Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 18/548,963 filed on 5 September 2023. The application is a 371 of PCT/ EP2022/ 056237, with priority to Swedish application SE 2130077-7 filed 19 March 2021.
Claims 1-18 are pending, claims 1-6 and 18 have been fully considered, and claims 7-17 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I, in the reply filed on 14 July 2026, is acknowledged.
In their response, Applicant identifies claims 1-7 and 18 as readable on the elected species. However, in the restriction requirement (see Office Action of 19 May 2026, pages 3-4), Examiner identified claims 1-6 and 18 as reading on Species I, with claim 7 instead belonging to Species II.
Therefore Applicant’s election of Species I without traverse is understood to be an election of claims 1-6 and 18. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “English” (US 2019/0047853 A1 to English).
Regarding claim 1, English teaches an electrolyzer (para [0007], “photoelectrochemical cell”; figure 3) comprising a first and a second electrode (para [0063], “A photoanode 310 having rutile-titania surface ... A photocathode 312 of platinum”) and an ion exchange membrane arranged in-between the first and the second electrode (figure 3 membrane 108), each electrode comprising an electrically conductive element (para [0021], “circuitry to permit charge transfer between the photoanode and photocathode”), at least one electrode comprising a catalyst structure comprising an electrically conductive material (para [0063], “A photoanode 310 having rutile-titania surface ... A photocathode 312 of platinum”), the electrolyzer also comprising at least one feeding means wherein the feeding means is arranged to introduce a variable electromagnetic field into the electrolyzer (para [0022], the device comprises a window (i.e. a first feeding means) arranged to introduce sunlight (i.e. a first variable electromagnetic field) in to impinge on an electrode of the electrolyzer; para [0025], the device also comprises a second feeding means in the form of “a microwave source for applying a dynamic (i.e. time-varying) electromagnetic field across the interface between the semiconductor photoanode and the water”; para [0065], “The cell 302 is mounted between a pair of external electrodes 318, 320, which are connected to a voltage source 322 to apply an external electric field across the cell”), the variable electromagnetic field being arranged to create a temperature gradient in the electrolyzer by increasing a temperature of the catalyst structure (para [0025], “a microwave source for applying a dynamic (i.e. time-varying) electromagnetic field across the interface between the semiconductor photoanode and the water”; application of microwave heating at the catalyst surface will necessarily result in increased temperature at the catalyst structure creating a temperature gradient within the device).
Regarding claim 2, English teaches the electrolyzer according to the claim 1. The further limitation of claim 2, “wherein the variable electromagnetic field is a propagating electromagnetic wave”, does not carry patentable weight because it only limits the electromagnetic wave, which is not a positively recited component of the claimed apparatus, and it does not limit the structure of the apparatus itself (MPEP 2114). Therefore English would read on claim 2 regardless of whether English actually disclosed the limitation in question. Moreover, English teaches wherein the variable electromagnetic field is a propagating electromagnetic wave (para [0007], “radiation”; para [0025], “microwave”).
Regarding claim 3, English teaches the electrolyzer according to claim 2, wherein the feeding means comprise a microwave applicator (para [0025], “a microwave source for applying a dynamic (i.e. time-varying) electromagnetic field”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over, English.
Regarding claim 6, English teaches the electrolyzer according to claim 2. The further limitation of claim 6, “wherein the propagating electromagnetic wave comprises a frequency component between 300 MHz and 300 GHz”, does not carry patentable weight because it only limits the electromagnetic wave, which is not a positively recited component of the claimed apparatus, and it does not limit the structure of the apparatus itself (MPEP 2114). Therefore, English would read on claim 6 regardless of whether English actually disclosed the limitation in question. Moreover English teaches the propagating wave comprises a frequency that overlaps the claimed frequency range of 300 MHz to 300 GHz (para [0025], “The microwave source may be arranged to output electromagnetic energy having a frequency greater than 100 GHz, and preferably in the range 500 to 1000 GHz. The microwave source may be a commercially available magnetron or the like”). Given the teachings of English regarding a frequency of from 100 GHz to the upper end of the microwave frequency range, it would have been obvious to have selected and utilized a thickness within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range of 0.3 to 300 GHz. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egnlish as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “Gershon” (US 2016/0040303 A1 to Gershon et al).
Regarding claims 4-5, English teaches the electrolyzer of claim 2 but does not specifically say that at least one of the feeding means in positioned in connection to at least one of the electrically conductive elements.
Gershon is similarly directed to a solar electrolyzer for water splitting, comprising of a first electrode comprising a catalyst structure comprising an electrically conductive material (figures 1, anode comprises electrically conductive electrode substrate 101 and photoelectrocatalyst 102), a second electrode (figure 1, cathode 106) and an ion exchange membrane arranged in-between the first and the second electrode (figure 1, membrane 104), each electrode comprising an electrically conductive element (figure 1 and para [0018], first electrode element 101 is conductive; figure 1 and para [0030]-[0031], second electrode element 106 is conductive), at least one electrode comprising a catalyst structure comprising an electrically conductive material (figure 1, catalyst material 102 on the first electrode), the electrolyzer also comprising a window (i.e. at least one feeding means) arranged to introduce sunlight (i.e. a variable electromagnetic field) into the electrolyzer (figure 4, window 304 is configured to introduce solar photons into the electrolyzer), the variable electromagnetic field being arranged to create a temperature gradient in the electrolyzer by increasing a temperature of the catalyst structure (para [0043], “in addition to providing the visible radiation to operate the cell, the incident sunlight also preferably serves as a source of heat”).
Gershon further shows that the window 304 is positioned in connection to the electrically conductive element of the first electrode and to the ion exchange membrane (figure 3, the components of cell 100 (including the first conductive element 101 and IEM 104), and the window 304, are both attached to cell casing 302, which positions the two components in connection to each other; para [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when assembling the solar photoelectrolysis device of English, to include the feature of a cell casing which connects and positions the membrane and electrodes of the cell relative to the feeding means, to ensure that radiation entering the cell through the window is directed onto the photoelectrodes. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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 V 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights