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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mori (US 20240200214 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 1, Mori discloses an electrochemical system (10; Fig. 1) comprising a reaction fluid supply line (Fig. 1; line that goes through 21, 22, 23, 24 to 20) configured to supply a reaction fluid (Fig. 1; pure water), a first gas-liquid separator (Fig. 1; 25), a circulation line (line connecting 25, 29, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 20) connected to the first separator (25), a water electrolysis stack (Fig. 1; 20) provided in the circulation line, and a first bypass line having a first end at an upstream side of the stack and connected to the circulation line, and a second end at a downstream side of the stack and connected to the circulation line (pipe 26).
In regards to claim(s) 4, Mori discloses a filter (24; ion exchanger; [0028]) in the circulation line.
In regards to claim(s) 5, Mori discloses an electrochemical system (10; Fig. 1) comprising a reaction fluid supply line (Fig. 1; line that goes through 21, 22, 23, 24 to 20) configured to supply a reaction fluid (Fig. 1; pure water), a first gas-liquid separator (Fig. 1; 25), a circulation line (line connecting 25, 29, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 20) connected to the first separator (25), a water electrolysis stack (Fig. 1; 20) provided in the circulation line, and a first bypass line having a first end at an upstream side of the stack and connected to the circulation line, and a second end at a downstream side of the stack and connected to the circulation line (pipe 26). Mori discloses a filter part (24; ion exchanger; [0028]) in the circulation line.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Kim (US 20240218527 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 2, Mori does not disclose the control mechanism details that provide the pipe flushing step through pipe 26 (2.1 Pipe Flushing, [0045]-[0048]).
Kim pertains to water electrolysis systems (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Mori. Kim discloses a first circulation three-way valve (112; Fig. 1) provided in a circulation line (S10; Fig. 1) and connected to the first end of the first bypass line (S30; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the control mechanism of Mori with Kim’s three-way valve because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (controlling flow at a junction point), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
In regards to claim(s) 3, Kim discloses a conductivity meter (28; Fig. 1; [0031]) to transmit a signal to the controller 30. Kim explains the purpose of the conductivity meter is to performing pipe flushing and activating the control mechanism to do so (bypassing the electrolyzer; see [0047] and Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Fouda-Onana (FR 3032206 A1) and in further view of Diana (CN 104769153 A).
In regards to claim(s) 6, Mori does not disclose wherein the filter part includes first and second filter on first and second lines in parallel.
Fouda-Onana pertains to water electrolysis (p. 2) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Mori. Fouda-Onana discloses that when conductivity gets too high, the resin may need to get replaced (p. 3). Diana discloses a system wherein the there are two set of filters in parallel (Fig. 1; p. 5) for the purpose of continuing operation through one set of filters while the other set is replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known technique of having parallel filters as taught by Diana to the known device of Mori since Fouda-Onana teaches that filter replacement is necessary but raises costs (which arises when conductivity of water rises, recognizes by both Mori and Fouda-Onana) so that Diana’s solution is ready to improve the system of Mori by allowing operation to continue while replacing filters and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I D.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Fouda-Onana and Diana and in further in view of Kim.
In regards to claim(s) 7, Mori in view of Fouda-Onana and Diana does not disclose a three-way valve, however Kim pertains to water electrolysis systems (abstract) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Mori. Kim discloses a first circulation three-way valve (112; Fig. 1) provided in a circulation line (S10; Fig. 1) and connected to the first end of the first bypass line (S30; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the control mechanism of Mori with Kim’s three-way valve because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (controlling flow at a junction point), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
In regards to claim(s) 8, as combined, there would be not be a specific conductivity meter placed in the each of the first filter line and the second filter line. However, as combined, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have place a conductivity meter in each of the lines since Mori recognizes the need for replacement of filters ([0065]) and teaches that the conductivity meter is used to keep the conductivity low (Fig. 4), and, Fouda-Onana teaches that the threshold value of the electrolyte/water’s conductivity is a sign that the filter would need to be changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would want to know the specific status of each filter in the each line, as combined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim(s) 9, prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest an electrochemical system wherein a second bypass line at the downstream side of the water electrolysis stack is connected to the circulation line and a second gas-liquid separator, wherein a recirculation line is connected to the first and second separators, in the instantly claimed combination. The closest prior art is Mori with the bypass line/pipe flushing as stated in the rejection grounds above, but does not disclose the above, instantly claimed feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights