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 September 2, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 have been 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.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0014326 A1).
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 3 and 7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0014326 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of WO 2014/197693 (‘693).
The rejection of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of WO 2014/197693 (‘693) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 5 and 6 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0014326 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Elegrow (“I V Curve Analysis for Photovoltaic System,” https://elegrow.com/i-v-curve-analysis-for-photovoltaic-system/ (August 4, 2018), pp. 1-10).
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/047908 (‘908) in view of WO 2023/150270 (‘270) and Berriah et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Elegrow has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 13, please amend the words “it is determined” to the words -- the control device determines --.
Line 15, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Line 19, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Claim 2
Line 3, please amend the words “water electrolysis cell” to -- 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.
Claim 4
Lines 4-5, please amend the words “water electrolysis cell” to -- 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 6, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Line 7, please amend the words “water electrolysis cell” to -- 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.
Claim 6
Line 2, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 5, line 2.
Claim 7
Line 2, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Lines 2-3, please amend the words “it is determined” to the words -- the control device
determines --.
Claim 8
Line 2, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Claim 9
Line 2, please insert the word -- further -- before the word configured”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 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
Line 21, “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, line3.
Line 21, recites “the voltage”.
It is unclear from the claim language which voltage this is further limiting. Is it the
acquired voltage from claim 1, line 11, or the normal water electrolysis cell voltage from claim 1, line 17?
Claim 4
Line 2, recites “the voltage”.
It is unclear from the claim language which voltage this is further limiting. Is it the
acquired voltage from claim 1, line 11; the normal water electrolysis cell voltage from claim 1, line 17; or the voltage from claim 1, line 21?
Claim 7
Line 3, “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.
Claim 8
Line 2, recites “the voltage”.
It is unclear from the claim language which voltage this is further limiting. Is it the
acquired voltage from claim 1, line 11; the normal water electrolysis cell voltage from claim 1,
line 17; or the voltage from claim 1, line 21?
Line 2, “the predetermined value at the startup” 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.
Lines 2-3, “the startup of the water electrolysis system” 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 9
Line 2, recites “the voltage”.
It is unclear from the claim language which voltage this is further limiting. Is it the
acquired voltage from claim 1, line 11; the normal water electrolysis cell voltage from claim 1,
line 17; or the voltage from claim 1, line 21?
Line 2, “the predetermined value from the startup” 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.
Lines 2-3, “the startup of the water electrolysis system” 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 define 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 comprising: a water electrolysis stack, a water supply passage, a hydrogen side passage, a plurality of voltage sensors and a control device as presently claimed. 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.
WO 2024047908 does not teach wherein the control device is configured to determine whether the voltage is lower than the predetermined value at a startup of the water electrolysis system, the predetermined value is a normal water electrolysis cell voltage corresponding to a current acquired in advance.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 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.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0351928 A1) is cited to teach:
When the output voltage drops to or below the predetermined voltage V1 and the execution of the IV estimation is stopped, it can be thought to indicate a state where the
deviation between the actual IV characteristic and the reference IV characteristic is large and the IV characteristic is poor since the warm-up is not very much in progress. Thus, even if the IV
estimation is executed without a time interval, there is a low possibility that the IV characteristic has reached the IV characteristic in which the travel permit is issuable. Thus, the IV estimation is uselessly executed (page 11, [0191]).
Mulawski (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0264123 A1) is cited to teach:
If the first voltage of the batteries is below a fixed threshold, one or more of the batteries may be charged in accordance with a charge routine, for example, which may include:
Start charging of the batteries;
Charge the batteries for a charge time (e.g., a variable charge time);
Subsequent to the charge time, measure voltage(s) of the batteries;
Compare the measured voltage(s) to a previously measured voltage(s);
If a difference between the voltages (i.e., the measured voltage(s) and the previously measured voltage(s)) is less than a predetermined difference value, then end charge; and
If the difference is greater than the predetermined difference value, then charge one or more of the batteries again for a charge time (page 16, [0161] to [0167]).
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
Prosecution Insights