DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on *** :
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 19 are presently pending
claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn
the rejections of claims 6 and 10 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and the references are reapplied in a new grounds of rejection as set forth herein
the double patenting rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of the submitted terminal disclaimers
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0261252 to Kerstiens (hereinafter referred to as “KERSTIENS”) in view of US Pat. No. 4,113,601 to Spirig (hereinafter referred to as “SPIRIG”).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, KERSTIENS teaches a system for generating hydrogen (see KERSTIENS at Abstract, Fig. 1 and ¶4), comprising:
a power source, wherein the power source is electrically connected to the electrodes and is configured to pass a current through the aqueous solution via the electrodes so that at least some molecules within the aqueous solution dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting battery 36; see also ¶27 teaching the electrodes having power supplied thereto so as to cause electrolysis to occur);
a generally cylindrical reaction vessel comprising an upstream end and an outer tube serving as electrodes wherein the upstream end serves as the anode and the outer tube serves as the cathode (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting gas generator 30; see also Fig. 3 depicting gas generator 30 having cathode tube 116 as the outer shell, anode bar 108 which extends from the upstream end, and electrically conductive tubes 112 which as shown in Fig. 4 are arranged with end caps 104 so as to provide for space for water electrolysis as claimed), wherein the power source is coupled to the electrodes and supplies the electrical power through an aqueous solution within the reaction vessel via the electrodes thereby driving electrochemical reactions at the electrodes that convert some molecules into oxygen and hydrogen (see KERSTIENS at Abstract teaching the gas generator including an anode and cathode; and see also KERSTIENS at ¶14-¶15 teaching the electrolyte solutions resulting in the formation of hydrogen, oxygen, and potentially other gases due to the electrolysis), the reaction vessel having concentric tubes with annular spaces that constrain the aqueous solution to flow back and forth therebetween (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 depicting the conductive tubes 112 with inlet and outlet 136 which would provide for annular spaces that would constrain the electrolyte to flow back and forth therebetween as claimed whether due to internal mixing as gas is escaping the generator and addition electrolyte moved into the gaps or thermal gradients in the electrolyte as fluid is pumped in to the generator).
While KERTSTIENS teaches the power source as set forth above, KERSTIENS fails to explicitly teach the power source being: (1) a source of AC electrical energy; and, (2) a power converter in communication with the source of AC energy for converting the alternating current to direct current as claimed. However, SPIRIG teaches a water electrolysis apparatus for dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen (see SPIRIG at Abstract), in which the electrodes are powered from a public 220V AC supply and then rectified to provide a DC power source (see SPIRIG at col. 4 lines 12-15, 35-38, and claim 8). While KERSTIENS explicitly teaches the use of a vehicle battery (see KERSTIENS at ¶18), KERSTIENS also teaches other embodiments in which other power sources are used and in which the system is paired with a stationary engine (see KERSTIENS at ¶31).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in a stationary setup that it would be necessary to be able to power the system using an AC power source. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the system to transform the incoming AC power to DC power necessary to drive the electrolytic reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the starting DC power source of KERSTIENS so as to use generally provided AC power sources as taught by SPIRIG so as to allow the system to be useable with AC power outlets as are typically provided by utility companies.
Regarding claim 5, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system further comprising a pressure vessel that receives the aqueous solution before delivery to the reaction vessel (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting solution reservoir tank 20 and ¶16 and ¶22).
Regarding claim 6, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the pressure vessel has a chamber that holds air and hydrogen above the aqueous solution (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting reservoir tank 20 having gas line 51 at the upper part of the vessel and which would necessarily hold the air and hydrogen above due to the density differences between the electrolyte solution and the produced gas from gas generator 30).
Regarding claim 10, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein concentric tubes constrain an annular back and forth aqueous solution flow path therebetween (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting gas generator 30; see also Fig. 3 depicting gas generator 30 having cathode tube 116, anode bar 108, and electrically conductive tubes 112 which as shown in Fig. 4 are arranged with end caps 104 with small holes 130 which define an annular flow path), the aqueous solution flowing around and through the concentric tubes before at least partially re-circulating within the reaction vessel, the aqueous solution flowing from smaller inner tubes to larger outer tubes (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 3 depicting the conductive tubes 112 having small holes 130 so that the annular spaces between adjacent conductive tubes are fluidly connected to allow the aqueous solution to be capable of flow as claimed).
Regarding claim 16, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the reaction product comprises hydrogen gas (KERSTIENS at ¶15 teaching the gases produced including hydrogen).
Regarding claim 19, KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system wherein the reaction vessel is inclined at an angle relative to a horizontal reference line, where the angle is between 15 degrees and 90 degrees (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting gas generator 30 being at approximately 90 degrees relative to the horizontal; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP2003175389A to Shusaku et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “SHUSAKU”) and KR101750308B1 to Kil et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “KIL”).
Regarding claim 9, while KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system with the reaction vessel as claimed (see teachings of KERSTIENS set forth in the rejection of claim 4), KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG fails to explicitly teach the reaction vessel wherein the outer tube has a wall thickness exceeding that of inner tubes of the reaction vessel as claimed.
However, KIL teaches a hydrogen gas generation system having a reaction vessel with concentrically arranged electrodes (see KIL at Abstract and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Moreover, KIL depicts the outer tube having a wall thickness exceeding that of inner tubes of the reaction vessel (see KIL at Fig. 2 depicting inner cell electrodes 24 being thinner than outer tank electrolytic tank 23). Furthermore, SHUSAKU is directed towards another electrolysis device containing concentrically arranged tube electrodes (see SHUSAKU at Abstract and Fig. 4) in which the exterior tube is depicted as having a larger thickness than the interior electrode tubes (see Fig. 4).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the exterior tube having a larger or increased thickness than that of the inner tubes would allow for increased protection of the reaction vessel since the outer tube functions as not only the last electrode (see KIL at Fig. 2 and ¶35) but also as the reactor outer wall (see SHUSAKU at Fig. 4 and ¶7 teaching 201 being a metal container). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit and need to have the outer electrode which also acts as the reactor container to be thicker to provide increased protection to the reaction vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the thickness of the outer tubular cathode of KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG to be thicker as shown by SHUSAKU and KIL in order to provide increased protection of the reactor vessel thereby arriving at the system as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG as applied to claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of KIL.
Regarding claim 12, while KERSTIENS in view of SPIRIG teaches the system including a pressure system so as to move fluid from the reservoir tank to the gas generator (see KERSTIENS at Fig. 1 depicting air pressure system 16 which includes pressure regulator 60 and solenoid 64; see also ¶14 and ¶22 teaching the air pressure system as exerting pressure on the electrolytic solution within the reservoir tank 20 and thereby to the gas generator through fluid line 28 to move liquids within the system), KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG fails to explicitly teach a water pump that lies between the pressure vessel, i.e. the reservoir tank, and the reaction vessel as claimed.
However, KIL teaches the use of a pump between the reservoir tank and the reaction vessel in order to provide the electrolyte to the electrolytic cell for generating the gaseous electrolysis products (see KIL at Abstract and Fig. 1 depicting pump 115 between water tank 119 and electrolytic cells 22 which are fluidly connected via hoses/supply lines as taught in ¶36-¶38).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that instead of using a vehicle’s high pressure air line for the pressure system of KERSTIENS to move the fluids through the system, that instead a water pump could also be used especially for applications not on a vehicle with an already existing air pressure system. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the typical way of moving fluids including the use of a pump as taught by KIL.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the air pressure system of KERSTIENS as modified by SPIRIG with the pump of KIL in order to provide an alternative means of moving the fluid electrolyte from the reservoir tank to the electrolysis cells as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant notes that in a related case that an interview was held and claim amendments agreed upon which were successfully used to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art – including KERSTIENS. See Remarks at page 6, second paragraph. Applicant additional argues that: “[t]he claimed flow path is constrained – it has an inner-to-outer progression and opposite flow directions in adjacent annular spaces.” See Remarks at page 7, second paragraph.
However, it is noted that the current claim amendments do not require an inner to outer progression or opposite flow directions in adjacent annular spaces. Instead, the current claim amendments merely require the reaction vessel having concentric tubes with annular spaces that constrain the electrolyte solution to flow back and forth. This back and forth could be turbulence within the flow in the annular spaces. As such, contrary to the other application which structurally required a configuration that constrained the aqueous solution so as to circulate within the annular spaces in a specific and defined manner. These structural limitations though are not included in the current set of claims and so don’t have any bearing on the present set of claims.
Consequently, for at least the reasons set forth herein, the examiner is of the opinion that the current claims are not distinguished over the prior art for at least the reasons given herein and set forth in the rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights