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 17-42 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 27-42 in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 27-42 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 31-32 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.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 27-29 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abouatallah (U.S. 2004/0245100).
Regarding claim 27, Abouatallah discloses an electrolyzer arrangement, comprising: an electrolyzer of a cell-stack type (see e.g. Paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0067, testing apparatus for stack 10 of electrochemical cells such as electrolyzer cells); a measuring device for measuring cell voltage of at least two different cells of a cell stack (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, voltage monitor 40 measuring individual voltages of each individual cell 60 of stack 10; Paragraph 0045 and Paragraph 0048, lines 6-8);
a wiring that connects electrodes of the cells for a connection with the measuring device (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, wires of wiring harness 47 for connection from electrode plates to voltage monitor 40; Paragraph 0044); and
an automated switch that channels measuring signals allocated for measurement for different cells in a time-shifted manner with respect to reach other via a common wiring path segment (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, multiplexer of voltage monitor 40 which accesses signals from each of the cells one at a time and outputs to controller for processing via common path; Paragraphs 0043 and 0045).
Regarding claim 28, Abouatallah discloses the wiring being connected to a plurality of the electrodes (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, wires connected at plurality of cell contacts 45 to anode or cathode plates; Paragraph 0042, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0044, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 29, Abouatallah discloses the wiring being connected to all the electrodes (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 4-6, Paragraph 0044, lines 1-7, wiring for voltage reading at the two terminals, i.e. anode and cathode plates, of each cell, i.e. all the electrode plates).
Regarding claim 33, Abouatallah discloses the switch being an electronic multiplexer (see e.g. Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 34, Abouatallah discloses the switch being arranged in an encapsulated surrounding at a first location (see e.g. Fig. 3, voltage monitor 40, including multiplexer thereof, provided in system enclosure 100; Paragraph 0062, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 35, Abouatallah discloses the wiring between the encapsulated surrounding and the electrolyzer being protected (see e.g. Fig. 3, wires provided in, and thereby protected by, wiring harness 47 extending from enclosure 100 to stack 10; Paragraph 0044, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0062, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 36, Abouatallah discloses at least part of the common wiring path being protected (see e.g. Fig. 3, common path from multiplexer to controller of voltage monitor 40 all within system enclosure 100; Paragraph 0043 and Paragraph 0062, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 37, Abouatallah discloses the common wiring path being connected to an input of the measuring device (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 6-10, common output from multiplexer sent to input of controller of voltage monitor for processing).
Regarding claim 38, Abouatallah discloses the measuring device being arranged at a second location (see e.g. Fig. 3, voltage calculations performed by separate computer 80; Paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 39, Abouatallah discloses the second location being more distant from the electrolyzer than the first location (see e.g. Fig. 3, computer 80 shown further from stack 10 than voltage monitor 40 and multiplexer thereof; Paragraph 0062, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 40, Abouatallah discloses the measuring device being a programmable logic controller (see e.g. Fig. 3, computer 80 including programmable controller for monitoring/calculating voltages; Paragraph 0065, lines 1-8, and Paragraph 0066).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abouatallah in view of Morand et al. (FR 2960559 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 30, Abouatallah teaches all the elements of the electrolyzer arrangement of claim 29 as stated above. Abouatallah does not explicitly teach the wiring being connected to bipolar-plates arranged between respective two neighbored cell frames, but does teach that other suitable contact means may be employed to connect the cells of the stack to the voltage monitor (see e.g. Paragraph 0044, lines 9-12).
Morand teaches water electrolysis equipment (see e.g. Page 1, 1st paragraph, lines 1-2) comprising a module, i.e. stack, of multiple neighboring cells each having a cell frame with a bipolar plate provided therebetween (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, electrolyzer module 48 comprising individual cells each with outer wall, i.e. frame 30, separated by bipolar plates 12 and 14 or 52 and 54; Page 9, paragraph starting “Figure 1”, lines 1-2 and 8-10, and bottom paragraph, lines 1-2), wherein a voltage of each of the cells can be measured via conductors connected from each of the bipolar plates to a multiplexer in communication with an autopilot for recording/processing data (see e.g. Fig. 2, conductors 55 connecting bipolar plates 52 and 54 to multiplexer 66 for voltage recording at autopilot 70; Page 4, bottom paragraph, lines 1-6, Page 5, lines 3-7, and Page 10, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyzer arrangement of Abouatallah to have the wiring connected to bipolar plates arranged between neighbored cell frames as taught by Morand as an alternate suitable means of making electrical contact from cells of an electrolyzer stack to a switching multiplexer for individual cell voltage measurements. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious. Further, MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abouatallah in view of Minamiura et al. (JP S5130009 B1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claims 31-32, Abouatallah teaches all the elements of the electrolyzer arrangement of claim 27 as stated above. Abouatallah does not explicitly teach the switch being a mechanical switch, in particular a rotary switch, instead teaching it being a multiplexer (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 1-9).
Minamiura teaches an electrolytic device comprising a plurality of parallel electrolytic cells (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolytic cells A1-An; Page 1, under [0003], lines 6-7) wherein a voltage of each cell can be detected sequentially by a step switch, equivalent to a mechanical rotary switch, in communication with busbars, i.e. electrodes, of each cell (see e.g. Fig. 1, voltage from busbars B detected sequentially via step switch E; Page 2, lines 13-15 and 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switch of Abouatallah to comprise a stepped, i.e. rotary, switch instead of a multiplexer as taught by Minamiura as an alternate suitable means of switching between different electrode connections to a group of electrolytic cells for sequential individual cell voltage measurement. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abouatallah in view of Busing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,035,771), and further in view of Hinatsu et al. (U.S. 2010/0012503).
Regarding claim 41, Abouatallah teaches all the elements of the electrolyzer arrangement of claim 34 as stated above. Abouatallah does not explicitly teach the wiring comprising an electric connection from an end plate of the electrolyzer to the measuring device bypassing the switch, but does teach the electrolyzer stack comprising endplates at which voltage is supplied (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, voltage supplied from voltage supply 20 to end terminals, i.e. at endplates, of stack 10; Paragraphs 0048, lines 1-6, and Paragraph 0067).
Busing teaches a process for remote transmission and indication of measured values of a plurality of electrolysis cells (see e.g. Abstract), wherein measured values, such as cell voltage, are sequentially retrieved from the cells via a multiplexer which transmits the values to a separate common monitoring facility (see e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4, measuring inputs 5 from electrolysis cells to multiplexer 4 which eventually leads to output of measured voltage 22 to measured value distributor 21 and stores 23 of common control room; Col. 1, lines 6-10, Col. 3, lines 63-66, Col. 4, lines 6-13 and 60-63, and Col. 5, lines 22-28), and the cell voltage can be take in comparison to a fixed grounded reference potential connected to the monitoring facility that does not go through, i.e. bypasses, the switch (see e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4, conductors transmitting measured value to section 3/distributor 21 connected at one end to ground which does not go through the multiplexer 4; Col. 5, lines 25-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyzer arrangement of Abouatallah to have a grounded electrical connection, such as from an end plate of the electrolyzer, connected to the measuring device bypassing the switch as taught by Busing to provide a preferable fixed reference potential with which to measure the cell voltages. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Abouatallah as modified by Busing above does not teach the electric connection being from an end plate, but does teach it being grounded (see e.g. Busing Col. 5, lines 25-42).
Hinatsu teaches an electrolyser module (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a grounded connection can be made to an end plate of the electrolyser module (see e.g. Figs. 5(i), 5(iii), 5(v) and 5(vi), electrical ground connection to negative power connection at end pressure plate 11a and/or 11b; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0073, lines 14-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric connection of modified Abouatallah to be made from an end plate of the electrolyzer as taught by Hinatsu as an exemplary suitable grounded electrical connection point within an electrolyzer arrangement. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 42, modified Abouatallah teaches the electric connection being at least partly protected and crossing the encapsulated surrounding (see e.g. Abouatallah Fig. 3, voltage supply 20 and voltage monitor 40, including controller for processing, being provided within enclosure 100, thereby requiring an electrical connection thereto to from stack 10 to cross into the enclosure and be protected; Paragraph 0043, lines 1-10, and Paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freeman et al. (U.S. 2002/0196025) discloses an apparatus and method for sequentially measuring voltages across individual cells of multi-cell electrochemical devices such as electrolyzers via a switching network such as a multiplexer in communication with a CPU.
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