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 with traverse of Group I, species (i), claims 33-46 and 48-49, in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the flow rate of claim 46 could be a ratio, or could be controlled by controlling a ratio. Therefore, it is believed the claims are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because any differences in scope requires a different analysis which can lead to a different field of search and application of prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 47 (species) and 50-52 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 19, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
• page 30, line 22, please amend the words “Figure 4 is a flow diagram” to the words --
Figures 4a and 4b are flow diagrams --
• page 85, lines 3-4, please deleted the reference to “claims 1-22”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 33-35, 37, 41-43, 45 and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33
line 7, please amend the word “respective” to the word -- one --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
line 8, please insert the word -- and -- after the word “product;”.
line 10, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “electrolyte”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 34
line 4, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “retention”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 35
line 2, please amend the words “a respective one of the electrodes” to the words -- the one electrode --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 33, line 7.
line 3, please amend the word “wall” to the word -- electrode --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 37
line 5, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “electrolyte”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 41
line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “electrolyte”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
line 5, please insert the word -- one -- before the word “electrode”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 42
line 3, please amend the word “respective” to the word -- one --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
line 4, please amend the word “respective” to the word -- one --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 43
line 1, please amend the word “electrolyzer” to the words -- the retention chamber --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure the further limitation and relationship of the claim terminology. See claim 33, line 6.
line 8, please insert the word -- further -- before the word “comprises”.
This is an instance where the article should added to ensure the further limitation and relationship of the claim terminology. See claim 33, lines 1-2 and 9.
Claim 45
line 2, please amend the word “a” (first occurrence) to the word -- the --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 43, line 4.
line 2, please amend the word “a” (second occurrence) to the word -- the --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent
basis for the claim terminology. See claim 43, lines 3-4.
line 3, please amend the word “a” to the word -- the --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent
basis for the claim terminology. See claim 43, line 6.
line 4, please amend the word “a” to the word -- the --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent
basis for the claim terminology. See claim 43, lines 5-6.
Claim 48
line 7, please amend the word “valve” to the word -- valves --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 33-46 and 48-49 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 33
line 8, “the respective fluid reaction product” lacks antecedent basis. See also claim 33 lines 11-12.
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 35
line 5, “the electrode” is indefinite. Is this referring back to the first electrode, the second electrode or the compound porous electrode?
Claim 39
line 4, it is unclear what is meant by “electrolysis or”.
line 4, “the porous wall” 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 41
lines 7-8, “the electrocatalytic region” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 42
line 6, “the opposing ion exchange boundary” 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 8, “the opposing ion exchange boundaries” 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 43
lines 5-6, “the fluid reaction product generated at the second electrode” 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 9, “the retention chambers” is indefinite.
Claim 48
lines 2-3, “the second fluid reaction product” 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 4, “the first fluid reaction product” 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 5, “the controller for the respective outlet flow” 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 6, “the controller” is indefinite.
line 8, “a porous wall” is indefinite. Is this referring back to the porous wall recited in claim 33, line 9, the first wall or the second porous wall?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2022/106874 (‘874).
Regarding claim 33, WO ‘874 teaches an electrolyser (= an electrolyzer) [page 3, line 18] for performing continuous electrolysis of an aqueous electrolyte fluid at supercritical conditions,1 comprising:
• first (= a first electrode 3) and second electrodes (= a second electrode 5) [page 7, line 33];
• an inlet chamber disposed between the electrodes (= a first fluidic channel 7) and
configured to receive a flow of electrolyte fluid (= configured to receive an electrolyte EL) [page 7, line 34, to page 8, line 1];
• a retention chamber associated with one of the electrodes (= a second fluidic channel 9) [page 8, line 1] for retaining a fluid reaction product generated at the respective electrode (= the generated products comprise or consist of hydrogen and oxygen) [page 14, lines 31-32],
the retention chamber having an outlet to discharge the respective fluid reaction product (= the outlet 23A for accessing products generated by the membrane-less electrolyzer) [page 14, lines 16-17];
• a porous wall separating the inlet chamber and the retention chamber, wherein the porous wall is configured to permit electrolyte fluid to flow from the inlet chamber to the retention chamber (= the first and second channels 7, 9 each include a porous wall permitting fluidic communication between the first and second fluidic channels) [page 10, lines 29-30], and is configured to inhibit return flow of the respective fluid reaction product from the retention chamber into the inlet chamber (= the liquid electrolyte EL enters the middle channel 7 and
goes to the outer channel 9 through the inclined wall pores) [page 15, lines 8-9].
Regarding claim 35, WO ‘874 teaches wherein the porous wall and a respective one of
the electrodes are provided by a compound porous electrode separating the inlet chamber and the retention chamber (=
PNG
media_image1.png
67
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 1C], the compound porous wall having an inlet side adjacent to the inlet chamber and an outlet side adjacent to the retention chamber (= a fluidic canal 15) [page 8, line 15; and Fig. 1C]; wherein the electrode is provided
by an electrocatalytic region of the compound porous electrode (= deposition of catalysts only on one side of the porous walls) [page 21, lines 28-29; and Fig. 1C:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding claim 36, WO ‘874 teaches wherein the electrocatalytic region comprises a coating or layer comprising an electrocatalyst (= deposition of catalysts only on one side of the porous walls) [page 21, lines 28-29; and Fig. 1C:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding claim 37, WO ‘874 teaches wherein the compound porous electrode extends linearly along a longitudinal axis and has an orthogonal thickness direction from the inlet side to the outlet side (= the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 5 may extend (substantially) parallel to each other in a direction following the flow direction F of the electrolyzer 1 or first fluidic channel 7) [page 11, lines 23-24]; wherein the compound porous electrode has an anisotropic porous structure defined by a plurality of inclined channels configured to permit electrolyte fluid to flow from the inlet chamber to the retention chamber, each being inclined with respect to both the longitudinal axis and the thickness direction (=
PNG
media_image1.png
67
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 1C]; wherein the inclined channels extend through at least part of the electrocatalytic region (= the plurality of fluidic canals 15 are distributed or spaced apart along a direction of extension (or along the length (L)) of the first fluidic channel 7 to provide the electrolyte EL to each of the second and third fluidic channels 9, 11 in a distributed
manner along a direction of extension (or along the length (L)) of the second and third fluidic channels 9, 11) [page 8, lines 21-24; and Fig. 1C:
PNG
media_image3.png
417
763
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 38, WO ‘874 teaches wherein each channel has a diverging cross section along the thickness direction (=
PNG
media_image4.png
344
157
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 1C].
Regarding claim 39, WO ‘874 teaches wherein the inlet side of the compound porous
electrode is defined by a passive region which is configured to be less electrocatalytically active
than the electrocatalytic region or to inhibit a respective half-reaction of electrolysis or (= at least one wall SW7, SW9, SW11) [page 10, line 31].
Regarding claim 40, WO ‘874 teaches wherein each channel has an average diameter along its length of between 25-150 µm (= an opening width (W) or diameter between 50 µm and 200 µm) [page 12, lines 18-21].
Regarding claim 41, WO ‘874 teaches wherein there is a flow path for electrolyte fluid from the inlet chamber to the retention chamber, the flow path comprising: an upstream portion through a passive region of the porous wall; a downstream portion through, or adjacent to, an electrocatalytic region of the electrode associated with the retention chamber (=
PNG
media_image5.png
363
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 1C];
wherein the passive region is configured to be less electrocatalytically active than the
electrocatalytic region, or to inhibit a respective half-reaction of electrolysis (= at least one wall
SW7, SW9, SW11) [page 10, line 31].
Regarding claim 43, WO ‘874 teaches wherein the electrolyser comprises: a first retention chamber (= a first fluidic channel 7) [page 7, line 34] associated with the first electrode (= a first electrode 3) [page 7, line 33] for retaining a fluid reaction product generated at the first electrode (= the generated products comprise or consist of hydrogen and oxygen) [page 14, lines 31-32] and discharging it through a first outlet (= the outlet 23A for accessing products generated by the membrane-less electrolyzer) [page 14, lines 16-17]; and a second retention chamber (= a second fluidic channel 9) [page 8, line 1] associated with the second electrode (= a second electrode 5) [page 7, line 33] for retaining the fluid reaction product generated at the second electrode (= the generated products comprise or consist of
hydrogen and oxygen) [page 14, lines 31-32] and discharging it through a second outlet (= the outlet 23B for accessing products generated by the membrane-less electrolyzer) [page 14, lines 16-17]; and wherein the electrolyser comprises first and second porous walls each separating the inlet chamber and a respective one of the retention chambers (= the first, second and third fluidic channels 7, 9, 11 each include a porous wall permitting fluidic communication between the first, second and third fluidic channels) [page 10, lines 29-30].
Regarding claim 49, WO ‘874 teaches a source of an aqueous electrolyte fluid (= the electrolyte may, for example, comprises or consists of water) [page 14, line 31].
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.
I. Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/106874 (‘874) as applied to claims 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 above.
Regarding claim 42, WO ‘874 teaches the electrolyser of at least claims 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 as applied above. The reference does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second electrodes have respective ion exchange boundaries that oppose each other, each ion exchange boundary being an electrocatalytic surface of the respective electrode or a boundary of an electrocatalytic region of the respective electrode; wherein for at least 50% of a surface area of one of the ion exchange boundaries, there is a substantially constant shortest distance of separation to the opposing ion exchange boundary; and wherein the opposing ion exchange boundaries are substantially locally parallel with each other.
WO ‘874 teaches that:
An electrolyte EL is provided to the inlet 21 and the first fluidic channel 7 is configured to distribute the electrolyte EL to the second and third fluidic channels 9, 11, via the inclined fluidic canals 15 and the second and third fluidic channels 9,11 are configured to generate products for output via the electrical energy provided to the electrodes 3, 5 of the second and third fluidic channels 9,11 (page 14, lines 26-29).
Platinum is in contact with electrolyte only in the outer channels 9, 11 (page 22, line 9).
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 WO ‘874 teaches electrodes
that are structurally similar to the electrodes as presently claimed (=
PNG
media_image2.png
66
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 1C]. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the first and second electrodes of WO ‘874 would have similar properties and would have performed the claimed functions. See MPEP § 2114.
II. Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/106874 (‘874) as applied to claims 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 above, and further in view of WO 2020/115712 (‘712).
Regarding claim 44, WO ‘874 teaches the electrolyser of at least claims 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 as applied above. The reference does not explicitly teach wherein: the inlet chamber is an annular chamber; one of the first and second retention chambers is an inner core chamber surrounded by the inlet chamber; and the other of the first and second retention chambers is an outer annular chamber that surrounds the inlet chamber.
WO ‘712 teaches:
An electrochemical reactor for producing oxygen and hydrogen by means of electrolysis of an electrolyte, wherein the electrochemical reactor comprises a first electrode set, wherein the first electrode set comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode comprises a multitude of pores, the second electrode comprises a multitude of pores, and the first electrode is arranged inside the second electrode such that an electrolyte channel is formed between the first electrode and the second electrode (page 2, lines 11-17).
The cylindrical shape of the electrodes provides a compact form factor for the stack and
a robust mechanical structure for high pressure operations. In particular embodiments, the electrochemical reactor is configured to be used for any electrochemical reaction such as electrolysis of water or brine (page 18, lines 19-23).
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 electrolyser taught by WO ‘874 with wherein: the inlet chamber is an annular chamber; one of the first and second retention chambers is an inner core chamber surrounded by the inlet chamber; and the other of the first and second retention chambers is an outer annular chamber that surrounds the inlet chamber. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because arranging a first cylindrical shape electrode inside a second cylindrical shape electrode would have provided a compact form factor for a stack and a robust mechanical structure for high pressure operations as taught by WO ‘712 on page 2, lines 11-17; and page 18, lines 19-23.
III. Claim(s) 45-46 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/106874 (‘874) as applied to claims 33, 35-41, 43 and 49 above, and further in view of WO 2020/115712 (‘712) as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Greenough (Water Electrolysis System Refurbishment and Testing,” (1972 Dec 1), 174 pp) and Swiegers et al. (“The
Prospects of Developing a Highly Energy-Efficient Water Electrolyser by Eliminating or Mitigating Bubble Effects,” Sustainable Energy Fuels (2021), Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 1280–1310) and
Regarding claim 45, WO ‘874 and WO ‘712 teach the electrolyser of at least claims 33, 35-41, 43-44 and 49 as applied above. WO ‘874 also teaches wherein the electrolyser has a first
outlet associated with the first electrode (= a first electrode 3) [page 7, line 33] for discharging a fluid reaction product generated at the first electrode (= the outlet 23A for accessing products generated by the membrane-less electrolyzer) [page 14, lines 16-17]; and a second outlet associated with the second electrode for discharging a fluid reaction product generated at the second electrode (= the outlet 23B for accessing products generated by the membrane-less electrolyzer) [page 14, lines 16-17].
The references do not explicitly teach wherein flow control equipment of the electrolyser
comprises a first discharge valve and a second discharge valve in fluid communication with the first
and second outlets respectively.
Greenough teaches valves in the discharge electrolyte lines (page 5, line 1-2).
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 electrolyser taught by modified WO ‘874 with wherein flow control equipment of the electrolyser comprises a first discharge valve and a second discharge valve in fluid communication with the first and second outlets respectively. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because placing valves in the discharge electrolyte lines would have controlled, directed, or regulated a flow of fluids or gases by opening, closing, or partially obstructing
passageways.2
Regarding claim 46, WO ‘874 and WO ‘712 teach the electrolyser of at least claims 33, 35-41, 43-44 and 49 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein a controller of the flow control equipment is configured to control the first and/or second discharge valves to: maintain a target flow rate or a target composition out of one, or each of, the first and second outlets, based on flow rate data, upstream pressure data and/or composition data received by the controller.
Greenough teaches valves in the discharge electrolyte lines (page 5, line 1-2).
Swiegers teaches that:
Gas crossover diminishes both the overall energy efficiency and the faradaic gas output of the electrolyser. It may also be a serious safety issue since a hydrogen stream containing >4.6%
oxygen, or an oxygen stream with >3.8% hydrogen, constitutes an explosive mixture (at the typical operating temperature of 80 C)6 (page 1286, left column, lines 41-46).
Many commercial electrolysers monitor gas crossover in real time and are programmed to automatically shut down if the gas crossover exceeds 2% at any time (page 1286, left column, lines 47-49).
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 flow control equipment taught by modified WO ‘874 with wherein a controller of the flow control equipment is configured to control the first and/or second discharge valves to: maintain a target flow rate or a target composition out of one, or each of, the first and second outlets, based on flow rate data, upstream pressure data and/or composition data received by the controller. The person with
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because gas crossover diminishes both the overall energy efficiency and the faradaic gas output of the electrolyzer as taught by Swiegers on page 1286, left column, lines 41-42, where many commercial electrolysers monitor gas crossover in real time and are programmed to
automatically shut down if the gas crossover exceeds 2% at any time as taught by Swiegers on page 1286, left column, lines 47-49, and where placing valves in the discharge electrolyte lines as taught by Greenough page 5, line 1-2, would have controlled a flow of fluids or gases by opening, closing, or partially obstructing passageways.3
MPEP § 2114(IV) states that “functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function”.
Regarding claim 48, WO ‘874 and WO ‘712 teach the electrolyser of at least claims 33, 35-41, 43-44 and 49 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein a controller is configured to determine whether there is an excessive amount of the second fluid reaction product in an outlet flow through the first outlet; or configured to determine whether there is an excessive amount of the first fluid reaction product in an outlet flow through the second outlet, based on composition data received at the controller for the respective outlet flow; wherein the controller is configured to control the first discharge valve and/or the second discharge valve to vary a flow rate through a porous wall of the electrolyser, based on the determination.
Greenough teaches valves in the discharge electrolyte lines (page 5, line 1-2).
Swiegers teaches that:
Gas crossover diminishes both the overall energy efficiency and the faradaic gas output of the electrolyser. It may also be a serious safety issue since a hydrogen stream containing >4.6%
oxygen, or an oxygen stream with >3.8% hydrogen, constitutes an explosive mixture (at the typical operating temperature of 80 C)6 (page 1286, left column, lines 41-46).
Many commercial electrolysers monitor gas crossover in real time and are programmed to automatically shut down if the gas crossover exceeds 2% at any time (page 1286, left column, lines 47-49).
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 flow control equipment taught by
modified WO ‘874 with wherein a controller is configured to determine whether there is an excessive amount of the second fluid reaction product in an outlet flow through the first outlet; or configured to determine whether there is an excessive amount of the first fluid reaction
product in an outlet flow through the second outlet, based on composition data received at the controller for the respective outlet flow; wherein the controller is configured to control the first discharge valve and/or the second discharge valve to vary a flow rate through a porous wall of the electrolyser, based on the determination. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because gas crossover diminishes both the overall energy efficiency and the faradaic gas output of the electrolyzer as taught by Swiegers on page 1286, left column, lines 41-42, where many commercial electrolysers monitor gas crossover in real time and are programmed to automatically shut down if the gas crossover exceeds 2% at any time as taught by Swiegers on page 1286, left column, lines 47-49, and
where placing valves in the discharge electrolyte lines as taught by Greenough page 5, line 1-2, would have regulated a flow of fluids or gases by opening, closing, or partially obstructing passageways.4
MPEP § 2114(IV) states that “functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 34 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the electrolyser of claim 33, further comprising a controller configured to control flow control equipment to control thermodynamic and/or flow rate conditions within the electrolyser to maintain supercritical conditions for the electrolyte fluid within retention chamber. 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.
Claim 34 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.
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 MPEP § 2111.02(II) states that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”. See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 Valves act as mechanical switches for fluid systems, allowing you to start, stop, or adjust the flow of liquids, gases, or steam through pipes or channels.
3 Valves act as mechanical switches for fluid systems, allowing you to start, stop, or adjust the flow of liquids, gases, or steam through pipes or channels.
4 Valves act as mechanical switches for fluid systems, allowing you to start, stop, or adjust the flow of liquids, gases, or steam through pipes or channels.
Prosecution Insights