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 claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 38 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of shutting down and cleaning an electrode stack, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5972196 A, henceforth referred to as "Murphy" in view of US 20240141514 A1, henceforth referred to as “Zhao”.
In regard to claim 1, Murphy teaches a method of generating a compound in an electrochemical cell:
In column 15 lines 51-61, the use of a "cathodic depolarizer" of oxygen gas, which would constitute filling the stack or “purging” the stack with oxygen gas.
In column 16 lines 23-34, deionized water being added to the tank that then flows through the cell.
In column 6, lines 28-39, a conducting electrolyte disposed in the cathodic and anodic chambers that are circulated throughout (flowed through).
In figure 9 the ozone electrolysis occurring at temperatures greater than 35 degrees C with an applied current greater than 150 mA/cm2
In figure 10, producing H2O2 with an applied current greater than 300 mA/cm2
Murphy fails to explicitly teach a flow of electrolyte solution for at least one minute while maintaining an absolute magnitude of applied current less than or equal to 0.1 mA/cm2. Not applying a current during the flow to start meets this limitation. Murphy further fails to teach the rate of increase of the absolute magnitude of the applied current density being between 15-125 mA/cm2 per 5 minutes inclusive.
Zhao teaches in [0398] - [0404] that protective operations exist to mitigate the impact of unexpected events that are likely damaging to the electrolyzer. Said protective operations include slowly reducing the applied current or “ramping down” the current. Zhao further teaches that in an exemplary configuration, the cell returns to operating conditions by “ramping up” applied current, doing the same as ramping down in reverse. Zhao further still teaches [0428] that the ramp may have any rate with an example made of 20 mA/cm2 per minute or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to ramp up the current density of Murphy’s electrochemical cell to prevent damage to the cell.
In regard to claim 2, Murphy teaches in column 8 lines 48-59 that their electrolysis device generates hydrogen peroxide at the cathode.
In regard to claim 4, Murphy teaches in column 13 lines 20-24 that the temperature is controlled by the circulation and heat exchange of the water flowing to the anode. Murphy further teaches that the water flowing to the anode contains electrolytes in column 21 lines 34-67. This is considered to meet the claimed “heating the electrode stack” by heating the electrolyte solution.
In regard to claim 7, Murphy teaches in column 17 lines 53-67 and column 18 lines 1-7 that the water was circulated through a heat exchanger. Murphy further teaches that the water flowing to the anode contains electrolytes in column 21 lines 34-67. This is considered to meet the claimed “heating the electrolyte solution” using a heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 8, Murphy teaches in figure 9 that their electrochemical cell was operated with a reactor temperature greater than 35 degrees C and that the temperature is controlled by the circulation and heat exchange of the water flowing to the anode in column 13 lines 20-24.
In regard to claim 10, Murphy teaches in column 13 lines 25-49 that the cathode has a coating of carbon paper fiber and that H2O2 is generated at the cathode.
In regard to claims 12 and 14, Murphy teaches in column 11 lines 49-67 that the gas diffusion cathode comprises a hydrophobic layer comprising PTFE, a hydrophobic polymer, formed on the carbon paper substrate.
In regard to claims 13 and 16, Murphy teaches in column 11 lines 49-67 that the gas diffusion cathode comprises carbon black, an active material, on the carbon paper substrate.
In regard to claim 17, Murphy teaches in column 11 lines 49-67 that the gas diffusion cathode comprises carbon black, an active material that does not comprise metal, on the carbon paper substrate.
In regard to claim 18, Murphy teaches Murphy teaches in column 11 lines 49-67 that the gas diffusion cathode comprises carbon cloth instead of carbon paper in an exemplary embodiment which meets the claimed carbon felt.
In regard to claim 38, Zhao teaches in [0398] - [0404] that protective operations exist to mitigate the impact of unexpected events that are likely damaging to the electrolyzer. Said protective operations include slowly reducing the applied current or “ramping down” the current. Zhao further teaches that in an exemplary configuration, the cell returns to operating conditions by “ramping up” applied current, doing the same as ramping down in reverse. Zhao further still teaches [0428] that the ramp may have any rate with an example made of 20 mA/cm2 per minute or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to ramp up the current density of Murphy’s electrochemical cell to prevent damage to the cell.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Zhao as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US 20180363154 A1, henceforth referred to as "Swiegers".
In regard to claim 3, Murphy in view of Zhao teaches a method to electrochemically generate a compound in an electrode stack as taught in the rejection of claim 1. The combination fails to teach the method of heating as being joule heating.
Swiegers teaches an electrochemical cell capable of hydrogen peroxide generation and in [0273]-[0275] teaches that in an exemplary embodiment, their cell incorporates resistive heating (joule heating), allowing for more energy efficiency by only adding as much heat as necessary to maintain the operating temperature of the cell. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the resistive heater of Swiegers in combination with the cell of the Murphy in view of Zhao to improve the energy efficiency.
In regard to claim 5, Murphy in view of Zhao teaches a method to electrochemically generate a compound in an electrode stack as taught in the rejection of claim 4. The combination fails to teach the method of heating the electrolyte solution as being joule heating. Swiegers teaches an electrochemical cell capable of hydrogen peroxide generation and in [0273]-[0275] teaches that in an exemplary embodiment, their cell incorporates resistive heating, allowing for more energy efficiency by only adding as much heat as necessary to maintain the operating temperature of the cell. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the resistive heater of Swiegers in combination with the cell of the Murphy in view of Zhao to improve the energy efficiency of heating the electrolyte solution.
In regard to claim 6, Murphy in view of Zhao teaches a method to electrochemically generate a compound in an electrode stack as taught in the rejection of claim 4. The combination fails to teach the method of heating the electrolyte solution as being a resistive heating coil. Swiegers teaches an electrochemical cell capable of hydrogen peroxide generation and in [0273]-[0275] teaches that in an exemplary embodiment, their cell incorporates resistive heating, allowing for more energy efficiency by only adding as much heat as necessary to maintain the operating temperature of the cell. Swiegers further demonstrates in figure 6 that their wires can be in coil form. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the heating coil of Swiegers in combination with the cell of the Murphy in view of Zhao to improve the energy efficiency of heating the electrolyte solution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200353448 A1, henceforth referred to as "Hu".
In regard to claim 9, Murphy in view of Zhao teaches a method to electrochemically generate a compound in an electrode stack as taught in the rejection of claim 1.
Murphy in view of Zhao fails to teach the specific magnitude of their applied current density being increased or decreased by less than or equal to 10 mA/cm2/min.
Hu teaches hydrogen peroxide generation catalysts used in electrochemical cells much like those of Murphy and in [0174] and figure 2C Hu teaches that the current density of their hydrogen peroxide generation cells is increased by less than 10 mA/cm2/min.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the current density increase of Hu with the method of Murphy in view of Zhao due to Hu’s successful tests of Hu showing that said reaction conditions work for hydrogen peroxide synthesis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights