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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species B, reading on claims 16-20, in the reply filed on 27 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0131407 A1 Khy et al. (Khy) in view of US 2022/0062794 A1 to Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) and further in view of WO 2020/209036 A1 to Iiyama et al. (Iiyama).
As to claims 16 and 17, Khy teaches an electrolysis system comprising an electrolyzer cell (2) configured to convert water into oxygen gas and hydrogen gas using electrolysis, wherein the electrolyzer cell outputs a solution (26) comprising water and entrained, liquified, hydrogen gas; and a degasser (18) operatively coupled downstream of the electrolyzer (2) to receive the water solution therefrom and the degasser (18) output degassed water for recirculation to the electrolyzer cell (2) through, at least, a catholyte cooler considered a tank for at least temporarily storing the water (Paragraphs 0098-0104; Figure 1). However, Khy fails to teach that the degasser is a membrane degasser.
However, Yamamoto also discusses degassing a water stream and teaches an improved degasser in terms of increased size and flow rate without performance deterioration comprising a membrane contactor comprising a central tube forming a water flow path (10) in a first direction, from bottom (6A) to top (6B), the central tube surrounded by a plurality of elongated membrane members extending parallel to the tube such that the gas to be removed flows through the plurality of elongated membrane members (Paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0005, 0054, 0055, 0061 and 0062; Figures 4 and 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the membrane degasser of Yamamoto for the degasser of Khy in order to allow for an improved degasser in terms of increased size and flow rate without performance deterioration as taught by Yamamoto.
However, Yamamoto fails to further teach that the membrane contactor is provided with a sweep gas through the plurality of membrane members, instead teaching a vacuum.
However, Iiyama also discusses membrane degassers and teaches that a sweep gas, supplied to the area collector the degassed gas in a countercurrent fashion, improves the degassing performance (Paragraphs 0026 and 0036; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vacuum of the membrane degasser of Yamamoto with a countercurrent sweep gas flow as in Iiyama in order to improve the degassing performance as taught by Iiyama. Thus in combination an apparatus performing the functional language of “wherein the water solution flows through an interior of the membrane degasser in a first direction and a strip gas flows through the interior of the membrane degasser in a second direction, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction such that the strip gas separates and removes the liquefied hydrogen gas from the water solution to generate a degassed water” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 18, the combination of Khy, Yamamoto and Iiyama teaches the apparatus of claim 17. Khy further teaches that the apparatus comprises a gas separator tank (16) operatively coupled between the electrolyzer cell (2) and the membrane degasser (18), the gas separator tank (16) configured to receive the water solution output by the electrolyzer cell (2) and remove at least a portion of the liquefied hydrogen gas from the water solution to generate a reduced gas water solution (Paragraphs 0101 and 0102; Figure 1).
As to claim 19, the combination of Khy, Yamamoto and Iiyama teaches the apparatus of claim 18. The apparatus of the combination is capable of performing the functional language of “wherein the reduced gas water solution incudes less than 1 percent of liquified hydrogen gas” based upon, at least, the starting gas composition after exiting the electrolysis cell, and operating conditions such as the flow rates through the membrane degasser (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 20, the combination of Khy, Yamamoto and Iiyama teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Khy further teaches that the apparats comprises a pump (14) for directing water through the system (Paragraph 0098; Figure 1). Khy fails to specifically teach that the pump is operatively connected between the pump and the electrolysis cell; however, the location of the pump is a mere rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights