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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a method of controlling a hydrogen purification system, classified in C25B15/02.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to a hydrogen purification system, classified in C25B9/05.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the system of invention II is capable of being used for high-temperature steam electrolysis as claimed, a process materially different than the purification of hydrogen from a stream of mixed gases claimed in invention I.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different statutory categories;
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention; and/or
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or 112).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Atty. Belinda Lee on July 28, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 09/03/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no translated copy of the Taiwan Office Action was provided with the IDS.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrasing “Disclosed are…” (MPEP § 608.01(b)(I)(C)). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 10 reads “value,”, but should read “value, and” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the specification, the terms “instantly” and “instantaneously” used in the claims to indicate the pressure is adjusted as rapidly as possible e.g., by using a pneumatic or solenoid valve (see e.g., Fig. 3a and para. 35). These terms are therefore not considered to render the claims indefinite. However, no special definition of these terms is set forth in the specification. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms is their plain language meaning (MPEP § 2173).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “measuring a current and/or a voltage in a plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies in the hydrogen purification module” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, neither claim 1 nor claim 3 recite “membrane-electrode assemblies”. It is therefore unclear, in light of the specification, whether this limitation is intended to:
a) require the hydrogen purification module to comprise a plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies, wherein the current and/or voltage in each of the membrane-electrode assemblies is measured;
b) require the hydrogen purification module to comprise one or more membrane-electrode assemblies, wherein the current and/or voltage in a plurality of the membrane-electrode assemblies is measured; or
c) require the hydrogen purification module to comprise more than one membrane-electrode assembly, wherein the current and/or voltage in a plurality of the more than one membrane-electrode assembly is measured.
Claim 3 is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 8-10, claims 4-6 and 8-10 depend from claim 3, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 3. Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are therefore indefinite.
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, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar (GB 2613365 A) in view of Yang (US 6699610 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dunbar teaches a control method of a hydrogen purification system (“The hydrogen recovery system 1 is configured to extract hydrogen gas (H2) from a mixture of process gases” p. 10 lines 1-3), wherein the hydrogen purification system comprises a hydrogen purification module (“electrochemical pump 11” p. 9 lines 1-22 and Fig. 6), a control unit (“controller 59” p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15 and Fig. 6), and a pressure control unit (comprising “first and second outlet control valves 69, 71” p. 18 lines 22-33), the control unit is coupled to the pressure control unit (“The actuation of the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 can be controlled by the controller 59” Id.), and the pressure control unit is connected to an anode gas outflow path of the hydrogen purification module (“first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 disposed in the outlet channel 35 connected to the anodic compartment outlet 25.” Id.), and the control method comprising:
providing a mixed gas comprising hydrogen to the hydrogen purification module (“The process gases are introduced into the anodic compartment 13 of the electrochemical pump 11” p. 11 line 24 – p. 12 line 2 and Fig. 6, see also p. 10 lines 21-37);
providing an electric power to the hydrogen purification module to perform an oxidation-reduction reaction of the hydrogen (“The electrochemical pump 11 is an electrochemical hydrogen pump (compressor) for pumping hydrogen through an electrochemical process. …” p. 11 lines 1-22, see also p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15); and
utilizing the pressure control unit to instantly increase and decrease a pressure of an anode in the hydrogen purification module (“a purge process for expelling accumulated impurities … the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 may be pulsed open” p. 20 lines 23-29 see also 18 line 34 – p. 19 line 19)1, wherein the control unit controls an actuation of the pressure control unit (“The actuation of the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 can be controlled by the controller 59” p. 18 lines 22-33).
Dunbar does not teach an instantaneous increase in the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module is higher than or equal to 0.04 bar. Dunbar is silent as to the magnitude of the pressure change in the anode compartment.
However, Yang teaches a method of expelling impurities from the anode side of a membrane cell (abstract and col. 3 line 54 – col. 4 line 27), wherein the pressure of the anode is changed by 0.55 bar2, a value in the claimed range, to effect the expelling of said impurities (“a first predetermined value, such as a gauge pressure substantially higher than 10 psi, … second predetermined value, such as a gauge pressure substantially lower than 2 psi …”, col. 4 line 28 – col. 5 line 9 and Fig. 6).
As Dunbar teaches an electrochemical hydrogen purification system, Dunbar is analogous art to the instant invention. As Yang teaches a method for removing impurities from the anode side of an electrochemical cell, Yang is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that the pressure differential used during the increasing and decreasing of the pressure at the anode i.e., the instantaneous increase in the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module, is 0.55 bar, a value within the claimed range, as taught by Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yang teaches 0.55 bar is a sufficient pressure differential to remove blockages at the anode side of an electrochemical cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Dunbar further teaches the utilizing the pressure control unit to instantly increase and decrease the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module comprises utilizing the pressure control unit to reduce a flow rate of a remaining gas flowing out from the anode gas outflow path, so that the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module increases instantly (“The controller 59 closes the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71” p. 20 lines 23-29 and “by closing the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 … The pressure inside the electrochemical pump 11 will begin to increase” p. 18 line 34 – p. 19 line 19), and utilizing the pressure control unit to restore the remaining gas flowing out from the anode gas to a higher flow rate, so that the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module drops to a lower pressure (“at least one of the first and second outlet control valves 69, 71 may be pulsed open” p. 20 lines 23-29).
Dunbar does not explicitly teach the higher flow rate is the original flow rate, and the lower pressure is the original pressure.
However, it is considered implicit in Dunbar’s recitation of a “purge process” that the system returns to normal operation after completion of the “purge process”. I.e., that the purge operation has a limited duration, after which the system returns to its original flow rate and pressure by reverting the pressure control unit to its usual settings.
Furthermore, Yang further teaches the pressure on the anode side of the system may suitably be restored to an original pressure after the impurities are expelled (see Fig. 6).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that the higher flow rate is the original flow rate, and the lower pressure is the original pressure, as taught by Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yang teaches returning to an original pressure is suitable after implementation of a purge process. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the hydrogen purification system further comprises a power supply unit (“A direct current (DC) power supply 20” p. 11 lines 1-22 and Fig. 6), and the electric power is provided to the hydrogen purification module through the power supply unit (“A direct current (DC) power supply 20 is provided for supplying current and voltage to the EC pump 11” Id.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 2 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the pressure control unit comprises a pressure control element (comprising “throttle valve 43” p. 20 lines 10-21 and “first and second outlet control valves 69, 71” p. 20 lines 23-29 and Fig. 6) and a pressure sensing element (“outlet pressure sensor 67” p. 17 lines 28-37), wherein the pressure sensing element provides pressure information sensed from the anode in the hydrogen purification module to the control unit to monitor the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module (“The outlet pressure sensor 67 outputs an outlet pressure signal SP-OUT to the controller 59.” p. 7 lines 28-37 and Fig. 6).
Dunbar does not teach the pressure control element reduces and/or increases the flow rate of the remaining gas flowing out through the anode gas outflow path according to a signal of the control unit.
However, in a second embodiment, Dunbar teaches the pressure control element may reduce or increase a flow rate of the remaining gas flowing out through the anode gas outflow path to maintain a constant anode chamber pressure based on a signal of a control unit (“the controller 45 may control the throttle valve 43 to maintain the anodic compartment outlet pressure ACP-OUT within a target pressure range.” p. 12 line 35 – p. 13 line 17 and Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that the pressure control element reduces and/or increases the flow rate of the remaining gas flowing out through the anode gas outflow path according to a signal of the control unit. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Dunbar teaches in a separate embodiment that this is a suitable means to maintain a desired anodic pressure. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the mixed gas further comprises nitrogen (“The inert gas may, for example, be nitrogen. At least in certain embodiments, the quantity of nitrogen introduced into the process gases upstream of the hydrogen recovery system may be reduced.” p. 7 lines 7-12 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the mixed gas further comprises nitrogen (“The inert gas may, for example, be nitrogen. At least in certain embodiments, the quantity of nitrogen introduced into the process gases upstream of the hydrogen recovery system may be reduced.” p. 7 lines 7-12 and Fig. 6) and a volume ratio of the hydrogen to the nitrogen is 1000:200 i.e., 83.3:16.7, a value within the claimed range (“the process gases are introduced into the hydrogen recovery system 1 at a flow rate of 1000 SLM3. … The first pumping gas source 7 is configured to introduce Nitrogen (N2) gas into the vacuum pump 5 at 200 SLM.” P. 10 lines 21-37 and see Fig. 1).
Claims 3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (JP 2022035421 A).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been interpreted as “wherein the hydrogen purification module comprises a plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies … measuring a current and/or a voltage of at least some of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies in the hydrogen purification module…”.
Modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the hydrogen purification module comprises a plurality of membrane electrode assemblies (“the electrochemical pump 11 may comprise a plurality of stages. The electrochemical pump 11 comprises an anodic compartment 13 having at least one anode 14, a cathodic compartment 15 having at least one cathode 16, and a membrane 17 disposed between the anodic compartment 13 and the cathodic compartment 15.” p. 11 lines 1-22 and Fig. 4, Fig. 4 depicts the cathode, anode and membrane as a membrane-electrode assembly), wherein following providing electric power to the hydrogen purification module, the control method further comprises performing at least one cycle as follows:
measuring a current and/or a voltage of at least some of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies in the hydrogen purification module (“The controller 59 is configured to determine an electric current set-point and/or a voltage setpoint for the electrochemical pump 11” p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15).
Dunbar does not teach determining whether at least one of the following situations occurs:
(1) a total current of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies is lower than a preset current value;
(2) a voltage of at least one of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies is higher than a preset voltage value, and
when at least one of the situation (1) and the situation (2) occurs, utilizing the pressure control unit to instantly increase and decrease the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module.
However, Yamauchi teaches a method for purifying hydrogen gas in an electrochemical hydrogen pump (e.g., abstract) comprising at least one membrane electrode assembly (“membrane-electrode assembly 8,” para. 35 and Fig. 1), wherein the voltage of the at least one membrane assembly is measured (“voltmeter 41 measures the voltage between the anode 5 and cathode 7 of the electrochemical device 1” para. 51), and when a voltage of the membrane-electrode assembly is higher than a preset voltage value, an anode purge process to remove impurities from the anode chamber is initiated (“when the voltage between the anode 5 and cathode 7, as measured by the voltmeter 41, exceeds a predetermined voltage, the operation in hydrogen purification mode is terminated and the operation in discharge mode4 for discharging ammonia accumulated in the electrolyte membrane-electrode assembly 8 is started.” para. 70).
As Yamauchi teaches a method for purifying hydrogen gas in an electrochemical cell, Yamauchi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that the purge operation i.e., the utilizing the pressure control unit to instantly increase and decrease the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module, is performed when a situation (2) occurs, as taught by Yamauchi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yamauchi teaches that detecting that a voltage of a membrane-electrode assembly that is higher than a preset voltage value indicates a buildup of impurities in the anode compartment which can be remedied by implementing a purge operation. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, as currently drafted, claim 5 is drawn to a conditional limitation i.e., “when the situation (1) and the situation (2) do not occur,”. Therefore, as the limitations of claim 3 are rendered obvious by modified Dunbar when situation (2) occurs, modified Dunbar further renders the limitations of claim 5 obvious under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111.04(II)).
Furthermore, Yamauchi teaches that the pressure control unit may be utilized at intervals to control the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module to increase and decrease instantly (“Furthermore, as in this embodiment, the controller 81 of the hydrogen purification system 200 may be configured to terminate operation in hydrogen purification mode and start operation in discharge mode when a predetermined time (60 minutes) has elapsed since the start of the most recent operation in hydrogen purification mode” para. 263).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar such that, when the situation (2) does not occur, the pressure control unit is utilized at intervals to control the pressure of the anode in the hydrogen purification module to increase and decrease instantly. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yamauchi teaches undertaking the discharge/purge operation at intervals is suitable for removing contaminants from the anode side of an electrochemical hydrogen purification system comprising and MEA. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 6, as currently drafted, claim 6 further limits a conditional limitation i.e., “when the situation (1) and the situation (2) do not occur,” (claim 5). Therefore, as the limitations of claim 3 are rendered obvious by modified Dunbar when situation (2) occurs, modified Dunbar further renders the limitations of claim 6 obvious under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP § 2111.04(II)).
Furthermore, modified Dunbar teaches, via Yamauchi, the interval is 60 minutes, a value within the claimed range (“Furthermore, as in this embodiment, the controller 81 of the hydrogen purification system 200 may be configured to terminate operation in hydrogen purification mode and start operation in discharge mode when a predetermined time (60 minutes) has elapsed since the start of the most recent operation in hydrogen purification mode” para. 263).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 3 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the hydrogen purification system further comprises an electrical measurement unit, the electrical measurement unit comprises a current measurement unit and a voltage measurement unit, wherein the total current of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies is measured by the current measurement unit, and the voltage of the at least one membrane-electrode assembly is measured through the voltage measurement unit (“In particular, the controller 59 is configured to control the electric current and/or the voltage supplied to the electrodes of the electrochemical pump 11 by the power supply 20. … The controller 59 controls the power supply 20 such that the electric current supplied to the electrochemical pump 11 is at least substantially equal to the determined electric current set point. Alternatively, the controller 59 controls the power supply 20 such that the voltage supplied to the electrochemical pump 11 is at least 10 substantially equal to the determined voltage set point” p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15 and see below).
As Dunbar teaches the controller controls the current and/or voltage applied to the electrochemical cell, Dunbar necessarily teaches the system comprises an electrical measurement unit that measures the current and/or voltage of each electrochemical cell of the plurality of electrochemical cells. Otherwise, the controller of Dunbar would not be able to maintain the current and/or voltage at a desired set-point.
Regarding claim 9, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 3 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar further teaches the control unit determines whether the total current of the plurality of membrane-electrode assemblies is lower than the preset current value (“The controller 59 controls the power supply 20 such that the electric current supplied to the electrochemical pump 11 is at least substantially equal to the determined electric current set point.” p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15 and see below) and/or whether the voltage in the at least one membrane-electrode assembly is higher than the preset voltage value (“the controller 59 controls the power supply 20 such that the voltage supplied to the electrochemical pump 11 is at least substantially equal to the determined voltage set point” Id.).
As the controller of Dunbar maintains the current and/or voltage at the set point, it must necessarily determine whether the total current and or voltage is lower or higher than the set point, respectively.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar, Yang and Yamauchi, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Abens (US Pat. No. 4620914).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 3 obvious, as described above.
Modified Dunbar does not teach the preset voltage value is 0.15 V to 0.30 V. Modified Dunbar rather teaches, via Yamauchi, the preset voltage is three times the initial voltage applied to the system (“a voltage three times the initial value is set as the predetermined voltage” para. 101), but is silent as to the initial voltage applied to the system.
However, Abens teaches an electrochemical hydrogen purification system (e.g., abstract), wherein the initial voltage applied to the system is between about 60 and 125 mV (Fig. 7, lines for pure hydrogen).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that the initial voltage applied to the system is between about 60 and 125 mV, and the preset voltage is between about 180 and 375 mV, a range overlapping the claimed range. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Abens teaches a range of between about 60 and 125 mV is suitable as the voltage applied to the system, and Yamauchi teaches the preset voltage is three times the voltage applied to the system. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar, Yang and Yamauchi, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhai (CN 115991456 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dunbar renders the limitations of claim 9 obvious, as described above.
Dunbar does not teach the control unit comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC), but rather teaches the control unit comprises an electronic control unit (ECU) (“controller 59 is an electronic control unit (ECU)” p. 13 line 33 – p. 14 line 15).
However, Zhai teaches that a programmable logic controller (PLC) (“the control unit is a PLC control unit.” para. 14) is suitable for controlling the operation of an electrochemical hydrogen purification system (e.g., abstract and para. 15).
As Zhai teaches a method for controlling operation of an electrochemical hydrogen purification system, Zhai is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Dunbar, such that a PLC is used in place of the ECU as the control system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Zhai teaches a PLC is suitable to control an electrochemical hydrogen purification system. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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 V. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 The term “pulsed open” is considered to read on “instantly opened and closed”.
2 Converted from 8 psi.
3 Standard Liters per Minute, see p. 10 lines 5-6.
4 An anode purge process, see paras. 20-21.
Prosecution Insights