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
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites that the “phase separating unit” is the component of the system that generates (or allows) the pressure difference between the first and second chambers. This is not commensurate with the specification (see [0018] – [0019], [0023] of the published application) which states the separating unit (i.e. the membrane and its structure) between the first and second chambers generates the pressure difference.
It is unclear how phase separating unit would perform this task.
Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that “the phase separating unit” is actually “the separating unit” as per the specification.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,095,126 of Mitsuta.
As to claim 12, Mitsuta teaches of a system, comprising:
an electrolysis unit with a first chamber separated by a separating unit (i.e. membrane) from a second chamber such that only electrolyte is supplied to the first chamber (Mitsuta, col 6 lines 54-61, col 7 line 13 thru col 8 line 32 and Fig. 2);
wherein a pressure in the second chamber is greater than a pressure in the first chamber (Mitsuta, col 13 lines 14-45); and
a phase separating unit which is configured to separate a first gas component from an electrolyte from the first chamber (Mitsuta, col 9 lines 4-13 and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 2, water is introduced into the cell by water channel (24) at the cathode side (213) of the membrane assembly (21). Hydrogen gas is generated at the cathode and exits by discharge hole (17) while oxygen gas is generated at the anode (212) and exits by discharge hole (18). The system is configured such that the pressure of the oxygen gas is greater than the pressure of the hydrogen gas, thus anticipating the limitation that the pressure of the second chamber (anode chamber) is greater than the pressure of the first chamber (cathode chamber).
As to the claim limitation that
As to claim 13, Mitsuta teaches of the apparatus of claim 12. The limitations are towards the operation of the system and thus do not provide structural difference to that disclosed by Mitsuta. Therefore the limitations of the operation thereof is anticipated by the structure of Mitsuta, see MPEP 2114 I and II.
As to claim 14, Mitsuta teaches the device is operated at a pressure of 100 MPa which is 1000 bar, thus anticipating the range of the claim (Mitsuta, col 13 line 39-45).
As to claim 15, Mitsuta teaches the separating unit comprises an anion exchange membrane, thus a membrane with pores (Mitsuta, col 7 lines 30-39).
As to claim 19, Mitsuta teaches a first gas component, generated at the cathode, is hydrogen and a second gas component, generated at the anode, is oxygen (Mitsuta, col 8 lines 11-32).
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.
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.
Claims 12-15, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,350,496 of Smith et al in view of US 2017/0101717 of Sone et al.
As to claim 12, Smith teaches of a device comprising:
an electrolysis unit with a first chamber and a second chamber, the first and second chambers being separated by a separating unit (i.e. membrane) (Smith, col 2 lines 45-61 and Figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the first chamber receives an electrolyte and produces a first gas component, the second chamber does not receive the electrolyte and produces a second gas component and the pressure inside the second chamber is greater than the pressure in the first chamber (Smith, col 2 line 40 thru col 3 line 21 and col 5 lines 8-16).
Smith does not teach a phase separating unit to separate the first gas component from the electrolyte.
Sone teaches of water electrolysis apparatus (Sone, [0001]).
Sone teaches that the hydrogen is separated by a phase separating unit from the electrolyte after it exits a first chamber (cathode chamber) in order to allow the hydrogen to be dried and stored or used (Sone, [0061] and [0066]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith as per Sone so as to utilize a phase separating unit to separate hydrogen from the electrolyte in order to obtain dry hydrogen for use or storage.
As to claim 13, Smith in view of Sone teach to the device of claim 12.
Smith teaches of the device of the electrolysis unit, thus disclosing the operation thereof (see MPEP 2114 I and II). Additionally, it is noted that the membrane has specific structure that facilitates the pressure differential being able to be maintained during operation (Smith, col 3 lines 19-35).
As to claim 14, Smith in view of Sone teach to the device of claim 12.
Smith teaches the device is operated to about 6000 psi which discloses the claimed invention of at least 50 bar (approximately 725 psi) (Smith, col 3 lines 2-4).
As to claim 15, Smith in view of Sone teach to the device of claim 12.
Smith teaches the separating unit is a membrane with pores (Smith, col 2 lines 45-50 and Fig. 1).
As to claims 17 and 22, Smith in view of Sone teach to the device of claim 12.
Smith teaches that oxygen at high pressure is desirable in vehicles and in space (i.e. microgravity) such that the device of Smith generates such high pressure oxygen and thus be operable in microgravity or in vehicles (Smith, col 1 lines 10-14 and col 2 lines 8-19).
It is noted that claim 17 does not provide any additional structure to the system for how it is operated in microgravity. If Applicant has a specific structure in mind, it would be beneficial to claim the structural component of the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Sone as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2012/0048731 of Haryu et al.
As to claim 16, Smith in view of Sone teaches to the device of claim 12.
Smith in view of Sone do not teach the phase separating unit comprising a membrane.
Haryu teaches of a water electrolysis apparatus (Haryu, [0003]).
Haryu additionally teaches that a gas/liquid separator comprises a membrane structure that allows gas to pass through the membrane while retaining the liquid within a container, thus effectively separating the gas components from the liquid components within the electrolysis apparatus (Haryu, [0018], [0040] – [0045]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Sone as per Haryu so as to utilize a membrane structure for the separation of gas components from liquid component within a gas/liquid separating.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuta as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2023/0032928 of Bouwman et al.
As to claim 18, Mitsuta teaches to the device of claim 12.
Mitsuta teaches of an electrolyte circuit (Mitsuta, col 8 lines 33-49 and Fig. 1).
Mitsuta does not teach a delivery unit that introduces water to the system by osmosis.
Bouwman teaches of electrolysis system for water electrolysis (Bouwman, [0001]).
Bouwman teaches that the system can comprise a simpler construction by use of a device that allows for water to be fed to the electrolytic cell by forward osmosis. Bouwman states the cell has at least one water inlet (Bouwman, [0014] – [0015] and [0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitsuta as per Bouwman so as to utilize a delivery unit to deliver water into the cell by osmosis in order to form a device of simpler construction by still allows for water to be supplied to the cell.
Claims 20 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Sone as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 6,338,786 of Thorpe et al.
As to claim 20, Smith in view Sone teach to the device of claim 12.
Smith in view of Sone do not teach a frame structure that has the phase separator integrated therein.
Thorpe teaches of electrolytic cells (Thorpe, col 1lines 6-11).
Thorpe additionally teaches the cell structure is held together by frames such that gas-liquid separators are integrated into the frame structure to facilitate proximity and separation of the gas and liquid within the system for recycling the liquid back into the cell (Thorpe, col 5 line 16 thru col 6 line 33 and Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Sone as per Thorpe so as to utilize frames with phase separation units integrated therein in order to allow for a multicell system which facilitates separation of the product from the electrolyte and recycling the electrolyte back into the system.
As to claim 21, Smith in view of Sone and Thorpe teach to the device of claim 20.
Smith in view of Sone do not teach a heat exchanger integrated into the electrolysis unit.
Thorpe teaches that the rigid end boxes can include locations for components including heaters, cooler and heat exchangers to control the temperature of the system (Thorpe, col 2 lines 34-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Sone as per Thorpe so as to include a heat exchanger within the electrolysis unit in order to control the temperature of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that US 2022/0341046 of Catanorchi teaches:
[0017] As used herein, reference to a “dry” half-cell or substantially dry half-cell, is in reference to the half-cell to which no liquid is directly introduced. This is displayed clearly in the accompanying figures. With a dry cathode it is acknowledged that osmotic drag may result in the temporary presence of some water in the dry half-cell but, any water present in the dry half-cell is readily split into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions, as demonstrated in the reactions taking place. The hydroxyl ions migrate back to the anode, simultaneously bringing solvated water by electroosmotic drag.
and
[0024] Preferably, the water-containing liquid is fed to the anode such that the cathode is dry and the produced hydrogen substantially dry and electrolyte free. Alternatively, it is envisaged that the water-containing liquid may be fed to the cathode side of the cell such that the anode is dry and the produced oxygen substantially dry and the anodic half-cell electrolyte free.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759