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 § 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, 23-26, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsui et al (JP 2019-178356, all paragraph number citations refer to machine translation cited herewith).
Regarding claim 14, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) 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” 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 7, 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. Matsui 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 23, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0039]-[0043]) carrying out an operation step (either caustic concentration adjustment or more electrolysis) on the basis of the caustic concentration evaluation step.
Regarding claim 24, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0039]-[0043]) that the evaluation of the caustic concentration provided a signal 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, Matsui et al implies that the caustic concentration is continuously measured to provide real-time control of the caustic concentration.
Regarding claim 28, Matsui et al teach (see fig. 2, paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) an electrolyzer system comprising an alkaline electrolyzer (10) that produces hydrogen (22), an alkaline lye circulation circuit (constituting cathode chamber 13, pipe 31, tank 30, pipe 51, tank 50, pipe 71 and pump 70), a device (110) for refilling the circuit with alkaline lye, a controller (112b) to control the system for operation and a detection device (111) configured to detect lye concentration. The controller causes the device 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 8, 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. Matsui 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.
Regarding claim 29, this claim provides further limitation on one of the two optional elements of claim 28. Since it does not require selection of the visual inspection device in claim 28, the disclosure of Matsui et al is considered to still anticipate the invention as claimed since the claimed element is optional.
Regarding claim 31, this claim provides further limitation on one of the two optional elements of claim 28. Since it does not require selection of the visual inspection device in claim 28, the disclosure of Matsui et al is considered to still anticipate the invention as claimed since the claimed element is optional.
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 14, 15, 17-19, 21, and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (JP 2019-178356, all paragraph number citations refer to machine translation cited herewith) in view of Phelan et al (“Measurement of Caustic and Caustic Brine Solutions by Spectroscopic Detection of the Hydroxide Ion in the Near-Infrared Region, 700-1150 nm”).
Regarding claim 14, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) 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 “wherein an operation condition of the electrolyzer system is determined based on the evaluation” as claimed).
Matsui et al teach the lye concentration measurement occurring using a pH meter.
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 7, 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. Alternative to the anticipation rejection grounds above, Matsui et al as discussed in the prior paragraphs 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”), but fails to teach the second clause (“wherein the property is at least one visually inspectable parameter of the lye and/or a lye flow, which is/are detected by visual inspection of the lye/lye flow”).
Therefore, Matsui et al fail to teach that the property is at least a visually inspectable parameter of the lye and/or a lye flow.
Phelan et al teach (see abstract) that the concentration of caustic (hydroxide) solutions is visually measurable using spectroscopic methods involving near-infrared light in the wavelength range of 700-1150 nm. The method involves detection of the absorbance of the infrared light by the caustic solution to determine the concentration of the caustic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the visual caustic concentration measurement method of Phelan et al with the electrolysis method of Matsui et al because Phelan et al teach that the visual measurement method was suitable even in the presence of other ions in the solution and also were “suitable for implementation as process monitoring tools”. Here, Matsui et al formed a base device which differed from the claimed invention by substitution of a different method of determining the caustic concentration. Phelan et al teach that the claimed method of determining the caustic concentration was known in the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements of Matsui et al and Phelan et al by simple substitution of the detection method of Phelan et al in place of the pH meter of Matsui et al. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 15, Matsui et al teach conducting the measurement of caustic concentration during operation of the electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 17, the detection method of Phelan et al included illuminating the caustic solution with near-infrared light.
Regarding claim 18, Phelan et al teach (see paragraph spanning cols. on page 1419) using a quartz window (i.e. “an at least partly light-transparent bounding”) to permit access of the illumination.
Regarding claim 19, Phelan et al teach (see “Spectroscopy” section on page 1420) the measurement system also including a silicon detector (i.e. “a camera” as claimed) that visually inspected the area illuminated by the near-infrared light.
Regarding claim 21, the step of matching the absorbance spectrum to the concentration of caustic taught by Phelan et al is a step of image analysis as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0039]-[0043]) carrying out an operation step (either caustic concentration adjustment or more electrolysis) on the basis of the caustic concentration evaluation step.
Regarding claim 24, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0039]-[0043]) that the evaluation of the caustic concentration provided a signal indicative of an action to be take, namely to control the addition of more caustic based upon the caustic concentration evaluation step.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Matsui et al implies that the caustic concentration is continuously measured to provide real-time control of the caustic concentration.
Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a display to alert a user of the system of Matsui et al to the caustic concentration measurement.
Regarding claim 28, Matsui et al teach (see fig. 2, paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) an electrolyzer system comprising an alkaline electrolyzer (10) that produces hydrogen (22), an alkaline lye circulation circuit (constituting cathode chamber 13, pipe 31, tank 30, pipe 51, tank 50, pipe 71 and pump 70), a device (110) for refilling the circuit with alkaline lye, a controller (112b) to control the system for operation and a detection device (111) configured to detect lye concentration. The controller causes the device 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 G. The presence of the “and/or” in line 8, 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. Alternative to the anticipation rejection grounds above, Matsui 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”), but fails to teach the second clause (“by a visual inspection device configured to inspect the lye in at least an inspection zone of the circuit”).
Phelan et al teach (see abstract) that the concentration of caustic (hydroxide) solutions is visually measurable using spectroscopic methods involving near-infrared light in the wavelength range of 700-1150 nm. The method involves detection of the absorbance of the infrared light by the caustic solution to determine the concentration of the caustic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the visual caustic concentration measurement method of Phelan et al with the electrolysis method of Matsui et al because Phelan et al teach that the visual measurement method was suitable even in the presence of other ions in the solution and also were “suitable for implementation as process monitoring tools”. Here, Matsui et al formed a base device which differed from the claimed invention by substitution of a different method of determining the caustic concentration. Phelan et al teach that the claimed method of determining the caustic concentration was known in the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements of Matsui et al and Phelan et al by simple substitution of the detection method of Phelan et al in place of the pH meter of Matsui et al. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 29, the structure of the detector taught by Phelan et al included an illuminating device for providing the near-infrared light to an inspection zone.
Regarding claim 30, the structure of the detector taught by Phelan et al included optical spectroscopy software to perform signal transformation into spectral analysis.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Phelan et al teach (see paragraph spanning cols. on page 1419) using a quartz window (i.e. “an at least partly light-transparent bounding”) to permit access of the illumination. This window is considered to inherently meet the requirement of “devices that do not increase explosion risk” as claimed.
Claims 14-21, 23, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (JP 2019-178356, all paragraph number citations refer to machine translation cited herewith) in view of Sato et al (US 2015/0090602) and Castro (US 2006/0061763).
Regarding claim 14, Matsui et al teach (see paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) 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 “wherein an operation condition of the electrolyzer system is determined based on the evaluation” as claimed).
Matsui et al teach the lye concentration measurement occurring using a pH meter.
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 7, 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. Alternative to the anticipation rejection grounds above, Matsui et al as discussed in the prior paragraphs 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”), but fails to teach the second clause (“wherein the property is at least one visually inspectable parameter of the lye and/or a lye flow, which is/are detected by visual inspection of the lye/lye flow”).
Therefore, Matsui et al fail to teach that the property is at least a visually inspectable parameter of the lye and/or a lye flow.
Sato et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraph [0028]) that an optical bubble sensor may be provided in an electrolysis system for producing hydrogen gas for the purpose of calculating the rate of hydrogen generation by the electrolyzer.
Castro teaches (see abstract, figs. 1-3, paragraph [0038]) an optical bubble sensor, wherein the sensor included an illumination device (1) and a light detector (2), wherein an overlap in space between the illumination zone (4) of the illumination device and the vision zone (5) of the light detector defined the zone for detection of bubbles present in a liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added an optical bubble sensor, such as the bubble sensor of Castro, to the system of Matsui et al because Sato et al teach that an optical bubble sensor was capable of determining the rate of production of hydrogen gas by an electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 15, the sensor for detecting the presence of bubbles taught by Sato et al was utilized during operation of the electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 16, the sensor suggested by Sato et al and Castro monitored bubbles in the caustic flow.
Regarding claims 17-20, the optical bubble sensor of Castro included an illumination zone (4), which necessarily required a light-transparent wall that confined the liquid. The process involved carrying out a visual inspection by at least one camera (2) having a vision zone (5) that overlapped the illuminated zone (4) and could be placed (see fig. 3) on opposing sides of the liquid.
Regarding claim 21, the optical bubble sensor of Castro utilized image analysis (“logical comparison module 12”, see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 23, Sato et al teach (see paragraph [0028]) using the rate of hydrogen gas generation determined by the optical bubble sensor as an input to the control unit 60 to perform an evaluation of the electrolyzer system.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have operated the optical bubbles sensor continuously and repeatedly to provide real time information about the rate of hydrogen gas production to the control unit.
Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a display to alert a user of the process of Matsui et al as modified by Sato of the current state of the electrolyzer, including the caustic concentration and instantaneous hydrogen gas production rate.
Regarding claim 28, Matsui et al teach (see fig. 2, paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0039]-[0043]) an electrolyzer system comprising an alkaline electrolyzer (10) that produces hydrogen (22), an alkaline lye circulation circuit (constituting cathode chamber 13, pipe 31, tank 30, pipe 51, tank 50, pipe 71 and pump 70), a device (110) for refilling the circuit with alkaline lye, a controller (112b) to control the system for operation and a detection device (111) configured to detect lye concentration. The controller causes the device 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 G. The presence of the “and/or” in line 8, 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. Alternative to the anticipation rejection grounds above, Matsui 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”), but fails to teach the second clause (“by a visual inspection device configured to inspect the lye in at least an inspection zone of the circuit”).
Sato et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraph [0028]) that an optical bubble sensor may be provided in an electrolysis system for producing hydrogen gas for the purpose of calculating the rate of hydrogen generation by the electrolyzer.
Castro teaches (see abstract, figs. 1-3, paragraph [0038]) an optical bubble sensor, wherein the sensor included an illumination device (1) and a light detector (2), wherein an overlap in space between the illumination zone (4) of the illumination device and the vision zone (5) of the light detector defined the zone for detection of bubbles present in a liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added an optical bubble sensor, such as the bubble sensor of Castro, to the system of Matsui et al because Sato et al teach that an optical bubble sensor was capable of determining the rate of production of hydrogen gas by an electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 29, Castro shows an illumination device as claimed.
Regarding claim 30, the optical bubble sensor of Castro included software to analyze the optical information to determine the amount of bubbles present in the liquid.
Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the inspection zone for the optical bubble sensor as a device that did not increase an explosion risk since the electrolyzer system produced hydrogen gas which was prone to explosions.
Regarding claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added an inspection glass (i.e. an optically transparent material) at the inspection zone to permit the optical bubble sensor to work while still confining the gas-liquid mixture within a pipe.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Matsui et al (JP 2019-178356) in view of Phelan et al (“Measurement of Caustic and Caustic Brine Solutions by Spectroscopic Detection of the Hydroxide Ion in the Near-Infrared Region, 700-1150 nm”) OR (b) Matsui et al (JP 2019-178356) in view of Sato et al (US 2015/0090602) and Castro (US 2006/0061763), each as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Nagino (US 2021/0216974).
Matsui et al, in view of either Phelan et al or the combination of Sato et al and Castro, 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 Matsui 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