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.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Andrews et al (US 2002/0070123 A1).
Andrews et al teach (see fig. 2, reproduced herein) an electrolysis system including an electrolytic cell (156) comprising an anode chamber (22) and a cathode chamber (24) separated by a partition (membrane 14), an anode-side gas-liquid separator (142) configured to communicate with the anode chamber, a cathode-side gas-liquid separation (144) configured to communicate with the cathode chamber, an anode-side circulation line (100+94) configured to supply an electrolyte discharged from the anode chamber to the anode-side gas-liquid separator and supply the electrolyte discharged from the anode-side gas-liquid separator to the anode chamber, a cathode-side circulation line (unnumbered, pipe connecting cathode chamber 24 to cathode-side gas-liquid separator 144 and pipe connecting cathode-side gas-liquid separator 144 to cathode chamber 24 via pump 36) configured to supply an electrolyte discharged from the cathode chamber to the cathode-side gas-liquid separator and supply the electrolyte discharged from the cathode-side gas-liquid separator to the cathode chamber, and a diaphragm (152 and/or 154) provided in the anode-side gas-liquid separator and the cathode-side gas-liquid separator, each configured to have an internal flow path (170).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Andrews et al teach (see paragraphs [0081]-[0082]) that the diaphragm (separators 152 and 154) were hydrophobic membranes. The hydrophobic property of these membranes meant that the gas permeability was higher than the liquid permeability of the membranes. The gas present in the electrolyte permeates into the internal flow path. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Andrews et al teach (see paragraph [0041]) that the hydrophobic membranes were porous and that polytetrafluoroethylene was a suitable material.
Regarding claim 6, Andrews et al show the diaphragms having a flat plate shape.
Regarding claim 8, Andrews et al included a pressure controller (valves 172 and 172a or valves 174 and 174a) configured to limit the difference in pressure between the internal flow path (170) and the interior of the gas-liquid separator to prevent an excessive pressure difference that might damage the hydrophobic membrane.
Regarding claim 10, Andrews et al teach (see paragraph [0053]) that the gas passed into the internal flow path had a pressure lower than the pressure of the water in the gas-liquid separator.
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 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al (US 2002/0070123 A1) in view of Liu et al (US 2015/0000520 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews et al fail to teach the diaphragm being in the shape of a coil.
Liu et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1A, paragraph [0050]) providing a coil (helical) diaphragm tube for removing a dissolved gas from a liquid, wherein the gas enters into the internal flow path of the tube for removal. Liu et al also teach (see paragraph [0009]) that the helical diaphragm tube allowed for economical degassing of high flow rate liquids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the coiled diaphragm tube of Liu et al in place of the flat sheet diaphragm of Andrews et al with a reasonable expectation of success because Liu et al teach that the coiled diaphragm tube provided economical degassing of high flow rate liquids, which would have been advantageous in the process of Andrews et al for removing as much of the gases from the circulating electrolyte for recovery.
Regarding claim 9, Andrews et al fail to teach the pressure controller actively reducing the pressure of the internal flow path.
Liu et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1A, paragraph [0012]) providing a vacuum source attached to the internal flow path of a diaphragm tube which was effective for removing a dissolved gas from a liquid, wherein the gas enters into the internal flow path of the tube for removal. Liu et al also teach (see paragraph [0033]) that the vacuum pressure enhanced the degassing of the liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a vacuum source to the pressure controller of Andrews et al as suggested by Liu et al for the purpose of enhancing the degassing of the liquid.
Regarding claim 12, Andrews et al fail to teach the providing air to the internal flow path.
Liu et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1A, paragraph [0034]) providing a sweep gas, such as air, to the internal flow path of a diaphragm tube which was effective for removing a dissolved gas from a liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a flow of air to the internal flow path of Andrews et al as a sweep gas as suggested by Liu et al for the purpose of enhancing the degassing of the liquid.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al (US 2002/0070123 A1) in view of Yang (US 2010/0236921 A1).
Andrews et al do not teach a third gas-liquid separator attached to the internal flow path.
Yang teaches (see fig. 7, paragraphs [0079]-[0080]) that multiple stages of gas-liquid separators may be connected in series to produce an enhanced drying effect on the hydrogen and oxygen gases produced by an electrolysis cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added an additional gas-liquid separator to the system of Andrews et al for drying the gas recovered from the internal flow path because Yang teaches that multiple stages of gas-liquid separators were known in the prior art for effecting an enhanced drying of the gases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (Claim 11) absent the blueprint of the instant specification, there was no reasonable teaching or suggestion in the prior art to modify the arrangements suggested by Andrews et al and Liu et al to utilize a gas leaving the gas-liquid separator as the sweep gas suggested by Liu et al; and,(Claim 14) absent the blueprint of the instant specification, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fed the gas which has been removed from the liquid through the diaphragm back into the liquid.
In addition, these claims were “rejected” by other patent offices. In reviewing the rejection grounds set forth by the other offices, several claimed features do not appear to be taught by the references as alleged. Sato et al (JP 2007-273167A) do not teach supplying the gas present in the gas phase region of the gas-liquid separator to the internal flow path of the diaphragm. Manabe (CA 3134812 A1, equivalent to US 2022/0154356 A1) also does not teach supplying the gas present in the gas phase region of the gas-liquid separator to the internal flow path of the diaphragm. Further, with respect to claim 14, while the EPO asserted that it was known to feed a gas into the liquid phase of a gas-liquid separator to create bubbles to enhance phase separation, there is no teaching or suggestion of using the gas recovered from the gas-liquid separator as the gas fed for bubble generation. Such suggestion only comes from the instant disclosure and would thus requires improper hindsight to add into the systems of the prior art
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