DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-5 are pending.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that the abstract submitted 29 June 2026 does not contain appropriate markings to indicate newly presented claim language, deletions, etc.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant cancelling the claim.
The previous rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant cancelling claims 2-3.
All other rejections stand.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baltrucki et al. (US 2006/0118428) and alternatively claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltrucki et al. (US 2006/0118428).
Regarding claim 1, it is initially noted that the claims are directed towards a system or apparatus. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (MPEP § 2114 I, II). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114 IV). The instant claims recite “the processor is configured to”. The configured to claim language means that the associated controller can perform the function with no additional modification. A controller configured to is broader than a controller programmed to. In the instant case the processor, sensors and cell(s) are configured to perform various functional language. The instant claim positively recites the following elements that provide structure to the apparatus including a water electrolysis cell, a pressure sensor, a voltage sensor, a current applicator, a way in which to stop the operation of the water electrolysis cell. There does not appear to be further structural elements beyond these elements. The claim also states non-structural elements including measuring, calculating and determining which are directed to method steps. Measuring is performed by for example a pressure sensor or voltage sensor (see instant specification [0008]). Calculating and determining are mental process steps and/or method steps performed by a control unit comprising for example a central processing unit (see instant specification [0030]). In regards to the claimed first resistance, slope of voltage, current, etc. related to the electrical aspects of the device, Baltrucki discloses all the claimed structural elements that are capable of performing the function without further modification (see additionally below). For example, Baltrucki measures voltage [0049], controls current [0043], senses pressure [0008], controls a processor, computer, memory storage, register, timing, interrupts, communication interface and input/output signal interfaces [0042]. Baltrucki includes detection of abnormal operating conditions and responding to the abnormal conditions (abstract). Baltrucki also identifies normal operation of the power supply, control panel, electrochemical cells [0043]. Baltrucki recognizes predetermined thresholds [0032], [0046], [0049], [0052].
To address the claimed structural elements the apparatus of Baltrucki is cited for disclosing the following elements including an electrochemical system (12) with electrochemical cell stacks (14) (abstract), a hydrogen gas pressure sensor (155) [0036], measurement of voltage which intrinsically includes a voltage sensor [0049]-[0050], a power supply (24) and a control system including a processor, computer, memory, storage, register, timing, interrupt, communication interface and input/output signal interfaces [0042]. The apparatus of Baltrucki includes a system that can be controlled to shut down or stop production [0037], [0045]. The apparatus of Baltrucki includes control system that is capable of making determinations based on threshold parameters [0006], [0041]. The apparatus of Baltrucki is capable of detecting abnormal operating conditions (abstract, [0043]). Therefore the Examiner takes the position that the disclosure of Baltrucki discloses every structural element of the claimed apparatus and therefore anticipates the claimed invention. Alternatively, the claim system is obvious in view of Baltrucki given the overlapping structural elements and method of operation of Baltrucki which one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltrucki et al. (US 2006/0118428) in view of Andrews et al. (US, 6,036,827).
Regarding claim 4, Baltrucki discloses the system comprising a plurality of cells (abstract) and wherein the voltage of each cell is determined. Baltrucki does not explicitly disclose that the measuring of the voltage is performed by a voltage sensor.
Andrews discloses an electrolyzer comprising a cell voltage sensor (321) is placed in the electrolyzer (22) to measure the voltage across each cell or stack of cells (26) and send a signal indicative thereof on sensor input line (323) to controller (134) (Col. 20 lines 47-63, Col. 27 lines 45-58).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a voltage sensor configured to measure the first voltage and the second voltage of each of the plurality of water electrolysis cells because Andrews discloses in the same or similar field of endeavor, a voltage sensor that can measure the voltage across a plurality of cells and send the information to a controller. It would have been obvious to utilize the voltage sensor of Andrews in the system of Baltrucki to retrieve voltage information from each cell.
Regarding claim 5, Baltrucki discloses that hydrogen gas exits the electrochemical cells (14) and is fed along with water to a hydrogen gas management system (18), which separates the water from the hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas then exists the system (12) through a port (20) for use in the end application [0030]. Baltrucki additionally discloses that water with dissolved hydrogen exits and is depressurized via valves (152) and conduit (96) and enters a hydrogen-water phase separator (150) [0036]. Andrews does disclose a pressure relief valve (42) to protect the system against over pressurization (Col. 20 lines 14-23). The instant claim appears to refer to a hydrogen relief valve on the channel as a means for controlling the exiting of hydrogen as opposed to a relief of pressure. Andrews discloses various valves including hydrogen valves for transporting the hydrogen for discharge and the concept of opening and closing the valves (Col. 10 line 59 – Col. 11 line 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a hydrogen relief valve disposed on a hydrogen extraction channel because Baltrucki and Andrews disclose the removal of the hydrogen from the electrolysis system using piping and valves to control the hydrogen. The claimed ‘in response to the determination of the second abnormality of the water electrolysis cell’, the claimed phrasing does not further structurally limit the claimed system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks on pages 8-11 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection. The argument states in part that Baltrucki fails to disclose calculating a first resistance…from a first slope of the voltage…sweeping a predetermined current…and determining a second abnomality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The referenced claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed processor along with a pressure sensor, voltage sensor and electrolysis cell. As stated previously, the processor of Baltrucki is capable of performing the claimed functional language. The instant claims recite “the processor is configured to”. The configured to claim language typically means that the associated controller can perform the function with no additional modification. A controller configured to is broader than a controller programmed to. In the instant case the processor, sensors and cell(s) are configured to perform various functional language. In regards to the claimed first resistance, slope of voltage, current, etc. related to the electrical aspects of the device, Baltrucki discloses all the claimed structural elements that are capable of performing the function without further modification. For example, Baltrucki measures voltage [0049], controls current [0043], senses pressure [0008], controls a processor, computer, memory storage, register, timing, interrupts, communication interface and input/output signal interfaces [0042]. Baltrucki includes detection of abnormal operating conditions and responding to the abnormal conditions (abstract). Baltrucki also identifies normal operation of the power supply, control panel, electrochemical cells [0043]. Baltrucki recognizes predetermined thresholds [0032], [0046], [0049], [0052].
The Examiner appreciates the attention to the typo in regards to the cited reference.
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 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