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 .
Claims 18-39 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 33-35 in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-32 and 36-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 33-35 are under consideration in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-35 are 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Claim 33 is indefinite because it makes dependent reference to currently withdrawn method claim 18. For examination purposes, as claim 33 is an apparatus claim, this limitation will be interpreted as the apparatus of claim 33 having the structure capable of performing the method of claim 18 (see MPEP § 2114).
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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.
Claim 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (WO 2005028716 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Ye discloses an electrolysis arrangement (see e.g. Page 1, lines 9-11, and Page 4, lines 4-5, system for monitoring electrochemical cell stack such as electrolytic cell stack), comprising: an electrolyzer having at least one cell stacked within a cell stack (see e.g. Fig. 5, electrolytic cell stack 200 with plurality of electrolytic cells 210; Page 12, lines 2-6); and a device configured for direct temperature measurement during operation of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Fig. 5, thermocouples 253/273 and temperature switches 255/275 provided in plate 300 of electrolytic cell stack 200 to directly sense temperature at given point during oxygen and hydrogen production; Page 8, lines 18-23, Page 12, lines 15-18 and 22-23, and Page 13, lines 2-14).
The operation being “in accordance with the method according to claim 18” is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Ye discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed electrolysis arrangement as stated above, and would therefore be capable of operation in accordance with the method. Regardless, Ye further discloses the electrolyzer being operated such that the temperature in at least one location is directly measured during operation (see e.g. Fig. 5, thermocouples 253/273 and temperature switches 255/275 provided in plate 300 of electrolytic cell stack 200 to directly sense temperature at given point during oxygen and hydrogen production; Page 8, lines 18-23, Page 12, lines 15-18 and 22-23, and Page 13, lines 2-14), as required by claim 18.
Regarding claim 34, Ye discloses at least one sensor having a sensitive element inside the cell stack (see e.g. Figs. 5-9, thermocouples 253/273 inserted into ports 353/373 and thermal switches 255/275 inserted into ports 355/375 of end plate 300 of cell stack 200; Page 12, lines 15-18 and 22-23, Page 15, lines 26-30, and Page 16, lines 11-16).
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pernice et al. (WO 2013024041 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Pernice discloses an electrolysis arrangement (see e.g. Page 1, lines 6-9, apparatus for electrolytic process), comprising: an electrolyzer having at least one cell stacked within a cell stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolytic cell 1 which may be part of an electrolyzer apparatus of several connected, i.e. stacked, electrolytic cells; Page 3, lines 6-8, and Page 8, line 35-Page 9, line 10); and a device configured for indirect temperature measurement during operation of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Fig. 1, thermographic camera 10 providing visualization, i.e. indirect measurement, of temperature of a region or regions of the apparatus while running; Page 3, lines 8-9 and 11-23, and Page 9, lines 13-16).
The operation being “in accordance with the method according to claim 18” is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Pernice discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed electrolysis arrangement as stated above, and would therefore be capable of operation in accordance with the method. Regardless, Pernice further discloses the electrolyzer being operated such that the temperature in at least one location is indirectly measured during operation (see e.g. Fig. 1, thermographic camera 10 providing visualization, i.e. indirect measurement, of temperature of a region or regions of the apparatus while running; Page 3, lines 8-9 and 11-23, and Page 9, lines 13-16), as required by claim 18.
Regarding claim 35, Pernice discloses at least one thermal camera arranged outside the cell stack so that the cell stack is at least partially in a field of view of the camera (see e.g. Fig. 1, thermographic camera 10 providing visualization of temperature of a region or regions of the cell(s) of the apparatus; Page 3, lines 8-9 and 11-14, and Page 9, lines 15-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Atreya et al. (U.S. 2009/0263681) discloses a method of operating an electrolyzer stack, wherein temperature of the electrolyzer is monitored using a temperature sensor and a voltage applied to the stack is varied when the monitored temperature reaches an upper or lower threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights