the chain.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated certain portions of the apparatus of Watanabe, such as the first chamber and first driving mechanism if the structural limitations of the chain (2) limited the height of the driving mechanism to a distance less than the depth at which the gas production unit was located.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imberteche (FR 2286891) and Oussalem (FR 2851304).
Note that Watanabe shows (see fig. 2) that oxygen gas could also be fed to the first driving mechanism.
However, Watanabe fails to teach providing a separate second chamber containing a second driving mechanism that accepts the oxygen gas generated by the gas production unit.
Imberteche teaches (see figs. 1 and 3, English abstract) that water electrolysis conducted a great depth may be modified by separately collecting the hydrogen and oxygen gases and recovering useful energy from both of the gases due to the great pressure at which they are generated due to the depth under water of the electrolysis cell.
Oussalem teaches (see fig. 1a and English abstract) that both hydrogen and oxygen gases generated by electrolysis may be bubbled into chambers (5) that are attached to a vertical endless belt (6) that turns a generator (9) for using buoyancy of the hydrogen and oxygen gases to offset the electricity costs of conducting electrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have (1) separately collected and utilized the oxygen gas produced by electrolysis for generating electricity from the excess pressure of the gas as suggested by Imberteche and (2) to have duplicated the first driving mechanism of Watanabe for use with an oxygen nozzle since Oussalem teach that the oxygen gas bubbles may be utilized in a manner similar to that taught by Watanabe.
Regarding claim 4. Imberteche shows (see fig. 3) providing two chambers (51, 52) for separate collection of the hydrogen and oxygen, wherein the two chambers were in fluid communication through a passage (21) located in the lower part below any nozzles (e.g. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 5, Oussalem shows using the buoyancy force of both gases to turn a single generator.
Regarding claim 8, Oussalem shows (see figs. 1a and 1b) using a single chain/belt that included two driving means, a first partition (5) and a second partition (12) of bowls attached to the chain/belt.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Takeuchi (US 2006/0064975).
Watanabe fails to teach providing a notch in the chambers (3).
Takeuchi teaches (see abstract, figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) providing additional sub-guide plates on a chamber attached to an endless chain configured to turn a generator by using the buoyancy of gas bubbles in a liquid column. The sub-guide plate was designed to reduce the occurrence of the gas bubbles missing the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shape of the chambers of Watanabe according to the suggestion of Takeuchi for the purpose of improving the collection of the gas bubbles within the chambers to improve the efficiency of the apparatus in converting the potential energy of the gas bubbles into electric energy.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759), Imberteche (FR 2286891) and Oussalem (FR 2851304) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Welch (US 5,555,728).
Watanabe, Hunt, Imberteche, and Oussalem 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 Hunt 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sivret (US 2014/0158529).
Watanabe 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 Watanabe for the purpose of storing sufficient electricity to generate enough gases to “jump start” the system to propel the first driving mechanism.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-320448) in view of Hunt (WO 2004/033759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bunn, Jr et al (US 4,002,552).
Watanabe 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 Watanabe for the purpose of ensuring that the electrolysis is only conducted when sufficient liquid (water) is present in the electrolysis cell.
Conclusion
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