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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (i) it is formed of less than 50 words; and (ii) it includes the implied phrase “in the present disclosure” in lines 1-2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 16, “instructions,” should read “instructions, and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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 recites the limitation "the instructions to activate" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention in the claim of “instructions to activate”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the current having the specified current value" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a “current” having a “specified current value” in association with respect to the second power supply. The only previous mention of a current of a specified value is recited in lines 11-13 of claim 1 with respect to the first power supply.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,690,797) in view of Yoshida (U.S. 2024/0141522).
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches a controller for controlling an electrolysis system (see e.g. Fig. 1, DC power regulator 52 for controlling power to electrolytic cell 1; Col. 5, lines 8-11, and Col. 10, lines 17-19) comprising:
a water electrolysis stack that is provided with an electrolyte membrane and a pair of electrodes and that electrolyzes water supplied to one of the pair of electrodes (see e.g. Fig. 1, water electrolysis cell 1 including anode compartment, cathode compartment and polymer electrolyte membrane electrolyzing supplied water; Col. 9, lines 55-62, and Col. 12, lines 1-9);
a pressure control valve that is provided on a flow path through which oxygen gas acquired by the electrolysis flows and that adjusts gas pressure in the flow path to a predetermined pressure (see e.g. Fig. 1, pressure retaining valve 28 with preset pressure in first gas line 25 receiving oxygen from electrolysis; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 2, and Col. 12, lines 32-37 and 53-58); and
a first power supply device that applies voltage to the pair of electrodes in a manner so that current having a specified current value flows between the pair of electrodes (see e.g. Fig. 1, DC power source 53 supplying power a DC (direct current) voltage between the anode and cathode; Col. 12, lines 3-7), wherein
when receiving the instructions to activate the water electrolysis stack, the controller changes the current value specified for the first power supply device according to pressure detected by a first pressure sensor provided on the flow path between the pressure control valve and the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. Fig. 1, output, i.e. current value, of DC power source 53 controlled in accordance to third gas pressure sensor 46 in first gas piping line 25 between pressure retaining valve 28 and electrolysis cell 1; Col. 13, lines 43-50, and Col. 21, lines 8-16).
Harada does not explicitly teach the electrolysis stack comprising a membrane electrode assembly in which the pair of electrodes sandwich the electrolyte membrane, but does teach it generally comprising an anode compartment and cathode compartment separated by the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Col. 9, lines 55-62) and that any well-known cell structures for water electrolysis cells may be used (see e.g. Col. 21, lines 47-53).
Yoshida teaches a water electrolysis system (see e.g. Abstract) including a water electrolysis cell stack comprising a laminate including an electrode portion, i.e. membrane electrode assembly, in which an anode, electrolyte membrane and cathode are provided in order, i.e. with the anode and cathode sandwiching the membrane, to form an anode side and a cathode side (see e.g. Paragraphs 0020-0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water electrolysis stack of Harada to have the anode and cathode pair sandwiching the electrolyte membrane, thereby forming a membrane electrode assembly, as taught by Yoshida as a suitable arrangement for a water electrolysis stack comprising anode and cathode compartments separated by an electrolyte membrane. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
It should be noted, however, that as the claims are directed toward the “controller”, the details of the water electrolysis system with which it is used are not necessarily positively recited elements of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2115 states “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims."”.
Harada, as modified above, does not explicitly teach the controller comprising one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions.
Yoshida further teaches a control unit that controls operation of the water electrolysis cell stack, wherein the control unit may include a central processing unit that processes stored control programs, i.e. executes computer-executable instructions (see e.g. Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of modified Harada to particularly comprise the control unit of Yoshida which includes a central processing unit for processing/executing stored control programs/instructions as a particular exemplary controller configuration suitable for controlling operation of a water electrolysis stack. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Harada teaches the predetermined pressure being set lower than a target pressure determined from an allowable water content in the oxygen gas (see e.g. Harada Col. 13, lines 43-50, and Col. 15, lines 4-11 and 38-41, pressure of produced gases, i.e. target pressure, controlled to be higher than preset pressure of pressure retaining valves and also to be high enough to provide reduced moisture content).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Yoshida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,149,782).
Regarding claim 2, modified Harada teaches all the elements of the controller of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Harada does not explicitly teach the controller gradually reducing the current value from an initial current value at which the instructions to activate the water electrolysis stack is received, but does teach the need for the current value to be controlled to be reduced to zero at times for shutdown (see e.g. Harada Col. 13, lines 13-19).
Allen discloses an electrolyzer and electrolysis process (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a controlled shut-down can be carried out by slowly decreasing the current supplied by a rectifier, followed by turning the rectifier off (see e.g. Col. 7, lines 32-35 and 47-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of modified Harada to gradually decrease the current value from an initial value when needing to shut down as taught by Allen as a suitable process for controlled shutdown of an electrolyzer and electrolysis process. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Yoshida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiou et al. (U.S. 2016/0326659) and Chatroux et al. (EP 3221494 B1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Harada teaches all the elements of the controller of claim 1 as stated above. Harada as modified by Yoshida further teaches the controller comprising a storage unit that stores data (see e.g. Yoshida Paragraph 0035, lines 4-7, read-only memory storing control data), wherein the controller specifies the current value corresponding to the pressure detected by the first pressure sensor for the first power supply (see e.g. Harada Fig. 1, output, i.e. current value, of DC power source 53 controlled in accordance to pressure detected by third gas pressure sensor 46 in first gas piping line 25; Col. 13, lines 43-50, and Col. 21, lines 8-16).
