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
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 30 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 and 28 (and claims dependent thereon) under both anticipation and obviousness based upon Matsui et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. As pointed out in Applicant’s remarks, Matsui et al only adds water to the electrolyte and does not provide for a hydroxide/lye refilling operation of the electrolyte, and thus fails to meet the first wherein clause (“wherein the property is lye concentration that is automatically detected and the further process control is a lye refilling operation…”). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Solera et al (EP 3188296 A1).
Although Applicant did amend the independent claims, the new grounds of rejection presented herein are based upon the lack of the lye refilling operation in the Matsui et al reference, and thus are not necessitated by the amendment. Therefore, this rejection is not being made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 22-23, “of” is repeated twice and there is no conjunction between (i.e. “and”) the last two members of the Markush group. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14, 21, 23-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solera et al (EP 3188296 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Solera et al teach (see the figure, paragraphs [0002]-[0012] and [0034]-[0049]) a method of operating an electrolyzer system comprising circulating an alkali lye (potassium hydroxide, KOH) solution in the system, measuring a concentration of the potassium hydroxide (i.e. “determining a lye-related property… wherein the property is lye concentration” as claimed) and adding additional potassium hydroxide to adjust the concentration to the desired amount (i.e. “changing further process control in dependency on an evaluation of the determined property” and “the further process control is a lye refilling operation effected automatically in dependency on the detected concentration” as claimed).
Note that claim 14 is formatted as A method comprising steps: A; B; and C; wherein D and/or E. The presence of the “and/or” in line 14, defines the invention as having one or both of the last two clauses (“wherein the property is lye concentration …” and/or “wherein the property is at least one visually inspectable parameter …”). Thus, the claim requires at least one of the two clauses to be met, but meeting both is optional. Solera et al as discussed in the prior paragraph meets the first clause (“wherein the property is lye concentration that is automatically detected and the further process control is a lye refilling operation effected automatically in dependency on the detected concentration”), and thus anticipates the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Solera et al teach (see paragraph [0047]) that the evaluation of the hydroxide concentration was conducted with an optical sensor such as a refractometer, which inherently comprises image analysis.
Regarding claim 23, Solera et al teach (see paragraph [0063]) carrying out an operation step (more electrolysis) or subsequent maintenance (adjusting hydroxide concentration) on the basis of the caustic concentration evaluation step.
Regarding claim 24, Solera et al teach (see the figure) that the evaluation of the caustic concentration provided a signal to the controller (7) that was indicative of an action to be taken, namely to control the addition of more caustic based upon the caustic concentration evaluation step.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Solera et al teach (see paragraph [0062]) that the caustic concentration is continuously measured to provide real-time control of the caustic concentration.
Regarding claim 28, Solera et al teach (see the figure, paragraphs [0002]-[0012] and [0034]-[0049]) an electrolyzer system comprising an alkaline electrolyzer (25) that produces hydrogen, an alkaline lye circulation circuit (constituting electrolyzer 25, pipes connecting electrolyzer to gas-liquid separation tanks 41, and pipes leading from gas-liquid separation tanks 41 back to the electrolyzer 25), a device (6) for refilling the circuit with alkaline lye, a controller (7) to control the system for operation and a detection device (5) controlled by the controller (7) and configured to detect lye concentration. The controller causes the device (6) for refilling to automatically perform a refilling operation of the caustic lye based upon the detected lye concentration.
Note that claim 28 is formatted as A system comprising: A; B; C; D; and E and by F and/or by G. The presence of the “and/or” in line 14, defines the invention as having one or both of the last two clauses (“by operation of the refilling device...” and/or “by a visual inspection device …”). Thus, the claim requires at least one of the two clauses to be met, but meeting both is optional. Solera et al as discussed in the prior paragraph meets the first clause (“by operation of the refilling device being controlled by the controller to automatically perform a refilling operation dependent on a detected concentration”), and thus anticipates the invention as claimed.
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 17-20 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solera et al (EP 3188296 A1) as applied to either claim 14 or claim 28 above, and further in view of Accetta (US 2020/0408680 A1)
Solera et al teach that the determining of the lye-related property involved measuring the concentration of lye using a refractometer.
Solera et al fail to disclose details of the refractometer.
Accetta teaches (see abstract, figs. 4-7, paragraphs [0002], [0007], [0044]-[0050], [0053]-[0058], [0061]-[0069], and [0072]-[0080]) a process control refractometer for conducting continuous measurement of the refractive index of a liquid flowing in a chemical process. The process control refractometer included a zone subjected to illumination confined by a light-transparent boundary to illuminate the liquid to be measured while confining the liquid by the boundary, and a light detector (i.e. a “camera”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the process control refractometer taught by Accetta to perform the refractometric measurement taught by Solera et al because Accetta teaches that the process control refractometer permitted continuous measurement of the refractive index of a liquid in a chemical process while also isolating the sensitive parts of the refractometer from contact with the chemical sample being measured.
Regarding claim 30, the process control refractometer of Accetta included (see fig. 3) a processor with algorithm to process the raw photodetector signal to a refractive index output. The algorithm is considered to inherently include optical spectroscopy software to perform signal transformation into frequency space and spectral analysis.
Regarding claim 31, the process control refractometer of Accetta is considered to be a device that did not increase explosion risk due to the confinement of the liquid sample within a non-reactive tube.
Regarding claim 32, the transparent tube of Accetta is considered to be an inspection glass as claimed incorporated into the piping of the system.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solera et al (EP 3188296 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Nagino (US 2021/0216974).
Solera et al fails to teach using artificial intelligence in assisting the image analysis step.
Nagino teaches (see abstract, paragraphs [0006] and [0012]-[0016]) providing for the use of machine learning algorithms (i.e. “artificial intelligence” as claimed) for aiding the control systems of an electrolyzer system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied machine learning algorithms as taught by Nagino to the process of Solera et al to help improve the control systems of the electrolyzer system.
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
Prosecution Insights