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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 51 (See Figure 2), 42 and 502 (See Figure 5A). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
As to claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “one or more magnetic cells”; however, claim 1, upon which claim 5 is dependent already introduces this limitation. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claim 5 intends to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
Further as to claim 5, it is unclear as to how one magnetic cell and one electrolytic cell could be described as “alternating” to form a “ring”. This feature would only seem possible with a plurality of magnetic cells and a plurality of electrolytic cells.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108708317 A to Yu et al. (Yu).
As to claims 1-4, Yu teaches an apparatus for using rotational energy to generate hydrogen from water, the apparatus comprising, an assembly of magnets comprising an inner ring of a plurality of magnets and an outer ring of a plurality of magnets mounted to a gear shaft, a magnetic cell located between in inner and outer rings of magnets comprising a magnetic coil and thus a magnetic core of come sort and formed in the form of a winding, the shaft configured to rotate the assembly of magnets to cause relative movement between the assembly of magnets and the magnetic cell in close proximity to each other to induce current, the apparatus further comprising an electrolytic cell for electrolyzing water electrically coupled to the magnetic cell with internal electrical connection such that the current generated by the magnetic cell is utilized to electrolyze water, the cell comprising a housing and hydrogen outlet pipe, each enclosures for capturing hydrogen extracted from the water (Paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0018, 0033, 0034, 0038; Figure 1).
As to claim 9, Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yu teaches that the assembly of magnets are located in the same speed bump as the electrolytic cell, thus considered to be in sufficiently close proximity to allow the moving magnetic field to “enhance” the disassociation of hydrogen and oxygen in the water (Paragraphs 0034 and 0035; Figure 1).
Claims 1, 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0162970 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen).
As to claims 1 and 2, Chen teaches an apparatus for using rotation energy to generate hydrogen from water, the apparatus comprising, an assembly of magnets (138) arranged around and coupled to a shaft (136), a magnetic cell comprising a generator stator coil (140), thus a magnetic core of come sort formed in a winding, the magnetic cell arranged around the shaft (136) and in close proximity to the assembly of magnets (138) such that a current is generated in response to movement of the assembly of magnets by the shaft to cause relative movement between the assembly of magnets (138) to the magnetic cell (140); the apparatus further comprising an electrolytic cell electrically coupled to the magnetic cell via internal connections for utilizing the generated current to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen (Paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0025, 0029 and 0034; Figures 4 and 6).
As to claim 12, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Chen teaches that a preferable embodiment comprises the assembly of magnets comprising a single magnet ring formed of a plurality of magnets (Paragraph 0029; Figure 4).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2003/0094863 A1 to Kurita et al. (Kurita).
As to claims 6 and 7, Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Yu fails to specifically discuss the shape of the magnets. However, Kurita also discusses rotating magnet and coil generator arraignments (Paragraph 0015) and teaches that by shaping the magnets as parallelograms cogging can be reduced (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to shape the magnets of Yu as parallelograms in order to reduce cogging as taught by Kurita.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0312370 A1 to Swiegers et al. (Swiegers).
As to claim 8, Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yu teaches that the electrolytic cell comprises an anode and a cathode (Paragraph 0034); however, is silent as to the specific materials of the anode and cathode. However, Swiegers also discusses the electrolysis of water and teaches that the anode and cathode should each be formed with a low cost catalyst for catalyzing the reaction (Paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the anode and cathode of a low cost catalyst as in Swiegers in order to enhance the dissociation of hydrogen and oxygen in the water in a low cost fashion.
As to claim 10, the combination of Yu and Swiegers teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Yu teaches that the assembly of magnets are located in the same speed bump as the electrolytic cell, thus considered to be in sufficiently close proximity to allow the moving magnetic field to perform the functional language of “induce eddy current in the catalytic material, thereby causing heating that enhances the catalytic action of the catalytic material in enhancing disassociation of hydrogen and oxygen in water” (Paragraphs 0034 and 0035; Figure 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 11, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Chen further teaches that the assembly of magnets is formed in a single magnet ring (Figure 4); Chen illustrates this ring as comprising a plurality of magnets but mentions this only as an option, thus rendering obvious a single magnets (Paragraph 0029). Furthermore, merely combing parts into a single part is not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 V).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious a plurality of electrolytic cells and a plurality of magnetic cells arranged in alternating fashion to form a ring around the shaft, with an assembly of magnets arranged around the shaft and the shaft rotating for relative movement between the assembly of magnets and magnetic cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights