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 1-4 and 11-14 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.
The term “prescribed frequency and pulse mode” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “prescribed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the frequency and pulse mode have been rendered indefinite.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartvigsen et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2007/0045125) in view of Rebrov et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0012657).
Regarding claim 1, Hartvigsen discloses a method of performing an electrolysis reaction in a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC - 110) for hydrogen production (paragraphs 11, 48; figure 5), comprising:
providing a water vapor stream (106) to a cathode chamber of a SOEC (110; paragraph 49); wherein the SOEC (110) comprises the cathode chamber and an anode chamber (paragraphs 8-11, 49-51; figure 6),
wherein the cathode chamber contains a catalyst and wherein the catalyst comprises one or more conducting oxides and one or more catalytically active materials dispersed within said conducting oxides (paragraphs 18-19, 56); and
applying an electrical potential to the SOEC, resulting in production of some amount of hydrogen from the water vapor stream in the cathode chamber of the SOEC (paragraphs 8-9, 34, 51).
Hartvigsen fails to teach a DC bias and applying an electromagnetic field to the SOEC with a prescribed frequency and pulse mode specific to interactions of the catalyst and the electromagnetic field with the SOEC.
Rebrov discloses an electrolytic reaction method for producing gaseous hydrogen and oxygen (abstract) by applying a DC voltage and an electromagnetic field to the electrochemical cell with a desired frequency and pulse mode in order to promote vibrations to the electrolyte which supports and/or accelerates the detachment of gas bubbles on the electrodes and degassing of the hydrogen and/or oxygen bubbles from the liquid electrolyte. The electromagnetic field causes ionization and enhances and/or intensifies the electrolytic process (paragraphs 86, 101-103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a DC voltage and electromagnetic field in the process of Hartvigsen because as taught by Rebrov, this promotes vibrations to the electrolyte which supports and/or accelerates the detachment of gas bubbles on the electrodes as well as degassing of the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles from the electrolyte which in turn enhances the electrolytic process.
Regarding claim 2, Hartvigsen discloses a method of performing a water electrolysis reaction in a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC - 110) for hydrogen production (paragraphs 11, 48; figure 5). The water electrolysis reaction is a well-known endothermic reaction.
Regarding claim 3, the conducting oxide of Hartvigsen is selected from a lanthanide group (paragraph 18; claims 23 and 36).
Regarding claim 4, the catalytically active material of Hartvigsen is a transition metal, i.e. iron (paragraphs 18, 45, claim 23).
Regarding claim 9, Rebrov discloses wherein applying an electromagnetic field to the electrolytic cells decreases an area specific resistance of the electrolytic cell whereby the electrolysis process is improved (paragraphs 162, 168, 177).
Regarding claim 11, Hartvigsen discloses a method of performing an electrolysis reaction in a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC - 110) for hydrogen production (paragraphs 11, 48; figure 5), comprising:
providing a water vapor stream (106) to a cathode chamber of a SOEC (110; paragraph 49); wherein the SOEC (110) comprises the cathode chamber and an anode chamber (paragraphs 8-11, 49-51; figure 6),
wherein the cathode chamber contains a catalyst and wherein the catalyst comprises one or more conducting oxides and one or more catalytically active materials dispersed within said conducting oxides (paragraphs 18-19, 56); and
applying an electrical potential to the SOEC, resulting in production of some amount of hydrogen from the water vapor stream in the cathode chamber of the SOEC (paragraphs 8-9, 34, 51).
Hartvigsen fails to teach a DC bias and applying an electromagnetic field to the SOEC with a prescribed frequency and pulse mode specific to interactions of the catalyst and the electromagnetic field with the SOEC.
Rebrov discloses an electrolytic reaction method for producing gaseous hydrogen and oxygen (abstract) by applying a DC voltage and an electromagnetic field to the electrochemical cell with a desired frequency and pulse mode in order to promote vibrations to the electrolyte which supports and/or accelerates the detachment of gas bubbles on the electrodes and degassing of the hydrogen and/or oxygen bubbles from the liquid electrolyte. The electromagnetic field causes ionization and enhances and/or intensifies the electrolytic process (paragraphs 86, 101-103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a DC voltage and electromagnetic field in the process of Hartvigsen because as taught by Rebrov, this promotes vibrations to the electrolyte which supports and/or accelerates the detachment of gas bubbles on the electrodes as well as degassing of the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles from the electrolyte which in turn enhances the electrolytic process.
Regarding claim 12, Hartvigsen discloses a method of performing a water electrolysis reaction in a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC - 110) for hydrogen production (paragraphs 11, 48; figure 5). The water electrolysis reaction is a well-known endothermic reaction.
Regarding claim 13, the conducting oxide of Hartvigsen is selected from a lanthanide group (paragraph 18; claims 23 and 36).
Regarding claim 14, the catalytically active material of Hartvigsen is a transition metal, i.e. iron (paragraphs 18, 45, claim 23).
Regarding claim 19, Rebrov discloses wherein applying an electromagnetic field to the electrolytic cells decreases an area specific resistance of the electrolytic cell whereby the electrolysis process is improved (paragraphs 162, 168, 177).
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartvigsen in view of Rebrov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2005/0139484).
Regarding claims 5, 15, the modified Hartvigsen teaches all the steps discussed above but fails to disclose wherein the electromagnetic field comprises a frequency between about 300 MHz to about 300 GHz.
Brooks teaches an electrolytic method for the production of hydrogen gas at the cathode, wherein the chemical reaction can be controlled by applying an electromagnetic energy comprising a frequency up to about 57GHz to form at least one conditioned participant which assists in producing at least one desired reaction product, i.e. hydrogen gas, at a desired reaction rate (paragraphs 14, 56, 91, 104, 145, 170, 549).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine the optimum frequency of the electromagnetic filed of the modified Hartvigsen to control the electrolytic production of hydrogen gas at a desired reaction rate, as taught by Brooks. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 6, 16, Brooks further teaches wherein the electromagnetic field is applied to the electrolytic cell at a desired pulsing time to assist in producing hydrogen gas at a desired reaction rate (paragraphs 14, 56, 91, 104, 145, 170, 273, 549, 861). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine the optimum pulsing rate of the electromagnetic field applied in the method of the modified Hartvigsen in order to assist in producing hydrogen gas at a desired reaction rate, as taught by Brooks. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 7, 17, Brooks further teaches wherein the electromagnetic field is applied to the electrolytic cell at a desired pulsing time in order to assist in producing hydrogen gas at a desired reaction rate (paragraphs 14, 56, 91, 104, 145, 170, 273, 549, 861). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine the optimum pulsing rate of the electromagnetic field applied in the method of the modified Hartvigsen in order to assist in producing hydrogen gas at a desired reaction rate, as taught by Brooks. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 8, 18, Brooks discloses wherein applying an electromagnetic field to the electrolytic cell increases the temperature of the water vapor stream and the cell to above 300 o C (paragraphs 719-720).
Regarding claims 10, 20, Brooks teaches wherein the method yields hydrogen at a desired rate when parameters, i.e. frequency and power, are controlled (paragraphs 14, 56, 91, 104, 145, 170, 549). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine the optimum power and frequency of the electromagnetic field of the modified Hartvigsen to effectively control the electrolytic production rate of hydrogen gas, as taught by Brooks. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
