DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 would be more appropriately presented with clear indication of what text goes to which drawing element. The figure contains no reference numbers and it is unclear what element is being referred to by the text. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “is communicated with” and “communicated with” may be more appropriately written as “in communication with”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbreteche (FR 2298613) in view of Xiaojun (CN 201904404).
Regarding claim 1, Imbreteche discloses a system for the electrolytic production of hydrogen and oxygen at great depth under water utilizing static head of water to compress produced gases (title) (= an in-situ electrolytic gas compression and power output system using static pressure of seawater, comprising a deep-sea water electrolysis hydrogen production system),
Two electrolysis tanks (3, 4) (page 2 paragraph 6) (= wherein the deep-sea water electrolysis hydrogen production system comprises a plurality of electrolytic tanks located in deep sea), power system which supplies direct current (page 3 paragraph 4) (= an electrolytic power supply; an electrolytic system intrinsically includes a power supply to apply voltage or current), oxygen reservoir cell (50) with piping (e.g. 63) (page 4 paragraph 3, Figure 1) (= an oxygen pressure stabilizing tank communicated with the electrolytic tanks through an oxygen transportation pipeline), a hydrogen reservoir bell (39) with piping (e.g. 38) (page 4 paragraph 3) (= a hydrogen pressure stabilizing tank communicated with the electrolytic tanks through a hydrogen transportation pipeline);
Forming a pressure difference setting pistons in motion and using valves and gas is evacuated through pipe with an end opening onto the shore (page 2 paragraph 3, page 3 paragraphs 3-4, page 5 paragraph 2) (= wherein the oxygen pressure stabilizing tank is communicated with a valve and piping; and oxygen that has undergone work is transported to sea surface hydrogen and oxygen collection through an oxygen outlet pipeline; the hydrogen pressure stabilizing tank is communicated with a valve and piping with a valve; and hydrogen that has undergone work is transported to a sea surface hydrogen and oxygen collection through a hydrogen outlet pipeline for collection).
Imbreteche fails to disclose communication with a pneumatic motor through a pipeline with a one-way valve and is transported to a sea surface hydrogen and oxygen collection relay ship through an oxygen outlet pipeline.
Xiaojun discloses a storage battery comprising a hydrogen generation production device (100) [0024] connected to a high temperature and high pressure gas cylinder (200), a pneumatic motor (300) and an ammonia absorber (400) in sequence through the exhaust pipe (9) which is connected to a high-temperature and high-pressure gas cylinder (200) and the pneumatic motor can be used to output mechanical energy. Xiaojun teaches outputting high pressure gas out of mechanical energy [0029]. Xiaojun discloses that the storage battery can greatly improve the energy utilization rate of the hydrogen production process, has low technical implementation difficulty with no emissions pollution [0008]. The mechanical energy is outputted through the pneumatic motor while the generated hydrogen is outputted as electrical energy through a hydrogen to electric converter [0017]. Xiaojun additionally discloses the use of one-way valves [0016].
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 pneumatic motor because Xiaojun discloses the use of a pneumatic motor in combination with a power take-off system whereby the gas motor is connected to a collection container. The system of Xiaojun outputs mechanical energy.
Regarding claim 3, Imbreteche discloses wherein an oxygen pressuring device is provided between the oxygen transport line and the electrolytic cell and a hydrogen pressurizing device is provided between the hydrogen delivery line and the electrolytic cell with a valve provided with the delivery lines (page 1 last paragraph – page 2 paragraph 3). The oxygen pressurizing device is a piston compression (page 2 paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbreteche (FR 2298613), in view of Xiaojun (CN 201904404) and in further view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0341180).
Regarding claim 2, Imbreteche in view of Xiaojun fail to disclose the power supply being a power supply from offshore photovoltaic power generation, a power supply from offshore wind power generation, and a power supply from onshore power generation; and/or the electrolytic power supply is from one or offshore nuclear power, thermal power, biomass power generation, and garbage power generation.
In the same or similar field, Huang discloses electrolyzing seawater to obtain hydrogen based on electric energy output by an offshore off-grid superconducting wind turbine generator (abstract). Huang teaches that as the price of offshore wind power generation continues to drop, the cost of water electrolysis hydrogen production can be greatly reduced through wind turbine power generation and also the hydrogen production process is a carbon neutral situation [0003].
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 power supply from offshore wind power generation because Huang discloses that as the price of offshore wind power generation continues to drop, the cost of water electrolysis hydrogen production can be greatly reduced through wind turbine power generation and also the hydrogen production process is a carbon neutral situation [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0336775 – wind energy
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