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 .
Priority
The Office notes that there are differences in claims for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 between what appears in paragraph [0001] of the instant specification and what appears on the Application Data Sheet filed 17 May 2024. Per MPEP 211.02, the requirement for proper reference to an earlier application to which priority is claimed is presenting the claim for priority on the application data sheet. Therefore, only those claims for priority presented on the application data sheet have been entered and considered by the Office.
Applicant has claimed domestic priority as a continuation of non-provisional application 17/541,686 (Application Data Sheet filed 17 May 2024, pg. 3). This claim for priority contains no deficiencies. However, the prior application 17/541,686 is itself a continuation of several earlier applications all the way back to non-provisional application 16/056,062, filed 6 August 2018, which itself claimed priority to provisional application 62/623,302 filed 29 January 2018. The current effective filing date cannot be considered to be earlier than the filing date of prior application 17/541,686, 3 December 2021 unless corrective action is taken by Applicant.
Many of the pre-grant publications of the earlier applications thus published more than one year prior to the current effective filing date and are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). For simplicity, an anticipation rejection is only presented for the Pre-Grant Publication of 16/056,062 based upon the expectation that any action by Applicant that would overcome this rejection would inherently overcome any rejections from later applications.
Applicant is reminded that priority claims presented more than 4 months after filing of the application or more than 16 months after filing of the prior application, are not entered as a matter of right and that attempts to add priority claims after this time period require a petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.78. See MPEP 211.03 and 211.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7, 19 and 20 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 7 recites that “the enhancement gas consists substantially of hydrogen gas”. This terminology seemingly uses the “consisting of” language set forth in MPEP 211.03. However, the term “substantially” appears to be an attempt to have the claim language instead be open to other components according to a “comprising” transitional phrase. Further, the specification does not provide either a recitation that the enhancement gas consisted of hydrogen gas or guidance on how to determine which levels of content of components other than hydrogen gas were allowable for the gas to “consist substantially of hydrogen gas”. In view of the inability of one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonable determine the metes and bounds of this claim, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to distinctly claim the subject matter. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume that the claim language requires that the enhancement gas is predominantly (i.e. greater than 50% by moles) hydrogen gas.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of reusable containing components" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is rejected solely for its dependency upon rejected claim 19.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Johnson et al (US 2019/0234348).
Note that this rejection is made on the basis of Applicant failing to provide a proper claim for priority to applications to which priority may have been claimed, such as those to which priority was claimed in parent application 17/541,686.
Claims 1, 3-8, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns (US 2015/0101926).
Burns teaches (see abstract, figure 1) a multi-chamber assembly for generation of an enhancement gas (e.g. hydrogen) comprising a plurality of containing components (20, 40, and 60), one of the components (40) dividing an interior of the assembly into a plurality of chambers including a first chamber (14) and a second chamber (12), wherein the first chamber (14) included an electrolysis cell (electrodes 62, 64) for generating at least one component of the enhancement gas. The production of the gases via electrolysis caused pressurization of the contents of the assembly.
The assembly of Burns also included a pressure relief system (e.g. pressure relief valve 34, see paragraph [0034]) which was configured to retain the plurality of components in a fixed configuration when the contents of the assembly were below a relief pressure and to enable reuse of the plurality of components by releasing at least a part of the contents of the assembly when the contents of the assembly are greater than or equal to the relief pressure of the pressure relief system.
Regarding claim 3, at least the pressure relief valve of Burns was not reusable.
Regarding claim 4, all components except the pressure relief valve were reusable in the cell of Burns. Further, the pressure relief system provided a gastight (i.e. at least “watertight”) seal to the assembly.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Burns teaches (see e.g. claim 3) that the produced gas included a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases (i.e. HHO gas).
Regarding claim 7, hydrogen and oxygen gases are produced at a 2:1 molar ratio, such that the enhancement gas was more than 50% by moles of hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 8, the downwardly projecting tube (24, see paragraph [0030]) of Burns was reusable.
Regarding claim 12, the assembly of Burns included an endplate (lower wall 61), a first hollow outer casing (60), a second hollow outer casing (20), a middle plate (40), wherein the middle plate was disposed between the first hollow outer casing and the second hollow outer casing.
Regarding claim 13, the pressure relief system of Burns was capable of lowering a pressure of the contents of the assembly upon detonation of the gas present in the assembly.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Burns teaches (see paragraph [0033]) using the dual-chamber electrolysis cell in combination with injectors of an internal combustion engine, which would introduce the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases into the combustion chamber of the engine.
Regarding claim 16, Burns teaches (see paragraph [0049]) generating the gases via electrolysis of water.
Regarding claim 19, Burns teaches (see abstract, figure 1) a method for generation of an enhancement gas (e.g. hydrogen) comprising a dividing (via 40) an interior of an assembly (20, 40, and 60) into a plurality of chambers including a first chamber (14) and a second chamber (12), wherein the first chamber (14) included an electrolysis cell (electrodes 62, 64) for generating at least one component of the enhancement gas. The production of the gases via electrolysis caused pressurization of the contents of the assembly. The assembly of Burns was retained in a fixed configuration.
The assembly of Burns also included a pressure relief system (e.g. pressure relief valve 34, see paragraph [0034]) which performed a step of enabling reuse of the plurality of components (20, 40, and 60) by releasing the contents (e.g. gas) from the assembly when the pressure was greater than or equal to the relief pressure of the pressure relief system.
Regarding claim 20, Burns teaches (see e.g. claim 3) that the produced gas included a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases (i.e. HHO gas).
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US 2015/0101926) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zahorsky (US 3,854,494).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Burns fails to teach the safety valve comprising an elongated retaining member.
Zahorsky teaches (see abstract, fig. 1) a spring-loaded safety relief valve of the type to be utilized by Brown. The safety relief valve of Zahorsky included an elongated retaining member (valve stem 32 and/or spring 34) which yield to permit the release of pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the conventional safety relief valve structure taught by Zahorsky for the safety release valve of Brown by incorporating at least one elongated retaining member (i.e.-a valve stem and/or spring) which yield to permit the release of pressure.
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph above regarding why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the spring loaded safety relief valve of Zahorsky in the assembly of Burns. The spring-loaded safety relief valve taught by Zahorsky would have been considered as reusable by one of ordinary skill in the art since the valve suffered no mechanical damage upon releasing excess pressure above the relief pressure.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US 2015/0101926) with or without Christian (US 5,858,185) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Greenbaum (US 2014/0202877) and Ohlson (US 2012/0144982).
Burns fails to teach the pressure relief system comprising an elongated retaining member.
Burns does teach (see paragraph [0053]) that the two housing portions were joined at flanges by “any known means, such as adhesives or plastic welding for example”. Burns also teaches that the seal should be of sufficient strength to contain internal pressures of around 8 Bar.
Greenbaum teaches (see figures, esp. fig. 4, and paragraph [0057]) the generally known means for joining two portions of a housing of an electrolysis cell together. The generally known means included the adhesives or welding taught by Burns, but also flanges, bolts, nuts and/or selected combinations of one or more thereof.
Thus, in view of the art recognized equivalence in Greenbaum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized at least bolts (i.e.-an elongated threaded rod) for joining the two portions of the housing together.
Note that HHO (a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen) has been well documented as prone to explosions.
Ohlson teaches (see fig. 10 and paragraph [0043]) that it was known that bolts could be constructed with intentionally defined breaking points of pressure/stress.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have intentionally designed the bolts suggested by Greenbaum to fail at a desired pressure to permit venting of the contents of the vessel of Burns through breaking of the joint between the two housing portions instead of allowing an explosion of the vessel.
Regarding claim 10, the bolt of Greenbaum is considered an “all-thread rod”.
Regarding claim 11, per the teachings of Ohlson, the bolts would have been subject to yield failure at the intentionally designed relief pressure to avoid an explosion.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US 2015/0101926) in view of Haring (US 2011/0253070).
Burns teaches (see abstract, figure 1) a multi-chamber assembly for generation of an enhancement gas (e.g. hydrogen) comprising a plurality of containing components (20, 40, and 60), one of the components (40) dividing an interior of the assembly into a plurality of chambers including a first chamber (14) and a second chamber (12), wherein the first chamber (14) included an electrolysis cell (electrodes 62, 64) for generating at least one component of the enhancement gas. The production of the gases via electrolysis caused pressurization of the contents of the assembly.
The assembly of Burns also included a pressure relief system (e.g. pressure relief valve 34, see paragraph [0034]) which was configured to retain the plurality of components in a fixed configuration when the contents of the assembly were below a relief pressure and to enable reuse of the plurality of components by releasing at least a part of the contents of the assembly when the contents of the assembly are greater than or equal to the relief pressure of the pressure relief system.
Burns teaches the use of a controller (see paragraphs [0048]-[0050]) configured to control the electricity supply to the electrolysis cell, but fails to teach that the controller was configured to maintain the gas pressure within the container at a value below the relief pressure.
Haring teaches (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraph [0042]) providing a controller in combination with an electrolytic cell for the generation of a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases, wherein the controller additionally monitors the pressure with a pressure sensor and controls the on/off state (i.e.-the electricity supply) of the electrolysis cell based upon the measured pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adapted the controller of Burns to additional monitor the pressure within the housing and to have utilized the measured pressure to control the on/off state of the electricity supply to the electrodes to
Regarding claim 18, Burns teaches the enhancement gas comprising hydrogen gas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Nora et al (US 2,958,635 and US 3,761,382) discuss providing proper ventilation of explosions internal to an electrolytic cell using fail-safe reusable components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794