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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim fails to end in a period. 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 1-3, 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manabe (WO 2020/196835 A1, with reference to US 2022/0154356 A1 as an English language equivalent thereof).
Manabe teaches (see fig. 1) a water electrolysis device comprising an electrolytic cell (1) including a positive electrode chamber and a negative electrode chamber partitioned by a partition wall (membrane 4), a positive electrode circulation line (16+18), a negative electrode circulation line (9+11), and an electrolyte correction unit (common circulation tank 5).
The electrolyte correction unit (5) was a reservoir for both the positive electrode chamber electrolyte and the negative electrode chamber electrolyte and which was divided by a diaphragm (32) (see paragraph [0044]).
Note that the claim language must be examined by the Office based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Thus, while to disclosure of the instant invention shows the diaphragm separating a positive electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir from a negative electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir, no such limitation is presented in the claim language. Further, recitation of “a positive electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir and a negative electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir” does not require the two reservoirs to be separate chambers, and an imaginary division of the reservoir of Manabe can be made along the center line, and referring to one half as the “positive electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir” and the other half as the “negative electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir”.
Regarding claim 2, Manabe shows (see fig. 1) providing a gas-liquid separator (17) on the positive electrode circulation line and a gas-liquid separator (10) on the negative electrode circulation line.
Regarding claim 3, Manabe shows (see fig. 1) that the gas-liquid separators were downstream (i.e. provided “at a rear end of”) the electrode chambers and upstream (i.e. provided “at a front end of”) the reservoir of the electrolyte correction unit.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Manabe teaches (see paragraph [0037]) that the diaphragm (32) was a porous membrane, permeable to the electrolyte but impermeable to gas.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Manabe shows (see fig. 1, paragraph [0043]) a water supply pipe and water supply pump (23) configured to supply (alkaline) water to the negative electrode chamber electrolyte reservoir of the electrolyte correction unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-11 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.
Additionally, the Office suggests amending line 7 of claim 1 as follows: “are separated from each other by a diaphragm”. This would align the claim scope with the disclosure and would overcome the rejection grounds set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is considered to include Manabe as utilized in the rejection grounds above as well as Tanaka et al (US 2021/0262101 A1). With respect to claim 4, Manabe and Tanaka et al require sending the anolyte and catholyte to gas-liquid separators before sending the anolyte and catholyte to the reservoir. Reversal of the order of the reservoir and the gas-liquid separators would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since that would have caused dangerous mixing of the hydrogen and oxygen gases in the reservoir and the gas-liquid separators would not have been able to perform their functions of recovery of hydrogen gas or oxygen gas. With respect to claim 7, neither of these references teach a diaphragm in the reservoir that was a cation exchange membrane or an anion exchange membrane and instead required the diaphragm to be permeable to the entire electrolyte. With respect to claims 8-11, neither of these references can suggest providing a plurality of diaphragms wherein plural electrolyte reservoirs are alternately disposed. Further, the suggested amendment in the preceding paragraph would also be allowable since it would specifically exclude the interpretation of claim 1 utilized to reject the claim as anticipated by Manabe, and modification of Manabe to arrive at the proposed claim scope would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kovarsky is cited for showing the use of alternating chambers of an electrodialysis cell for causing correction of an electrolyte; however, only one solution exits the electrolysis cell to be treated and the solution on the opposing side of the electrodialysis membrane is not used in the electrolysis cell. Harada is cited for showing an arrangement where fluid lines are connected to a pressure controller to each of the gas liquid separators; however, mass transfer is prevented between the two sides. Hahn is cited for fig. 3; however, elements 6 and 6’ are two sides of a heat exchanger and no mass transfer occurs between the two solutions. Note that the claim term “diaphragm” when read in light of the instant specification would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as requiring mass transfer to occur between the anolyte and catholyte.
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