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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation "the first and second three-way valves" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to either make claim 7 dependent upon claim 2 to provide antecedent basis or to amend claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schürg (DE 102018219373 A1) in view of Molter et al (US 2004/0013923 A1).
Schürg teaches (see figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0002], [0055]-[0066] and [0087]-[0088]) a water electrolysis system comprising:
a water electrolysis stack (14) that included separator plates (membrane) positioned between a plurality of unit cells that produce hydrogen and oxygen from water;
a variable current power supply (“alternative energy sources”) that supplied the electricity required for operation of the stack;
an electrolyte circulation line (56+60) through which an electrolyte (water) circulates;
a first electrolyte tank (54, fig. 1, right hand 54 in fig. 4) provided on the electrolyte circulation line;
a first bypass line (piping connected to left hand 54 in fig. 4) that branches off from the electrolyte circulation line at a first point located at a front end of the first electrolyte tank in a flow direction of an electrolyte, bypasses the first electrolyte tank, and is joined with the electrolyte circulation line at a second point located at a rear end of the first electrolyte tank; and,
a second electrolyte tank (left hand 54 in fig. 4) provided on the first bypass line.
With respect to the claim limitations that the first electrolyte tank “is provided … to store a high-temperature electrolyte” and that the second electrolyte tank “stores a low-temperature electrolyte”, these limitations relate to the manner of operation of the claimed system. See MPEP 2114. Here, the tanks (54) of Schürg would have been capable of storing electrolyte of any relative temperature, including one that was relatively warmer than the other.
Schürg fails to teach a heating device being provided on the first electrolyte tank.
In the same field of endeavor of water electrolysis systems for hydrogen generation, Molter et al teach (see fig. 4, paragraphs [0049]-[0050]) providing a heating device (82) on an electrolyte storage tank to operate to prevent the electrolyte (water) from freezing during periods of low ambient temperatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a heating device on the first electrolyte tank of Schürg as suggested by Molter et al for the purpose of preventing the electrolyte from freezing during periods of low ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 2, three-way valves are well known in the art of chemical systems for providing a way to controllably divert a flow of fluid from a single source to two destinations or from two sources to a single destination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted a three-way valve in place of the two control valves (67 at inlet and 70 at outlet) of Schürg to reduce the number of valves necessary.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schürg (DE 102018219373 A1) in view of Molter et al (US 2004/0013923 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren et al (CN 113943941 A).
Schürg and Molter et al fail to teach providing a second bypass line having a heat exchanger designed to cool the electrolyte by recovering heat into a cooling water.
Ren et al teach (see the figure and paragraphs [0021] and [0027]) providing a heat exchanger (electrolyte cooling device 7) in a bypass line that branches off the electrolyte circulation line in a water electrolysis system for cooling the electrolyte as necessary to avoid excessive temperature of the electrolyte and also to permit turning the heat exchanger off including closing the bypass line when cooling was not needed to save energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the (second) bypass line and heat exchanger taught by Ren et al to the water electrolysis system of Schürg for the purpose of preventing temperature rise of the electrolyte during operation while also permitting the ability to turn off the heat exchanger when cooling was not needed.
Regarding claim 4, three-way valves are well known in the art of chemical systems for providing a way to controllably divert a flow of fluid from a single source to two destinations or from two sources to a single destination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted two three-way valves in place of the three control valves (11, 12, 13) of Ren et al to reduce the number of valves necessary.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schürg (DE 102018219373 A1) in view of Molter et al (US 2004/0013923 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taruya et al (US 2010/0230295 A1).
Schürg fails to teach providing a cell voltage reducer.
Taruya et al teach (see abstract, fig. 3, paragraphs [0056]) providing a controller that functioned to reduce the applied cell voltage when the water electrolysis system is stopped to prevent deterioration of the anode catalyst layer of the electrolysis cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a cell voltage reducer as taught by Taruya et al in the system of Schürg for the purpose of reducing the voltage during shutdown to avoid damaging the anode catalyst layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schürg (DE 102018219373 A1) in view of Molter et al (US 2004/0013923 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrews et al (US 2002/0166546 A1) and Puthawala (US 2004/0140202 A1).
Schürg teaches a separator tank (unnumbered, but downstream of valve 24, fig. 1) that separated moisture from a hydrogen-containing gas discharged from the water electrolysis stack.
Schürg fails to teach an oxygen remover, temperature sensor and dehumidifier as claimed.
Andrews et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) that the hydrogen leaving a separator tank still contained water vapor, and that a solution to produce high purity hydrogen included providing an oxygen remover (112) and a dehumidifier (110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the oxygen remover and dehumidifier taught by Andrews et al to the hydrogen discharge line to increase the purity of the hydrogen gas.
Puthawala teaches (see abstract, paragraph [0035]) that the catalytic oxygen remover produced heat due to the exothermicity of the hydrogen-oxygen recombination reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a temperature sensor in the oxygen remover of Andrews et al to ensure that thermal runaway does not occur wherein the exothermic reaction raises the temperature enough to combust the hydrogen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schürg (DE 102018219373 A1) in view of Molter et al (US 2004/0013923 A1), Andrews et al (US 2002/0166546 A1), and Puthawala (US 2004/0140202 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wakita et al (US 2018/0166713 A1).
As noted above, detecting the temperature inside the oxygen remover would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent a thermal runaway condition resulting from the exothermic hydrogen-oxygen recombination reaction.
Thus, Schürg, Molter et al, Andrews et al, and Puthawala fail to teach detecting a cross-leak of the water electrolysis stack in real time.
Wakita et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0036], and [0076]) that hydrogen cross leak was a concern during electrolysis stoppage due to the higher relative pressure of hydrogen on the cathode side causing diffusion of hydrogen from the cathode to the anode. Wakita et al teach performing hydrogen cross-leak detection during electrolysis stoppage to permit corrective action to be taken.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a step of detecting a cross-leak of the water electrolysis stack in real time (i.e. constantly) as suggested by Wakita et al for the purpose of detecting the hydrogen cross-leak to permit corrective action to be taken to reduce the effect of the hydrogen cross-leak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest operation of the valving and circulation of the contents of the second (cooler) electrolyte when the water electrolysis system is stopped. The closest prior art is Schürg and Ren et al as applied to claim 3 above. The teachings of Haleem et al (“Effects of operation and shutdown parameters and electrode materials on the reverse current phenomenon in alkaline water analyzers”) are also considered relevant. The prior art suggests cooling of the electrolyte upon electrolysis stoppage to reduce the effects of reverse current. However, Haleem et al accomplished this by turning on a cooling device of the circulating electrolyte in a manner similar to the cooling device of Ren et al. Thus, the prior art teaches the solution to the problem of the reverse current being higher at higher temperatures by cooling the circulating electrolyte. These claims recite a different solution, keeping a relatively cooler electrolyte in a second storage tank and changing from circulating the normal electrolyte to circulating the cooler electrolyte at the time of electrolysis stoppage to quickly reduce the temperature. Absent the blueprint of the instant specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the invention as set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights