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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated August 31, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 have been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of claims 5 and 6 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23).
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role
of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firtina-Ertis (“Thermodynamic and Electrochemical Assessment of
an Alkaline Electrolyzer (AE) at Different Operating Parameters,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering (2022 Apr 1), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1-9).
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role
of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firtina-Ertis has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 3 and 6 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firtina-Ertis (“Thermodynamic and Electrochemical Assessment of an Alkaline Electrolyzer (AE) at Different Operating Parameters,” Journal of Environmental
Chemical Engineering (2022 Apr 1), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1-9) as applied to claim 2 above, and
further in view of WO 2023/106075 (‘075).
The rejection of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firtina-Ertis as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WO 2023/106075 (‘075) has
been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 7, please delete the word “the”.
Line 7, please insert the words -- ones of the plurality -- after the word “respective”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 3.
Line 8, please amend the words “the water electrolysis cells” to the words -- two or more of the plurality of water electrolysis cells --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 3.
Line 10, please insert the words -- plurality of -- before the word “voltage”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 7.
Line 12, please amend the words “it is determined” to the words -- the control device
determines --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Line 15, please insert the word -- further -- should be inserted before the word
“configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 10.
Line 19, please insert the word -- further -- should be inserted before the word
“configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure a proper further limitation for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 10.
Claim 6
Line 6, please amend the words “it is determined” to the words -- the control device determines --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1
Lines 15-16, “the water electrolysis cell” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation. See claim 1, line 3, reciting “a plurality of water electrolysis cells”.
Line 20, “the current density” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 4
Line 2, recite “a steady operation of the water electrolysis system”.
Claim 1, line 14, recite “a steady operation with the water electrolysis system”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the steady operations. Are they the same?
Claim 7
Lines 7-8, “the respective water electrolysis cells” lack antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Line 8, “the water electrolysis cells” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by
introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier
recitation.
Line 10, “the voltage sensors” lack antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation. See claim 7, line 7.
Line 12, the word “it” is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role
of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23), Firtina-Ertis (“Thermodynamic and Electrochemical Assessment of an Alkaline Electrolyzer (AE) at Different Operating Parameters,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering (2022 Apr 1), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1-9), Xue et al. (“Unified Mathematical Modelling of Steady-State and Dynamic Voltage-Current Characteristics for PEM Fuel Cells,” Electrochimica Acta (2006 Nov 12), Vol. 52,
No. 3, pp. 1135-1144) and WO 2022/118933 (‘933).
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘270 teaches a water electrolysis system that obtains hydrogen by water electrolysis with a water electrolysis cell (= Fig. 1 depicts an electrolytic cell for the
production of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas through the splitting of water) [ρ [0016]], the water
electrolysis system comprising:
• a water electrolysis stack having a plurality of water electrolysis cells (= multiple cells may be placed together to form a “stack” of cells) [ρ [0027]];
• a water supply side passage that supplies water to the water electrolysis stack (= the stack is configured to receive water through an anodic inlet) [ρ [0028]];
• a hydrogen side passage that discharges the hydrogen obtained in the water
electrolysis stack from the water electrolysis stack (= the cathodic outlet transfers the hydrogen
gas produced from the electrolytic cells) [ρ [0028]];
• a plurality of voltage sensors that measures voltages for the respective water
electrolysis cells or for each group of the water electrolysis cells (= as depicted in Figure 3, the
electrolysis system further includes at least one voltage sensor or monitor configured to measure the operational voltage of a specific cell, group of cells, or stack within the system) [ρ
[0032]]; and
• a control device (= a processor or controller within the electrolysis system or external
from the electrolysis system) [ρ [0041]],
wherein the control device is configured to acquire a voltage from each of the voltage sensors (= in some examples, in act 102, the processor or controller may calculate, measure, or
identify a change in voltage over time (dV/dt) within the cell, a group of cells, or all of the cells in the electrochemical stack) [ρ [0042]], determine whether the voltage is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (= for example, a change in voltage over a period of time that equals or exceeds the predefined threshold value) [ρ [0044]] and notify that a voltage has been generated when it is determined that the voltage is equal to or higher than the predetermined
value (= provide a notification or alarm when the change in the operational voltage equals or exceeds the threshold value) [ρ [0007]].
WO ‘270 does not explicitly teach the following:
a. Wherein the generated voltage is an overvoltage.
WO ‘270 teaches an electrolytic cell:
In act 104, the determined change in voltage within a specific cell, group/plurality of
cells, or the entire cell stack may be compared to a threshold dV/dt value. For example, the
threshold value may be determined or predefined from a specification, design, or expected performance of the electrolytic cell or stack over a period of time. For example, a change in voltage over a period of time that equals or exceeds the predefined threshold value may indicate a problem with the operation of the electrolytic cell, plurality of cells, or stack. This operational problem may indicate that metal ion accumulation at the membrane has begun or is worsening and degrading the efficiency of electrolysis at the identified cell, plurality of cells, or stack. Therefore, when the calculated dV/dt reaches or exceeds such a predefined threshold, an intervention may be triggered. This intervention may include providing an indication to an operator to conduct an (e.g., in situ)
cleansing of the accumulated metal ions at the membrane within a window of operation of the cell. Alternatively, the intervention may include providing a signal or instruction to the
electrochemical system to automatically clean the membrane to remove the buildup of metal ions at a specific time (ρ [0044]).
Like WO ‘270, Wang teaches water splitting electrolysis (page 1, abstract).
One of the critical barriers that keep water splitting from being of practical use is the sluggish reaction kinetics of OER and HER due to high overpotentials[5], a measure of the kinetic energy barriers (page 2, left column, lines 31-35).
The smaller the change of overpotential is, the better the electrocatalyst’s stability (page 4,
right column, lines 4-5).
However, the energy efficiencies of water electrolysis are hindered by the sluggish reaction kinetics of OER and HER due to high overpotentials which lead to only 4% of the world’s hydrogen generation from water splitting at present. To facilitate the practical use of water splitting in industries, the design of efficient catalysts plays a major role in both OER and HER to minimize the overpotential and improve the energy efficiencies (page 21, left column, lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculated dv/dt taught by WO ‘270
with wherein the generated voltage is an overvoltage. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because WO ‘270 teaches that a change in voltage over a period of time that equals or exceeds the predefined threshold value may
indicate a problem with the operation of the electrolytic cell, plurality of cells, or stack in [0044] where the energy efficiencies of water electrolysis are hindered by the sluggish reaction kinetics of OER and HER due to high overpotentials as taught by Wang on page 21, left column, lines 26-29, where using the overpotential of the water-splitting reaction as the calculated dV/dt of WO ‘270 would have determined the system’s energy efficiency where the smaller the change of overpotential is, the better the electrocatalyst’s stability.
b. Wherein when water electrolysis is performed by a steady operation with the water electrolysis system, the control device is configured to, based on an IV characteristic of the water electrolysis cell acquired in advance, notify that the overvoltage has been generated when a
voltage that is equal to or higher than a first threshold higher than the IV characteristic is detected, and wherein the control device is configured to compare a reference voltage on a
reference IV characteristic corresponding to the current density during the steady operation with a current cell voltage acquired by a cell monitor.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because these limitations are contingent limitations.
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
Furthermore, WO ‘270 also teaches to notify that the overvoltage has been generated when a voltage that is equal to or higher than a first threshold (= compare the change in the operational voltage to a threshold value; and provide a notification or alarm when the change in the operational voltage equals or exceeds the threshold value) [ρ [0007]].
As to:
i. Wherein the control device is configured to, based on an IV characteristic of the
water electrolysis cell acquired in advance.
ii. Wherein the first threshold is higher than the IV characteristic is detected.
WO ‘270 teaches that:
In yet another embodiment, an electrochemical system is provided. The system includes at least one electrochemical cell; at least one voltage sensor configured to measure a
first operational voltage of a respective electrochemical cell of the at least one electrochemical cell at a first time and measure a second operational voltage of the electrochemical cell at a second time; and a processor configured to: receive the measured first operational voltage at the first time and the second operational voltage at the second time from the at least one
voltage sensor; calculate a change in operational voltage of the respective electrochemical cell over a period of time defined a difference between the first operational voltage and the second operational voltage divided by a difference between the first time and the second time; compare the change in the operational voltage to a threshold value; and provide a notification or alarm when the
change in the operational voltage equals or exceeds the threshold value. In some examples, the system is further configured to provide an instruction to add or inject a cleaning composition to a water source supplied to the at least one electrochemical cell to remove metal ions at a membrane of the at least one electrochemical cell (ρ [0007]).
In act 102, data for the operating voltage may be measured or received over a period of time for an individual cell, one or more groups of a plurality of cells less than all of the cells within the electrochemical stack, or all of the cells within the electrochemical stack. For example, a first voltage measurement for a particular cell, group of cells, or stack may be recorded at a first time, and a second voltage measurement for the same cell, group of cells, or stack may be recorded at a second time (ρ [0040]).
The controller or processor 302 may further be configured to compare the calculated dV/dt with a predefined threshold dV/dt value. As noted above, the threshold value may be determined or
predefined from a specification, design, or expected performance of the electrolytic cell or stack over a period of time. Based on this comparison, the controller or processor 302 may be configured to identify a potential operational problem with the cell/stack when the calculated dV/dt is equal to or greater than the predefined threshold value (ρ [0062]).
Like WO ‘270, Firtina-Frits teaches water electrolysis (page 1, left column, lines 9-10).
The current density-cell voltage (i-V) characteristic curve is a unique feature of its design which is generated at different operating parameters. Further, this curve for different losses such as ohmic and activation overpotentials are generated (page 1, abstract).
Alkaline electrolyzer models can be classified into two groups as the physical models and the electrical models. Mostly, the physical models depend on the coefficients obtained by adapting the current-voltage (I–V) curves from the experimental data [8,24,27]. These models
have been used to attain the I–V curve of the electrolyzer and hydrogen production rate [21,29]. In these models, when the current is applied as input, the operating voltage is the result [9,11] (page 2, left column, lines 5-11).
The principles of thermodynamics provide the framework of the study, considering the
energy, exergy, and entropy balance equations under a steady-state operation (page 2, left column, lines 40-43).
The electrochemical side of the model accurately predicts the i-V curve under different operating conditions to determine mathematically how the curve or overpotentials change with the electrolyte distance, temperature, or with exchange current density which are comparable with
the literature. Besides, the overall performance of the electrolyzer is investigated through
energy and exergy analysis (page 7, right column, lines 57-63).
Moreover, the findings of the study provide insights on parameters that can guide researchers in further improving the design of an electrolyzer. The knowledge about the
characteristic curve and how it changes with respect to the parameters will help engineers in setting technical goals. In this sense, the proposed model becomes a promising study to determine the optimal parameters, and it could also contribute to the efforts towards producing hydrogen via alkaline electrolyzers especially when they work with renewable energy. This work can continue with how energy and exergy efficiency change with respect to the parameters in the future (page 8, right column, lines 18-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device taught by WO ‘270
with wherein the control device is configured to, based on an IV characteristic of the water
electrolysis cell acquired in advance; and wherein the first threshold is higher than the IV characteristic is detected. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because WO ‘270 teaches measuring the operating voltage over a period of time for an individual cell in [0040] wherein the controller or processor is configured to compare the calculated dV/dt with a predefined threshold dV/dt value where the threshold value may be determined or predefined from a specification, design, or expected performance
of the electrolytic cell or stack over a period of time in [0062] whereby attaining the I–V curve of the electrolyzer results in an operating voltage as taught by Firtina-Ertis on page 2, left
column, lines 10-11, and under a steady-state operation would have determined mathematically how the overpotentials change which are comparable to the predefined
threshold where the knowledge about the characteristic curve and how it changes with respect to the parameters will help engineers in setting technical goals, and in this sense, becomes a promising study to determine the optimal parameters as taught by Firtina-Ertis on page 2, left column, lines 40-43; page 7, right column, lines 57-63; and page 8, right column, lines 18-27.
iii. Wherein the control device is configured to compare a reference voltage on a
reference IV characteristic corresponding to the current density during the steady operation1
with a current cell voltage acquired by a cell monitor.2
Xue teaches computing the steady-state and dynamic voltage-current (V-I) characteristics of PEM fuel cell stacks (page 1135, abstract).
The performance of a fuel cell can be expressed by the polarization curve, which describes the cell voltage-load current (V-I) characteristics of the fuel cell that are highly non-linear [1-9]. Optimization of fuel cell operating points, design of the power conditioning units, design of simulators for fuel cell stack systems, and design of system controllers depend on such characteristics. Therefore, modelling V-I characteristics of fuel cells is important (page 1135, left column, lines 5-12).
Fig. 4 depicts the comparisons between the known data and the developed steady and transient polynomials. It can be seen that the computed steady and transient voltage values are well consistent with the known data, respectively. In addition, the computed steady-state V–I characteristics (dotted curve) from the proposed unified mathematical modelling can be found in Fig.5.In the same time, it also gives the V-I characteristics (solid curve) from the formulated electrochemical modelling described in the appendix. It can be observed that the proposed
unified mathematical modelling can be used to accurately describe the steady-state V-I characteristics of the PEM fuel cell (page 1138-1139, bridging paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 1138, Fig. 3).
WO ‘933 teaches that:
The detection unit 98 can detect the potential of each electrode and the voltage of the electrolytic cell 2 using known methods. The detection unit 98 includes, for example, a known voltmeter (ρ [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device taught by WO ‘270
with wherein the control device is configured to compare a reference voltage on a reference IV
characteristic corresponding to the current density during the steady operation with a current cell voltage acquired by a cell monitor. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to make this modification because computing the steady-state V-I characteristics and the V-I characteristics of an electrochemical cell, and comparing their data would have optimized the cell’s operating points, design of the power conditioning units, design of simulators for cell stack systems, and design of system controllers which depend on such characteristics as taught by Xue on page 1135, left column, lines 5-12; page 1138-1139, bridging paragraph; and Figs. 3 and 4, where a known voltmeter would have detected a current cell voltage.
II. Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/150270 (‘270) in view of Wang et al. (“Hydrogen Production from Water Electrolysis: Role of Catalysts,” Nano Convergence (2021 Feb 11), Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-23), Firtina-Ertis (“Thermodynamic and Electrochemical Assessment of an Alkaline Electrolyzer (AE) at Different Operating Parameters,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering (2022 Apr 1), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1-9), Xue et al. (“Unified Mathematical Modelling of Steady-State and Dynamic Voltage-Current Characteristics for PEM Fuel Cells,” Electrochimica Acta (2006 Nov 12), Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 1135-1144) and WO 2022/118933 (‘933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of WO 2023/106075 (‘075).
Regarding claim 3, WO ‘270, Wang, Firtina-Ertis, Xue and WO ‘933 teach the method of at least claim 1 as applied above. WO ‘270 also teaches:
• wherein when water electrolysis is performed by the steady operation with the water electrolysis system.
• when a voltage that is equal to or higher than a second threshold higher than the first
threshold is detected.
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or
process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
The references do not explicitly teach wherein the control device is configured to perform control that stops the water electrolysis system.
WO ‘270 teaches that:
In some examples, in act 102, the processor or controller may calculate, measure, or identify a change in voltage over time (dV/dt) within the cell, a group of cells, or all of the cells
in the electrochemical stack based on a difference between the two measurements recorded divided by the difference between the first and second times. The period of time between voltage measurements for the dV/dt calculation may be predefined for a specific period of time, e.g., 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, etc. Alternatively, an operator of the electrochemical system may view the voltage data collected and select (e.g., enter via an input device of the electrochemical system) a specific time period for analysis (ρ [0042]).
Like WO ‘270, WO ‘075 teaches a water electrolysis apparatus (ρ [0002]).
To improve the efficiency of a water electrolysis system, an optimal operating method
for the cells is required. In addition, improving the efficiency of water electrolysis equipment requires the ability to generate hydrogen with less electricity. When a water electrolysis device is
operated continuously, the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell gradually increases. This increases the amount of electricity required to produce a unit volume of hydrogen. As a result, the efficiency of hydrogen production using water electrolysis equipment decreases (ρ [0005]).
A water electrolysis apparatus according to a tenth aspect of the present disclosure comprises: a water electrolysis cell; a voltage applicator for applying a voltage to the water electrolysis cell; a voltage sensor for detecting the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell; and a controller that controls the voltage applicator to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell when the voltage detected by the voltage sensor rises above a predetermined threshold while the water electrolysis reaction is progressing in the water electrolysis cell, and the voltage applicator is controlled to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell (ρ [0024]).
According to the tenth embodiment, a water electrolysis apparatus that maintains excellent efficiency can be provided (ρ [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device taught by WO ‘270
with wherein the control device is configured to perform control that stops the water electrolysis system. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because WO ‘270 teaches that the period of time between voltage measurements for the dV/dt calculation may be predefined for a specific period of time in [0042] where when a water electrolysis device is operated continuously, the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell gradually increases, and as a result, the efficiency of hydrogen production using water electrolysis equipment decreases as taught by WO ‘075 in [0005] where using a controller that controls the voltage applicator to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell when the voltage detected by the voltage sensor rises above a predetermined threshold would have maintained an excellent efficiency of a water electrolyzer apparatus as
taught by WO ‘075 in [0024] and [0025].
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘270, Wang, Firtina-Ertis, Xue, WO ‘933 and WO ‘075 teach the method of at least claims 1 and 3 as applied above. WO ‘270 also teaches:
• wherein while control to stop the water electrolysis system is performed.
Apparatus claims cover what the device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be obvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. See MPEP § 2114(II).
• when it is determined that the voltage of the water electrolysis cell becomes lower than the third threshold.
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
The references do not explicitly teach wherein the control device is configured to determine whether the voltage of the water electrolysis cell becomes lower than a third threshold within a certain period of time after a power supply stops voltage application and notify that the voltage of the water electrolysis cell becomes lower than the third threshold.
WO ‘270 teaches that:
In yet another embodiment, an electrochemical system is provided. The system includes at least one electrochemical cell; at least one voltage sensor configured to measure a first operational voltage of a respective electrochemical cell of the at least one electrochemical cell at a first time and measure a second operational voltage of the electrochemical cell at a
second time; and a processor configured to: receive the measured first operational voltage at the first time and the second operational voltage at the second time from the at least one
voltage sensor; calculate a change in operational voltage of the respective electrochemical cell over a period of time defined a difference between the first operational voltage and the second
operational voltage divided by a difference between the first time and the second time; compare the change in the operational voltage to a threshold value; and provide a notification or alarm when the
change in the operational voltage equals or exceeds the threshold value. In some examples, the system is further configured to provide an instruction to add or inject a cleaning composition to a water source supplied to the at least one electrochemical cell to remove metal ions at a membrane of the at least one electrochemical cell (ρ [0007]).
In act 102, data for the operating voltage may be measured or received over a period of time for an individual cell, one or more groups of a plurality of cells less than all of the cells within the electrochemical stack, or all of the cells within the electrochemical stack. For example, a first voltage measurement for a particular cell, group of cells, or stack may be recorded at a first time, and a second voltage measurement for the same cell, group of cells, or stack may be recorded at a second time (ρ [0040]).
In some examples, in act 102, the processor or controller may calculate, measure, or identify a change in voltage over time (dV/dt) within the cell, a group of cells, or all of the cells in the electrochemical stack based on a difference between the two measurements recorded divided by the difference between the first and second times. The period of time between voltage measurements for the dV/dt calculation may be predefined for a specific period of time, e.g., 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, etc. Alternatively, an operator of the electrochemical system may view the voltage data collected and select (e.g., enter via an input device of the electrochemical system) a specific time period for analysis (ρ [0042]).
The controller or processor 302 may further be configured to compare the calculated dV/dt with a predefined threshold dV/dt value. As noted above, the threshold value may be determined or
predefined from a specification, design, or expected performance of the electrolytic cell or stack over a period of time. Based on this comparison, the controller or processor 302 may be
configured to identify a potential operational problem with the cell/stack when the calculated dV/dt is equal to or greater than the predefined threshold value (ρ [0062]).
WO ‘075 teaches that:
To improve the efficiency of a water electrolysis system, an optimal operating method for the cells is required. In addition, improving the efficiency of water electrolysis equipment requires the ability to generate hydrogen with less electricity. When a water electrolysis device is
operated continuously, the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell gradually increases. This increases the amount of electricity required to produce a unit volume of hydrogen. As a result, the
efficiency of hydrogen production using water electrolysis equipment decreases (ρ [0005]).
A water electrolysis apparatus according to a tenth aspect of the present disclosure
comprises: a water electrolysis cell; a voltage applicator for applying a voltage to the water electrolysis cell; a voltage sensor for detecting the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell;
and a controller that controls the voltage applicator to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell when the voltage detected by the voltage sensor rises above a predetermined threshold while the
water electrolysis reaction is progressing in the water electrolysis cell, and the voltage
applicator is controlled to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell (ρ [0024]).
According to the tenth embodiment, a water electrolysis apparatus that maintains
excellent efficiency can be provided (ρ [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device taught by WO ‘270 with wherein the control device is configured to determine whether the voltage of the water electrolysis cell becomes lower than a third threshold within a certain period of time after a power supply stops voltage application and notify that that the voltage of the water electrolysis cell becomes lower than the third threshold. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because WO ‘270 teaches measuring the operating voltage over a period of time for an individual cell in [0040] wherein the controller or processor is configured to compare the calculated dV/dt with a predefined threshold dV/dt value where the threshold value may be determined or predefined from a specification, design, or expected performance of the electrolytic cell or stack over a period of time in [0062] wherein the period of time between voltage measurements for the dV/dt calculation may be predefined for a specific period of time in [0042] and providing a notification when the change in the operational voltage equals or exceeds the threshold value in [0007] where when a water electrolysis device is operated continuously, the voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell
gradually increases, and as a result, the efficiency of hydrogen production using water electrolysis equipment decreases as taught by WO ‘075 in [0005] where using a controller that
controls the voltage applicator to stop the current flowing to the water electrolysis cell when
the voltage detected by the voltage sensor rises above a predetermined threshold, i.e., where
the efficiency of hydrogen production using water electrolysis equipment decreases, would
have maintained an excellent efficiency of a water electrolyzer apparatus as taught by WO ‘075 in [0024] and [0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 5 define over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the water electrolysis system according to claim 1, wherein after stopping the water electrolysis by a steady operation of the water electrolysis system,3 when a voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell is lowered and the voltage of the water electrolysis cell rises again,4 the control device is configured to purge part of accompanying water from the hydrogen side passage.
Claim 7 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests a water electrolysis system that obtains hydrogen by water electrolysis with a water electrolysis cell, the water electrolysis system comprising: a water electrolysis stack, a water supply side passage, a hydrogen side passage, a plurality of voltage sensors and a control device as presently claimed, esp., wherein after stopping the water
electrolysis by a steady operation of the water electrolysis system, when a voltage applied to the water electrolysis cell is lowered and the voltage of the water electrolysis cell rises again,
the control device is configured to purge part of accompanying water from the hydrogen side passage.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above
conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35
U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to
include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Applicant states that however, neither WO ‘270 nor Firtina-Ertis discloses or suggests a control device that derives a reference voltage from a reference IV characteristic at the current density during the steady operation and compares that reference voltage against a current cell voltage acquired by a cell monitor for abnormality detection, as recited by claim 1 as amended. Neither WO ‘075 nor Wang remedies this deficiency.
In response, the claimed limitations of “wherein when water electrolysis is performed by a
steady operation with the water electrolysis system, the control device is configured to, based on an IV characteristic of the water electrolysis cell acquired in advance, notify that the overvoltage has been generated when a voltage that is equal to or higher than a first threshold higher than the IV characteristic is detected, and wherein the control device is configured to compare a reference voltage on a reference IV characteristic corresponding to the current density during the steady operation with a current cell voltage acquired by a cell monitor” are contingent limitations.
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or
process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s)
precedent are not met”.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Gilliam (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0245226 A1) is cited to teach:
PNG
media_image2.png
757
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2).
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 EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 The reference voltage would be formulated from the steady-state approach in Xue.
2 The current cell voltage would be a discrete data of a basic parameter of a fuel cell in Xue.
3 MPEP § 2114(II).
4 MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Prosecution Insights