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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first means for selectively electrically coupling the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate”, and “second means for selectively electrically coupling the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate”, in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to paragraphs 4 and 9-11 of applicant’s disclosure, the means for selectively electrically coupling bipolar plates is a switch. For examination purposes, switches are being considered as the claimed “means for selectively electrically coupling bipolar plates”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with “;.’. The semicolon must be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montalvo et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0186390).
Regarding claim 1, Montalvo teaches an electrolyzer system comprising:
an electrolyzer stack (paragraph 21), the electrolyzer stack comprising:
a first bipolar plate (paragraphs 9-10),
a second bipolar plate parallel to the first bipolar plate (paragraphs 8-10; figure 6 shows the parallel arrangement of the bipolar plates),
a third bipolar plate parallel to the second bipolar plate (a plurality of bipolar plates may be provided – paragraph 17),
a first switch electrically coupled between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate to selectively electrically couple the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (a plurality of switches are provided along a perimeter of the bipolar plates to connect two bipolar plates – paragraphs 11, 23, 76-77), and
a second switch electrically coupled between the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate to selectively electrically couple the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate (a plurality of switches are provided along a perimeter of the bipolar plates to connect two bipolar plates – paragraphs 23, 76-77), and
a controller circuit, the controller circuit configured to actuate the first switch to electrically couple the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraphs 83 – the controller activates/deactivates switch elements of the circuitry).
Regarding claim 2, Montalvo discloses an electrolyzer stack having a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge (figures 5A-6; paragraph 21), Montalvo further teaches a plurality of switches are provided along a perimeter of the bipolar plates to connect two bipolar plates (paragraphs 23, 76-77).
Regarding claim 3, the electrolyzer stack of Montalvo further comprises an extension of a flow channel (water channels) positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate at the second edge (as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, the electrolyzer stack further comprising a gasket/sealing portion positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate at the first edge (figure 1; paragraph 93), the first switch being positioned outside the gasket (paragraphs 23, 76-77).
Regarding claim 12, the electrolyzer stack of Montalvo further comprises a printed circuit board, the first switch being mounted on the printed circuit board (paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 13, Montalvo further discloses the printed circuit board (PCB 712; figure 7A) comprising a first contact on a first side of the printed circuit board and a second contact on a second side of the printed circuit board, the printed circuit board being positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate with the first contact electrically coupled to the first bipolar plate and the second contact electrically coupled to the second bipolar plate (paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 14, Montalvo teaches a connector to electrically couple the printed circuit board to the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraph 93 - The PCB 712 is coupled to wiring, such as copper 714 or other conductive metal).
Regarding claim 15, the printed circuit board (PCB) of Montalvo is a flexible printed circuit board, a first portion of the printed circuit board being between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate, and a second portion of the printed circuit board not being between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraphs 93, 105).
Regarding claim 16, the printed circuit board (PCB) of Montalvo comprising a first contact on a first side, the first switch being mounted to the printed circuit board on a second side of the printed circuit board, the first contact being electrically coupled to the first bipolar plate and at least a portion of the first switch being electrically coupled to the second bipolar plate (paragraph 93 - The PCB 712 is coupled to wiring, such as copper 714 or other conductive metal and controls whether current flows from one bipolar plate 612 to another through the copper 714. Namely, when the PCB 712 closes a switch, the current flows from one bipolar plate 612 to another through the copper 714 and avoids flowing through other elements of the cell).
Regarding claim 17, Montalvo discloses wherein the first switch comprising a packaging having a first side and a second side, a first terminal being positioned on the first side and in contact with the first bipolar plate and a second terminal being positioned on the second side and in contact with the second bipolar plate (paragraphs 93, 105-106).
Regarding claim 18, the controller circuit of Montalvo is programmed to perform operations comprising: closing the first switch and the second switch (paragraph 83 – the controller activates/deactivates switch elements); after closing the first switch and the second switch (paragraph 83), receiving an indication that water in the electrolyzer stack has reached a threshold temperature (the controller establishes a relationship and creates a machine learning model between a plurality of operating parameters, i.e. voltage, current, and temperature at various locations in the cell, among others – paragraphs 68, 70, 73); and opening the first switch and the second switch (paragraphs 59, 68, 70, 76, 83, 106).
It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the controller of Montalvo is capable of creating a machine learning model based on the relationship of a plurality of operating parameters, i.e. voltage, current, and temperature at various locations in the cell and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Montalvo teaches an electrolyzer system comprising:
an electrolyzer stack (paragraph 21), the electrolyzer stack comprising:
a first bipolar plate (paragraphs 9-10),
a second bipolar plate parallel to the first bipolar plate (paragraphs 8-10; figure 6 shows the parallel arrangement of the bipolar plates),
a third bipolar plate parallel to the second bipolar plate (a plurality of bipolar plates may be provided – paragraph 17),
a first means/switch for selectively electrically coupling the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (a plurality of switches are provided along a perimeter of the bipolar plates to connect two bipolar plates – paragraphs 11, 23, 76-77), and
a second means/ switch for selectively electrically coupling the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate (a plurality of switches are provided along a perimeter of the bipolar plates to connect two bipolar plates – paragraphs 23, 76-77).
Regarding claim 20, Montalvo further discloses a controller circuit (paragraphs 8, 14, 45, 68) being programmed to perform operations comprising:
configuring the first means/switch to electrically couple the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraph 83 – the controller activates/deactivates switch elements),
configuring the second means/switch to electrically couple the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate (paragraph 83),
receiving an indication that water in the electrolyzer stack has reached a threshold temperature (the controller establishes a relationship and creates a machine learning model between a plurality of operating parameters, i.e. voltage, current, and temperature at various locations in the cell, among others – paragraphs 68, 70, 73),
after receiving the indication that water in the electrolyzer stack has reached the threshold temperature,
configuring the first means to remove electrical coupling between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraph 83); and
after receiving the indication that water in the electrolyzer stack has reached the threshold temperature (the controller establishes a relationship and creates a machine learning model between a plurality of operating parameters, i.e. voltage, current, and temperature at various locations in the cell, among others – paragraphs 68, 70, 73),
configuring the second means/switch to remove electrical coupling between the second bipolar plate and the third bipolar plate (paragraph 83 – the controller activates/deactivates switch elements).
It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the controller of Montalvo is capable of creating a machine learning model based on the relationship of a plurality of operating parameters, i.e. voltage, current, and temperature at various locations in the cell and thus, it meets the claim.
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.
Claims 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montalvo as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Blanchet et al. (EP 3022335).
Regarding claim 4, Montalvo teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose that the electrolyzer stack further comprising a material that is thermally dissipative and electrically insulating positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate at the second edge.
Blanchet discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a plurality of bipolar plates (150) separated by a thermally dissipative material, i.e. a shunt resistor (200) in order to reduce variations in cell voltages and ohmic heating (paragraphs 23, 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to position a material that is thermal dissipative and electrically insulating between the bipolar plates of Montalvo, as taught by Blanchet in order to reduce variations in cell voltages and ohmic heating.
Regarding claim 8, Montalvo further teaches the first switch being positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraphs 23, 76-77), but fails to teach wherein the first switch comprising a resilient structure arranged to exert a first force against the first bipolar plate and a second force against the second bipolar plate.
Blanchet discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a plurality of bipolar plates (150) having a shunt resistor (200) positioned between the bipolar plates (figure 1). The design of the shunt resistor (200) can be varied to include spring features to ensure adequate contact is maintained between adjacent plates with variation in plate spacing caused by manufacturing tolerances and thermal expansion of the stack/cells (paragraph 28).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a switch having a resilient structure in the electrolyzer system of Montalvo, as taught by Blanchet in order to ensure adequate contact is maintained between adjacent plates with variation in plate spacing caused by manufacturing tolerances and thermal expansion of the electrolytic cell stack.
Regarding claim 11, the first switch/shunt resistor of Blanchet comprises a mechanical actuator member arranged to be selectively positioned between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate (paragraphs 25-26, 29, 34).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montalvo as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0235527).
Regarding claim 6, Montalvo teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose that the first switch being mechanically coupled to the first bipolar plate using at least one of a conductive adhesive, a solder, or a metal mesh.
Wagner discloses power electronic systems and methods of assembly comprising a switch that can be soldered onto the circuit board using wave soldering, hand soldering or any other suitable mounting process (paragraph 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to solder the first switch to the bipolar plate of Montalvo because as taught by Wagner, soldering is a suitable mounting process in power electronic systems, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 7, Montalvo teaches all the features discussed above wherein a portion of the first bipolar plate comprises a coating (paragraphs 63-64) but fails to disclose the first switch being mechanically coupled to a portion of the first bipolar plate using solder.
Wagner discloses power electronic systems and methods of assembly comprising a switch that can be soldered onto the circuit board using wave soldering, hand soldering or any other suitable mounting process (paragraph 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to solder the first switch to the bipolar plate of Montalvo because as taught by Wagner, soldering is a suitable mounting process in power electronic systems, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art made of record fails to teach an electrolyzer stack further comprising: a first conductive foil electrically coupled to the first bipolar plate; a second conductive foil electrically coupled to the second bipolar plate; and an insulator material positioned between the first conductive foil and the second conductive foil, the first switch being electrically coupled between the first conductive foil and the second conductive foil. Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9.
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
Prosecution Insights