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 with traverse of Group I to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the Examiner for examining the groups. This is not found persuasive because apparatus claims and method claims require different search considerations and queries. An apparatus is structure of the invention. The method is a series of steps. The apparatus is a much broader invention, thus requiring looking in different areas (like fuel cells or reversable electrochemical cells) such that the structure of the invention is determined. It is also noted that in amendments, the method and apparatus can significantly diverge. This leads to a burden on the Examiner in examining the application.
It is further noted that the Examiner did in fact give different classification, see the restriction dated 2/3/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,080,242 of Bourgeois.
As to claim 1, Bourgeois teaches of an electrolyzer stack (Bourgeois, Abstract) comprising:
a cell block comprising a plurality of cells configured to receive and convert water to form a hydrogen product stream (Bourgeois, col 3 lines 35-46, col 4 lines 14-34, col 5 lines 32-51 and Figs. 1 and 2); and
a bladder configured for fluid communication with the hydrogen product stream and operatively disposed to apply a force to the cell block when pressurized by a portion of the hydrogen product stream (Bourgeois, col 6 line 54 thru col 7 line 23 and Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 2, there is an electrolyzer stack comprising a cell block such that electrolyzer is configured to receive water and generate hydrogen and oxygen gases. The system is shown that the oxygen gas is then routed from outlet pipe through conduit (92) to a bladder (94) which is inflated due to the oxygen pressure such that a force from the pressure is applied to the cell block. Bourgeois states that instead of the oxygen being used, the hydrogen stream can alternatively be used.
As to claim 2, Bourgeois teaches that the system further comprises a side stream line providing fluid communication between the hydrogen product stream and the bladder (Bourgeois, col 7 lines 5-9 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 13, Bourgeois teaches of an electrolyzer system (Bourgeois, Abstract) comprising:
a water source (Bourgeois, col 3 lines 35-45 and Fig. 1);
a power source (Bourgeois, col 1 lines 19-25, col 4 lines 35-46); and
an electrolyzer stack (Bourgeois, Abstract) comprising:
a cell block comprising a plurality of cells configured to receive and convert water to form a hydrogen product stream (Bourgeois, col 3 lines 35-46, col 4 lines 14-34, col 5 lines 32-51 and Figs. 1 and 2); and
a bladder configured for fluid communication with the hydrogen product stream and operatively disposed to apply a force to the cell block when pressurized by a portion of the hydrogen product stream (Bourgeois, col 6 line 54 thru col 7 line 23 and Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 2, there is an electrolyzer stack comprising a cell block such that electrolyzer is configured to receive water and generate hydrogen and oxygen gases. The system is shown that the oxygen gas is then routed from outlet pipe through conduit (92) to a bladder (94) which is inflated due to the oxygen pressure such that a force from the pressure is applied to the cell block. Bourgeois states that instead of the oxygen being used, the hydrogen stream can alternatively be used.
Additionally noted, a voltage is applied during electrolysis, thus a power source to provide the electrical energy to split the water is provided. Water is supplied by the pump to the stack, thus a water source for the electrolyte solution is present.
As to claim 15, Bourgeois teaches a recycle stream line with the electrolyzer stack and water source (Bourgeois, col 3 lines 35-63 and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
542
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0417868 of Smith et al in view of US 2015/001067 of Mantai et al.
As to claims 1 and 2, Smith teaches of an electrolyzer stack (Smith, [0031] and Fig. 3) comprising:
a cell block comprising a plurality of cells configured to receive and convert water to form a hydrogen product stream (Smith, [0031] and Fig. 3); and
a force generating mechanism such as a bladder is operatively disposed to apply a force to the cell block (Smith, [0041] – [0042], [0045] – [0047] and Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
812
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Smith does not teach the force generating mechanism is configured for fluid communication with the hydrogen product stream to apply the force to the cell block.
Mantai teaches of an electrolyzer that includes a pressing force to the system (Mantai, Abstract).
Mantai teaches that the system includes a pressing body (32, unlabeled in Figure, but seals 34 are on it) to press on the cell block within an end plate of the stack such that the pressing force is controlled directly by the produced hydrogen gas pressure to allow for optimal efficiency of the system by allowing targeted and controlled pressing force being applied to the stack (Mantai, [0005] – [0010], [0023] – [0026] and Figure). Mantai shows the system uses a side stream line to provide the hydrogen stream to the force generating mechanism (Mantai, Figure).
PNG
media_image5.png
726
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith as per Mantai so as to control the pressing mechanism in relation to the gas pressure produced to allow for a dynamic control of the pressing force which permits optimal operation of the electrolysis stack.
As to claim 3, Smith in view of Mantai teaches to the system of claim 1.
Smith teaches the force generating mechanism (i.e. bladder) presses on a compression plate (i.e. top plate of compression housing) (Smith, [0045] – [0046]).
Mantai additionally teaches of a compression plate to apply force to the cell stack (Mantai, [0026] and Figure).
As to claims 4-6, Smith in view of Mantai teaches to the system of claim 3.
Smith does not teach the end plate configuration in relation to the bladder, however, Smith does teach the use of rods to produce a static compression (Smith, [0039]).
Mantai teaches of an electrolyzer that includes a pressing force to the system (Mantai, Abstract).
Mantai teaches that the compression plate is within the cell stack such that the stack is enclosed by end plates (6/8) and held together by tie rods to apply an initial (static) pressing force to keep the cell stack clamped together (Mantai, [0025]).
As Smith states the force generating mechanism applies compression to the compression plate (Smith, Fig. 4), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as per Mantai place the bladder adjacent to the compression plate within the end plates of the cell to allow for active control of the pressing force while holding the cell stack together between the end plates.
As to claim 8, Smith in view of Mantai teaches to the system of claim 5.
Smith teaches the plurality of cells include a plurality of seals to define the active zone of the cell block (Smith, [0034]).
Smith does not specifically teach the seals in relation to the compression plate and end plates.
Mantai teaches of an electrolyzer that includes a pressing force to the system (Mantai, Abstract).
Mantai teaches that the system utilizes seals between the compression plate and second end plate to delineate the active zone of the cell block such that the active control of the force exerted effectively seals the system by providing the appropriate pressing force (Mantai, [0010], [0023] – [0026] and Figure).
As to claim 9, Smith in view of Mantai teaches to the system of claim 8.
Smith teaches that the force generating mechanism (i.e. bladder), overlies the active zone of the cell block (Smith, [0047] and Fig. 4).
Mantai additionally teaches the force generating mechanism overlies the active zone of the cell block (Mantai, Figure).
As to claim 10, Smith in view of Mantai teaches to the system of claim 9.
Smith does not teach of the bladder perimeter.
Mantai teaches of an electrolyzer that includes a pressing force to the system (Mantai, Abstract).
Mantai additionally teaches that within the cell stack, there is a chamber adjacent to the compression plate that interact with the pressing mechanism to compress the cell block as desired (Mantai, see modified Figure).
PNG
media_image6.png
726
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As Smith teaches a bladder used to the force generating mechanism, it would be obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that within the cell stack of Mantai to locate the bladder within the chamber, thus being substantially superposed with the perimeter region defined by the plurality of seals in order to provide the desired pressing force to seal the cell stack.
As to claims 11 and 12, Smith in view of Mantai teach to the system of claim 5.
Smith does not specifically teach of terminal plates.
Mantai teaches that the system includes terminal plates (20/22) to provide electrical connection to the power supply such that a first terminal plate (20) is disposed between the cell block and the compression plate and the second terminal plate (22) is disposed between the cell block and the second end plate (8), in this configuration the bladder overlies the first terminal plate (Mantai, [0023] – [0024] and Figure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith as per Mantai so as to utilize the desired terminal plate orientation in order to supply electrical connection to a power supply to the system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mantai as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 8,679,305 of Nakazawa et al.
As to claim 7, Smith in view of Mantai teach to the system of claim 6.
Smith in view of Mantai do not teach to springs.
Nakazawa teaches to an electrolyzer (Nakazawa, Abstract).
Nakazawa teaches that the system uses springs to provide a uniform pressing force in combination with tie rods to improve the performance of the system (Nakazawa, col 3 lines 5-14, col 5 lines 27-67 and Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view Mantai as per Nakazawa so as to utilize springs in conjunction with the tie rods to provide not only the clamping mechanisms, but an improved pressing uniformity to the cell stack which allows for improved performance of the system.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0417868 of Smith et al in view of US 2015/001067 of Mantai et al and US 2023/0220575 of Fujita et al.
As to claim 13, Smith teaches of an electrolyzer system (Smith, [0031] and Fig. 3) comprising:
a water source (Smith, [0031] and Fig. 3); and
an electrolyzer stack comprising:
a cell block comprising a plurality of cells configured to receive and convert water to form a hydrogen product stream (Smith, [0031] and Fig. 3); and
a force generating mechanism such as a bladder is operatively disposed to apply a force to the cell block (Smith, [0041] – [0042], [0045] – [0047] and Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
812
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Smith does not teach the force generating mechanism is configured for fluid communication with the hydrogen product stream to apply the force to the cell block.
Smith also does not specifically teach a power source.
Mantai teaches of an electrolyzer that includes a pressing force to the system (Mantai, Abstract).
Mantai teaches that the system includes a pressing body (32, unlabeled in Figure, but seals 34 are on it) to press on the cell block within an end plate of the stack such that the pressing force is controlled directly by the produced hydrogen gas pressure to allow for optimal efficiency of the system by allowing targeted and controlled pressing force being applied to the stack (Mantai, [0005] – [0010], [0023] – [0026] and Figure). Mantai shows the system uses a side stream line to provide the hydrogen stream to the force generating mechanism (Mantai, Figure).
PNG
media_image5.png
726
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith as per Mantai so as to control the pressing mechanism in relation to the gas pressure produced to allow for a dynamic control of the pressing force which permits optimal operation of the electrolysis stack.
As modified, Smith in view of Mantai do not specifically teach of a power supply.
Fujita teaches of an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases (Fujita, [0041] and [0048]).
Fujita additionally teaches that the system includes a power supply to supply an electric power to produce the desired products (Fujita, [0141]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Mantai as per Fujita so as to include a power source within the system so as to be able to supply an electric power to produce the desired products.
As to claim 14, Smith in view of Mantai and Fujita teach to the system of claim 13.
Smith additionally teaches that the electrolytic stack is connected to power electronics, thus electronics to control the operation of the cell (Smith, [0016] and [0055] – [0074]).
As to claim 15, Smith in view of Mantai and Fujita teach to the system of claim 13.
Smith in view of Mantai do not specifically teach a recycle stream for the water back to water source and electrolyzer.
Fujita teaches of an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases (Fujita, [0041] and [0048]).
Fujita additionally teaches a water source includes a recycle line to recycle water from the electrolyzer stack to the water source and back to the electrolyzer (Fujita, [0076] and Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Mantai as per Fujita so as to utilize a recirculation path for the water source in order to resupply the electrolyzer with water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights