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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tapering or enlarging flow channel features of claims 9, 10, and 20 and the drilling method of claim 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1. On line 5, “and which” should read “and in which the.” On line 13, “ex-tends” should read “extends.” On line 26, “which” should read “and in which the.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3, “and which” should read “and in which the.” On line 5, a comma is missing after “frame.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4, “with-out” should read “without.” On line 5, “anion-exchanger” should read “anion exchange.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5, “which” should read “and in which the.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5, “an-other” should read “another.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6, “which” should read “and in which the.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3, the comma after “wherein” should be deleted.
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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, 8, 13, 16, and 19:
Claim 3 recites the limitations of “the vertically extending frame plane” and “the inner limiting edge” on line-5.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “the vertically extending frame plane” on line 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “two flat sides” on line 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of “the inner limiting edge” on line 2 and “the vertical axis” on line 5.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of "the inner limiting edge" on line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of "groove-like indentations" on line 5.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of "the circumferentially closed protuberance" on lines 4-5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, these features are understood to exist in the claims on which the rejected claims depend.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “in the range between 27.5° and 135°,” and the claim also recites “in particular at an angle of 90°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a height of essentially 1% to 20%,” and the claim also recites “preferably approximately 10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
These claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims. For the purpose of examination on the merits, claims 12 and 14 will be interpreted as referring only to the broadest ranges recited: claim 12 as “in the range between 27.5° and 135°,” and claim 14 as “a height of 1% to 20%.”
Further regarding claims 8 and 14, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by either 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. The limitations of "essentially parallel" in claim 8 and "essentially 1% to 20%" are indefinite because there is a question as to what degree of precision is required by the claims.
The indefinite limitation of claim 8 will be interpreted as “parallel,” and claim 14 will be interpreted as referring to “a height of 1% to 20%” as previously stated.
Regarding claims 11, 18, and 19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination on the merits, claim 11 will be interpreted as requiring that the widening be configured to be trumpet-shaped. Claim 18 will be interpreted as optionally requiring that “the at least one first cell frame and/or the at least one second cell frame” be produced “in one piece or integrally by injection molding.” Claim 19 will be interpreted as optionally requiring that the apertures, first/second flow channels, partial channels, and/or circumferentially closed protuberance be produced “in one piece or integrally.”
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected because it depends on, in the alternative, any of claims 1-19, including claims 3-5, 8, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 rejected for the reasons stated herein.
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.
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 1-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhinney et al. (US 2009/0255826 A1) in view of Milnes et al. (US 10,886,548 B2).
Regarding claims 1-8, 12, and 17, McWhinney teaches an electrolytic cell for the production of hydrogen (Abstract: “an electrolyzer adapted to produce hydrogen”). The cell comprises a membrane ([0061]; Fig. 12: element 256 or 256’) and first and second cell frames (Fig. 12: two instances of element 330). The frames delimit an inner region which is open for receiving an electrolyte ([0061], Fig. 12: frames 330 include openings into which electrolyte flows via channels 244).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first and second cell frames are spaced apart along the cell axis as shown in the exploded view of Fig. 12. In the compatible embodiment shown in Fig. 3, the first and second frames (240, 260) are shown to be structurally and geometrically identical, differing in their placement and their rotation with respect to the membrane (256): the frame (260) at the top of Fig. 3 appears to be rotated 180° along an up-down axis perpendicular to the stacking direction of the exploded view. Flat sides of both the first and second frames abut on flat sides of the membrane in a sealing manner (Fig. 12 showing sides of frames 330 are flat where they contact the membrane). The cell further comprises first and second flow channels which are formed by apertures in the frames and the membrane, parallel to the cell axis (234, 236, 238 and prime symbols thereof on membrane). The circular shape of these apertures reads on “elliptical apertures.”
The first and second cell frames further comprise outflow and inflow channel structures (both as 244) which are fluidically coupled to the first flow channel (238 on the first frame 330; or 236 on the second frame 330) and to the second flow channel (234), respectively. In a compatible embodiment, the outflow channel structure of the cell frame includes at least two partial channels extending at an angle from the flow channel; these are fluidically coupled to the inner region of the cell frame at the upper section of the inner region’s limiting edge (Fig. 5, 244). The angle between the outermost partial channels as shown below with annotations (a) and (c) is prima facie within the claimed range of 27.5° and 135°, appearing to be about 90°. A third partial channel (b) is arranged between the channels (a) and (c).
PNG
media_image2.png
794
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These flow channel structures form groove-like indentations (Fig. 5: 244, 246) and are only present on one side of the plates as shown in Figs. 3-5 and 12, facing away from the membrane (256) so that the flat sides without the channels are closest to the membrane. These flat sides of the frames press on the membrane when the electrolyzer is held together by compression ([0028]: “Fig. 12 is an exploded view of a framed membrane;” [0061]: frame material seals the holes 234, 238, and 236, reading on “connected in a liquid-tight and gas-tight manner.”).
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the inner limiting edges of the first and second cell frames are rounded at their corners, reading on Claim 8’s limitation of “a circular arc shape or an elliptical shape in sections.” Furthermore, Fig. 3 shows partial channels (244) which are in the vertical direction, also shown in greater detail in Fig. 5. These channels are parallel to straight sections in the upper and/or lower region of the inner limiting edge.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McWhinney does not teach wherein the membrane is an anion exchange membrane. The membrane of McWhinney comprises woven nylon treated for water repellency in an embodiment ([0039]).
However, Milnes teaches that electrochemical cells which produce hydrogen (col. 1, lines 30-40) may include anion exchange membranes which can be placed on porous hydrophobic backings such as woven nylon, including nylon covered with a hydrophobic coating (col. 12, lines 27-41: as an alkali anion exchange membrane). An anion-exchange membrane inhibits transport of hydrogen gas and water while permitting anionic species to move through (col. 11, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an anion exchange membrane in the electrolytic cell taught by McWhinney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because it is a known modification for water-repellent woven nylon membranes in electrochemical cells and would be expected to result in improved separation of fluids on both sides of the nylon membrane as shown by Milnes.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, McWhinney further teaches that on the first cell frame, the edge defining the open inner region is surrounded by a circumferentially closed protuberance ([0061]; Fig. 12: 264, “tongue”) surrounding the outflow and inflow channel structures (244). The protuberance improves the fit and seal of the frame against adjacent electrode frames which read on “plate-shaped flat gaskets” (Fig. 11, frame 320 having matching groove 266; [0060]-[0061]).
McWhinney does not teach wherein the protuberance on the first cell frame “has a height of 1% to 20% of the thickness extension in the direction of the cell axis of a plate-shaped flat gasket arranged closest to this at least one flat side along the cell axis.”
However, as shown in Fig. 12, the height of the protuberance (264) is small compared to the thickness of the first cell frame (330). While no height ratio is disclosed, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at an optimum or workable range of a 1% to 20% height ratio, as motivated by the need to effectively seal the various elements of the electrochemical cell when its parts are assembled. Absent of a showing of unexpected results from the claimed range, the limitation of a height of 1% to 20% of the thickness of the cell frame would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the cell frames of McWhinney contain surface sections of higher surface roughness than the remainder of the surface in the broadest reasonable interpretation due to the tongue (264) or groove (266) present on one side of the cell frame ([0061], Fig. 12). The regions between the partial channels (244) as shown in Fig. 5 are also rougher than the remainder of the cell frame’s surface, which is mostly flat; the regions between the channels are more substantially varied in their surface.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhinney et al. (US 2009/0255826 A1) and Milnes et al. (US 10,886,5484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartnack et al. (US 6,955,862 B2).
Regarding claim 9, McWhinney and Milnes do not teach wherein the cross-section of the at least one first flow channel and/or of the at least one second flow channel of the electrolytic cell is configured to be increasingly tapering or increasingly enlarging along the cell axis.
However, Hartnack teaches that in a stack of fuel cell elements, the axial passages which are parallel to the stack direction/cell axis may be varied, such that the cross section of the flow channels is increasingly tapering or enlarging along the cell axis direction (Fig. 6: exploded view of stack with apertures 44). These axial passages feed radial channels (43a-e) which fluidically connect to the interior region of the cell (col. 9, line 66 - col. 10, line 2). This variation in cross section leads to different amounts of fluid flow delivered to the regions within the cell (col. 5, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cell frames of McWhinney so as to taper or enlarge the cross section of the flow channels across the cell axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because fuel cells are similar to electrolytic cells in that the operational principle is reversed (Hartnack col. 1, lines 23-26) and the modification has the expected result of improving the fluid distribution through a large number of stacked elements (col. 5, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 10, Hartnack does not expressly teach wherein at least one first flow channel is configured to be increasingly enlarging in a first flow channel direction along the cell axis and the at least one second flow channel is configured to be increasingly tapering in a second flow channel direction opposite the first flow channel direction. However, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to try this arrangement because the flow channel profiles are either tapering or enlarging in the axial direction as taught by Hartnack and applied to claim 9, as an axial direction could refer towards either end of a stack. See MPEP § 2144.08. Absent a showing of unexpected results from the claimed arrangement, the claimed subject matter is obvious.
Regarding claim 20 as it depends on claim 9, Hartnack further teaches that the cross sections tapering or enlarging along the cell axis are formed by cutting or stamping (col. 8, lines 10-13). Drilling, as is claimed, is a method which may be used to cut out these cross-sections which would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claim 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhinney et al. (US 2009/0255826 A1) and Milnes et al. (US 10,886,5484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2013-173995 A, using attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of McWhinney and Milnes does not teach wherein the flow cross-section of at least one partial channel of the outflow and/or inflow channel structure are provided with a trumpet-shaped widening in the direction of the inner region.
However, Suzuki teaches that in an electrolytic cell frame ([0041]; Fig. 1, element 39), at least one partial channel of the inflow channel structure is shaped so that it widens in the direction of the inner region, and the widening resembles the bell of a trumpet ([0088]; Fig. 10, as annotated).
PNG
media_image4.png
543
588
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a widening of the partial channels of the inflow region into the channel structure of the electrolytic cell taught by McWhinney and Milnes. One would be motivated to do so because it is a known structure for distributing electrolyte throughout the entire inner region of the cell frame, preventing the formation of bubbles which increase electrical resistance within the cell ([0011]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, McWhinney further teaches that the cell frames are made of high-density polyethylene, or HDPE ([0061]), known to those skilled in the art as a plastic. As shown in Fig. 12, the cell frames are taught as integral units not including any other material.
Regarding the limitations of “produced in one piece or integrally” and “by injection molding,” the Examiner notes that the product of a product-by-process claim (i.e. intended method of making) is not patentably distinct from the prior art when the end product is otherwise obvious. See MPEP § 2113(I). In the alternative, injection molding is a standard process in the art of producing plastic parts for electrolysis cells, including HDPE, as demonstrated by Suzuki ([0052]: an electrolytic chamber structure is produced by injection molding of a polyethylene resin), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the cell frames of McWhinney by injection molding before the effective filing date. See also MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) regarding the obviousness of making the prior art integral.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2001-081589 A to Shimizu et al. discloses a separator for a water electrolysis device in the attached machine translation. US 2016/0115603 A1 to Gashi et al. discloses cell frames for electrochemical stacks, see Figs. 3 and 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
