DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
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, claims 1-5 and species a in the reply filed on 2 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 72 [00031]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura et al. (WO 2018/174281), in view of Hu (CN 205379694) and in view of Schicke et al. (DE 102011053142).
Regarding claim 1, Komura discloses a water electrolysis method (title) (= a method comprising):
Providing a mist separator (90) downstream of an electrolyzer (50) [0088], [0132] (Figure 1) (= providing a body downstream of an electrolyzer)
Hydrogen gases discharged from an outlet at the top of the tank contain alkaline mist, it is preferable to install a device such as a mist separator downstream of the outlet that can liquefy the excess mist [0147] (= purifying hydrogen by demisting a hydrogen stream exiting the electrolyzer via flow through the body).
Komura is silent in regards to the claimed material of the mist separator therefore in order to produce the invention of Komura one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art for workable materials of a mist separator and arrive at a reference such as Hu.
Hu discloses a demister comprising a wire mesh network made of titanium [0010], [0015].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art for workable materials of a mist separator and arrive at a reference such as Hu. The wire mesh network of Hu reasonably reads on the claimed weave body.
Komura and Hu do not disclose de-oxidizing the hydrogen stream during flow through the weave body.
Schicke discloses an electrolyzer comprising a demister for additional separation of electrolyte in the form of small droplets from the generated gases of water and oxygen [0007]. Schicke discloses the demister comprising a catalyst [0016]-[0017]. Schicke discloses the demister as a post-cleaning stage. Schicke discloses that when oxygen and hydrogen are a mixed gas, oxyhydrogen gas can form which may lead to explosion and to comply with lower explosion limit, the oxygen content in the hydrogen must not exceed approximately 4%. Schicke discloses the purification stages are provided and may contain one or more catalysts that convert the respective minor impurities thus providing the gases produced including hydrogen and oxygen with high purity levels [0017].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising de-oxidizing hydrogen stream during flow through the weave body because Schicke discloses a demister comprising a catalyst for providing high purity gases and reduces at least the remaining oxygen content from the hydrogen [0043].
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses a demister comprising a wire mesh network made of titanium [0010], [0015].
Regarding claim 5, Komura discloses a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolyzer [0006].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura et al. (WO 2018/174281), in view of Hu (CN 205379694) and in view of Schicke et al. (DE 102011053142) and in further view of Chen (US 2018/0105941).
Regarding claims 3-4, Schicke discloses a catalyst containing demister, however, is silent in regards to the catalyst material therefore in order to produce the method of Komura in view of Hu and Schicke, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the related art and arrive at a reference such as Chen. Chen discloses in the field of electrochemical methods that well known catalyst include materials such as platinum particles [0006]. Regarding weave members having a greater length than a thickness, it would have been obvious that a wire mesh network would have longer wires than a thickness since wires are known to be long thin threads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FR 3033942 – mist separator
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights