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 with traverse of Species B, encompassing claims 8-14, in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination without election would not present an undue search burden as all the claims are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are divergent subject matter as shown by their difference in classification, i.e. Species A does not require a PEM electrolyzer. Additionally, different inventive concepts require different search queries and considerations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO/2022181875) in view of Ma et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0220185).
Regarding claim 8, Moon discloses a deionization system of an electrolyzer comprising:
an electrolyzer cell (420) including a membrane (106) and catalyst layers (112, 116; paragraphs 10-11, 27-28, 79);
a water source releasing a water stream (S1) including metal ions and having a neutral pH (pure water is supplied via line S1, and a circulation line is provided to remove radicals and metal ions from the water circulation process – paragraphs 28, 39-40);
a source of a deionization additive (600) downstream from the water stream (S1) and upstream from the electrolyzer cell (420), the deionization additive being released into the water stream to chemically interact with the metal ions present in the water stream to form a neutral precipitate (the chelating agent/additive removes metal ion impurities from the water – paragraphs 39-40, 47);
Moon fails to teach wherein the additive includes a weak acid, and a controller programmed to add a predetermined amount of the additive to the water stream.
Ma discloses an electrolyzer system comprising a water additives source (123) that may be controlled to adjust the composition of the feed stream. Acidic additives may be used to facilitate acid-base reactions by acting as catalysts. The additives source (123) may be configured to adjust the concentration of one or more solutes such as one or more salts in the aqueous feed stream (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 264-266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the amount of the additive being added to the water stream of Moon, as taught by Ma, in order to ensure an optimal concentration of the aqueous feed stream.
Regarding claim 9, the system of Moon includes water quality sensors (paragraph 28). The control system of Ma also comprises a plurality of sensors within the electrolyzer (paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 10, the controller of Ma is programmed to add the predetermined amount continuously (paragraphs 84, 88, 93, 95).
Regarding claim 11, the metal ions of Moon are iron ions (paragraphs 42, 59-65).
Regarding claim 12, Ma further teaches wherein the predetermined amount is based on ion concentration in the water stream (paragraphs 88, 99).
Regarding claim 13, the system of Moon includes water quality sensors (paragraph 28). The control system of Ma also comprises a plurality of sensors within the system (paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 14, the membrane of Moon is a polymer electrolyte membrane (paragraphs 7, 66, 83).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794