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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejections are maintained. See response to arguments below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a control device for controlling the voltage supply of the DC current source, configured to regulate a supply voltage to a predetermined value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited controller is merely configured to send and receive signal in a conventional way. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the controller is not required to perform any particular action or sequence in order to achieve certain result. For example, the control device (controller) does not need to be connected to an electrochemical cell. The claimed controller is recited at a high level of generality (generic computer) and the claims do not provide any guidance as to how the programming (configuration) of the controller would tie the functions together into a specific relationship of the inventive concept. In other words, the controller is not connected to an electrolytic cell, but merely is programed to send two output signals that would be capable of generating voltage at an electrolysis cell, one operating phase signal, and a resting phase signal. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the invention into a practical application, furthermore, a controller configured to send signals in conventional way. See MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carey (US 2013/0259798 A1).
Considering claims 1-3, 11-14, Carey discloses an electrochemical gas generator cell control device for actuating an electrochemical gas generator cell, wherein the control device is configured: to output an operating phase control signal, for an operating phase of the electrochemical gas generator cell, which brings about a generation of an electrical operating voltage at the electrochemical gas generator cell, wherein the electrical operating voltage is at least equal to an electrolysis voltage (1.4 V) of the electrochemical gas generator cell [0064]; to output a rest phase control signal, for a rest phase of the electrochemical gas generator cell, which brings about a generation of an electrical bias voltage at the electrochemical gas generator cell, wherein the electrical bias voltage (1.0 V) is lower than the electrolysis voltage [0064]; and to set the electrical bias voltage at at least 60% of the electrolysis voltage 1:1.4 = 71%.
With respect to limitation pertaining to the effects of the voltage on the electrochemical gas generator cell, the limitations are merely intended use, and are met when the controller signals will be able to result in the claimed use. In the instant case voltages of 1.4 V and 1.0 V are able to perform gas generation and idle state from for example water, as minimum theoretical voltage required for water electrolysis is 1.23 volts (well-known in the art). Furthermore, the voltage of electrolysis may depend on many conditions such as temperature, pressure, electrolyte used and catalysts.
Considering claims 5 and 16, Carey is lower by 400 mV [0064].
Considering claim 10, Carey discloses measuring device for measuring an electrical voltage present at the electrochemical gas generator cell [0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed control device is not an abstract idea, the output signals of the control device is a practical application, and an improvement in the control of gas generation technology. The argument is not persuasive, because the claimed controller is recited at a high level of generality (generic computer) and the claims do not provide any guidance as to how the programming (configuration) of the controller would tie the functions together into a specific relationship of the inventive concept. In other words, the controller is not connected to an electrolytic cell, but merely is programed to send two output signals that would be capable of generating voltage at an electrolysis cell, one operating phase signal, and a resting phase signal. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the invention into a practical application, furthermore, a controller configured to send signals in conventional way. The amendment merely adds intended use, which does not pose any particular structural requirement on the claimed control device.
With respect to the arguments about prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Carey fails to teach the claimed control device, because Carey teaches a controller outputting a first positive voltage a second positive voltage and a negative voltage and a third positive voltage. This argument is not persuasive, because the claim does not require any parameters that would further define the requirement of the two claimed signals. The claim merely requires two voltage signals that can result one in gas generation and the second in a rest phase. There is no other requirement posed on the signals. The electrolyzed substance is not required, the generated gas is not required. The voltage of electrolysis may depend on many conditions such as temperature, pressure, electrolyte used and catalysts. Furthermore, the claim language is open so more signals are permitted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794