Modified Harada does not explicitly teach the data defining current values corresponding to a plurality of pressures and the current value being specified base on this data. Yoshida does however teach the stored data being control data (see e.g. Yoshida Paragraph 0035, lines 4-7).
Chiou teaches a control system for an electrolytic cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a control unit that includes a characteristic library which stores a plurality of characteristic parameters corresponding to respective electric currents such that upon sensing a characteristic parameter responding to a designated current, the control unit sends a control signal (see e.g. Paragraph 0007, lines 9-18, and Paragraphs 0008, 0030 and 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stored data of modified Harada to comprise designated current values corresponding to a plurality of the pressures to be sensed as taught by Chiou as particular suitable control data for controlling an electrolytic cell according to sensed characteristic parameter data. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Harada does not explicitly teach the defined current values corresponding to the plurality of pressures being in a manner so that the voltage falls within a predetermined voltage adjustment range.
Chatroux teaches control of electrochemical devices such as electrolyzers (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) wherein a current supplied to the electrochemical device is controlled in order to regulate voltage between terminals of the device to a predetermined voltage setpoint (see e.g. Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0014, lines 1-4), thus enabling the voltage and device efficiency to be kept constant and optimized (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of modified Harada to have the current values defined such that the voltage is regulated to a predetermined voltage setpoint, i.e. adjustment range, as taught by Chatroux to enable the voltage and electrolysis system efficiency to be kept constant and optimized.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Yoshida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocheux et al. (WO 2023242385 A1, citations based on translation) and Maruyama et al. (U.S. 2004/0253494).
Regarding claim 4, modified Harada teaches all the elements of the controller of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Harada further teaches the electrolysis system further comprising a gas-liquid separator that separates hydrogen-containing water supplied from the water electrolysis stack into hydrogen and liquid water supplied to the water electrolysis stack (see e.g. Harada Fig. 1, gas/liquid separator 32 separating generated hydrogen gas from entrained water from the electrolytic cell 1; Col. 11, lines 13-17, and Col. 12, lines 23-27).
Modified Harada does not teach the electrolysis system further comprising a hydrogen boost stack that boosts the hydrogen gas supplied from the gas-liquid separator, and a second power supply device that applied voltage to the hydrogen boost stack in a manner so that current having a specified current value flows, wherein the controller changes the current value specified for the second power supply device based on the current of the water electrolysis stack and the pressure detected by a second pressure sensor at the gas-liquid separator. Harada does however teach a second pressure sensor detecting pressure at the gas liquid separator (see e.g. Harada Fig. 1, second gas pressure sensor 45 detecting pressure in upper space of gas liquid separator 32; Col. 11, lines 39-43), as well as the desire to provide high pressure hydrogen without typical mechanical gas compressors (see e.g. Harada Col. 1, lines 18-35, Col. 3, lines 21-29, and Col. 4, lines 8-11).
Rocheux teaches a method for producing hydrogen with an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, lines 1-4), wherein hydrogen produced by electrolysis is compressed by an electrochemical compressor, i.e. hydrogen boost stack, that operates without mechanical movement (see e.g. Paragraphs 0011-0014 and Paragraph 0018, lines 4-6), and a value of a supply current to the electrochemical compressor is adjusted based on a detected outlet hydrogen pressure from the electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, lines 4-11, and Paragraph 0077), thus providing dynamic flow management that allows saving of the space occupied by the system (see e.g. Paragraphs 0019-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis system of modified Harada to further comprise an electrochemical compressor, i.e. hydrogen boost stack, supplied with current by a second power supply, wherein the controller changes the supplied current value based on the pressure of produced hydrogen detected at the gas-liquid separator as taught by Rocheux as a suitable additional arrangement and for pressurizing hydrogen produced by electrolysis without mechanical compression that provides dynamic flow management and thus allows saving of the space occupied by the system. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Harada does not explicitly teach the current value specified for the second power supply also being based on the current of the water electrolysis stack. Rocheux does however teach the current value for the second power supply being adapted to the production rate of the electrolysis stack (see e.g. Rocheux Paragraph 0020, lines 1-2).
Maruyama teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see e.g. Abstract) including an electrolytic unit for generating hydrogen gas by electrolysis and a pressurizing unit comprising an electrochemical compression unit, i.e. hydrogen boosting stack, for compressing the generated hydrogen gas (see e.g. Paragraphs 0023 and 0026), wherein a pressure of hydrogen gas evolved from the electrolytic unit is dependent on the current supplied to the electrolytic unit (see e.g. Paragraphs 0079-0082), said evolved hydrogen pressure contributing to the control of a current to be supplied to electrodes of the electrochemical compression unit (see e.g. Paragraphs 0135, 0138, and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of modified Harada to further base the current value supplied to the second power supply on the current supplied to the electrolysis stack as taught by Maruyama as an additional operational parameter that affects the output pressure and production rate of the electrolysis stack to be considered when controlling the current of a subsequent electrochemical hydrogen compression unit. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights