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 § 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, 4, 9-11, 13, 15, 18 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joos et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2015/0167182).
Regarding claim 1, Joos discloses an electrochemical system comprising:
an electrochemical stack comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells (80; figures 3-4; paragraphs13-14), the electrochemical stack configured to receive water and generate oxygen gas and hydrogen gas through a water splitting reaction within the electrochemical stack (paragraph 86);
an oxygen gas and water separator (110, 124; figure 4) configured to receive unreacted water and the generated oxygen gas from the electrochemical stack and separate at least a portion of the generated oxygen gas from the unreacted water (paragraph 87);
a recovery turbine positioned between the electrochemical stack and the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraph 89);
a first fluids transfer line connecting the electrochemical stack (80) and the recovery turbine (paragraph 89 – oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine to recover its pressure energy); and
a second fluids transfer line (102; figure 4) connecting the recovery turbine and the oxygen gas and water separator (110; paragraphs 86, 89 - oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine and into the separator),
wherein the electrochemical stack and first fluids transfer line are configured to operate at an elevated pressure greater than atmospheric pressure, i.e. about 100psig (paragraph 55, 75),
wherein the oxygen gas and water separator and second fluids transfer line are configured to operate at a lower pressure than the electrochemical stack (paragraphs 87, 89 – the pressure within the separators 110, 124 is controlled by a regulator 112 and the oxygen gas leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine which reduces the pressure of the fluid), and
wherein the recovery turbine is capable of reducing the elevated pressure within the first fluids transfer line to the lower pressure within the second fluids transfer line (paragraphs 87, 89 - oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine and into the separator).
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 device of Joos is capable of adjusting the pressure within the electrolyser and the water separators and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the electrochemical system of Joos further comprises: a water pump positioned between the oxygen gas and water separator (110; figure 4) and the electrochemical stack (80 – paragraphs 86-88);
a first water transfer line configured to supply water from the oxygen gas (102) and water separator (110) to the water pump (108; paragraphs 86-88); and
a second water transfer line (104) configured to supply water from the water pump (108) to the electrochemical stack (80), wherein the water pump (108) is capable to step up a pressure in the first water transfer line from the lower pressure to the elevated pressure in the second water transfer line (by using the flow control valves 100, fluctuations in the operating speed of the pumps 108 are reduced and a single pump set can be used for multiple stack assemblies 80. Water flow through a stack assembly 80 also shuts down and restarts automatically as the stack assembly 80 transitions between off or standby and operating modes – paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 9, Joos further teaches a back pressure device (112); and a gas line connecting the back pressure device (112) and the oxygen gas and water separator (110), wherein the back pressure device is configured to release gas from the oxygen gas and water separator to atmosphere via the gas line, therein assisting in controlling an operating pressure at the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 61, 87).
Regarding claim 10, Joos discloses a controller (60) in communication with the electrochemical stack (paragraphs 15, 58).
Regarding claim 11, the controller (60) of Joos is configured to provide instructions to adjust an operating pressure of the electrochemical stack or the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 60, 83 – the controller compares the rate of gas production, as indicated by meter 58 or an internal gas meter and controls the gas production at essentially constant pressure).
Regarding claim 13, the elevated pressure of Joos is in a range of 8-40 atm (paragraph 56 – pressure exceeds a minimum pressure selected to be above the maximum pressure in the natural gas pipeline 34, i.e. 500-800 psig); and wherein the lower pressure is greater than 0 atm and less than or equal to 10 atm (paragraph 55 – the core 50 may produce hydrogen at about 100 psig).
Regarding claim 15, Joos discloses a fluids processing system in communication with an electrochemical stack of an electrochemical system (paragraphs 61, 75),
the fluids processing system comprising:
a recovery turbine configured to receive unreacted water and a generated oxygen gas from the electrochemical stack (paragraph 89); and
an oxygen gas and water separator (110) configured to separate at least a portion of the generated oxygen gas from the unreacted water (paragraph 87); and
a fluids transfer line connecting the recovery turbine and the gas-liquid oxygen gas and water separator (110; figure 4; paragraphs 86, 89 - oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine and into the separator 110),
wherein the oxygen gas and water separator and fluids transfer line are configured to operate at a lower pressure than an elevated pressure of the electrochemical stack (paragraph 55, 75 - the electrochemical stack and first fluids transfer line are configured to operate at an elevated pressure greater than atmospheric pressure, i.e. about 100psig. Joos further discloses that the pressure within the water separators 110, 124 is controlled by a regulator 112 and the oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine which reduces the pressure of the fluid; paragraphs 87, 89), and
wherein the recovery turbine is capable of reducing the elevated pressure of the electrochemical stack to the lower pressure within the fluids transfer line and oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 87, 89 - oxygen leaving the electrolyser passes through a recovery turbine and then into the separator).
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 device of Joos is capable of adjusting the pressure within the electrolyser and the water separators and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the system of Joos further comprises a water pump (108) positioned between the oxygen gas and water separator (110) and the electrochemical stack (80 – paragraphs 86-88); and
a water transfer line configured to supply water from the oxygen gas and water separator to the water pump (108; paragraphs 86-88),
wherein the water pump is configured to step up a pressure from the lower pressure to the elevated pressure of the electrochemical stack (by using the flow control valves 100, fluctuations in the operating speed of the pumps 108 are reduced and a single pump set can be used for multiple stack assemblies 80. Water flow through a stack assembly 80 also shuts down and restarts automatically as the stack assembly 80 transitions between off or standby and operating modes – paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 23, Joos further teaches a back pressure device (112); and a gas line connecting the back pressure device (112) and the oxygen gas and water separator (110), wherein the back pressure device is configured to release gas from the oxygen gas and water separator to atmosphere via the gas line, therein assisting in controlling an operating pressure at the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 61, 87).
Regarding claim 24, Joos discloses a controller (60) in communication with the electrochemical stack (paragraphs 15, 58).
Regarding claim 25, the controller (60) of Joos is configured to provide instructions to adjust an operating pressure of the electrochemical stack or the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 60, 83 – the controller compares the rate of gas production, as indicated by meter 58 or an internal gas meter to control the pressure).
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 5-8, 12 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joos as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lacroix et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0245224).
Regarding claim 5, Joos discloses all the features discussed above wherein energy is generated at the recovery turbine through the reduction in pressure from the elevated pressure to the lower pressure (paragraph 89), but fails to teach wherein at least a portion of the generated energy is configured to be provided to the water pump to assist in operation of the water pump.
Lacroix teaches an electrochemical system comprising a turbine connected to an electrolytic cell and a compression pump; wherein the net power of the process is defined as being the electrical production AC of the cell and of the associated turbine (primary air circuit) from which the consumption of the compressors and recirculators is subtracted. The system thus makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency (paragraphs 53, 226, 229, 240-241, 278).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide at least a portion of the generated energy at the turbine to the water pump in the system of Joos because as taught by Lacroix, this arrangement makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 6, even though Lacroix fails to explicitly teach wherein the generated energy provides 100% of an energy required to operate the water pump during operation of the electrochemical system, Lacroix discloses that the net power of the process is defined as being the electrical production AC of the cell and of the associated turbine (primary air circuit) from which the consumption of the compressors and recirculators is subtracted. The system thus makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency (paragraphs 53, 226, 229, 240-241, 278). It has been held by the courts that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 7, Lacroix further discloses wherein at least a portion of the generated energy is configured to be provided to at least one additional component of the electrochemical system, i.e. cell, compressors, cooling units and power electronics, to assist in operation of the at least one additional component of the electrochemical system (paragraph 228).
Regarding claim 8, Lacroix teaches wherein the at least one additional component of the electrochemical system is the electrochemical stack (paragraph 228).
Regarding claim 12, the controller (60) of Joos is configured to provide instructions to adjust an operating pressure of the electrochemical stack or the oxygen gas and water separator (paragraphs 60, 83 – the controller compares the rate of gas production, as indicated by meter 58 or an internal gas meter to control the pressure).
Regarding claim 19, Joos discloses all the features discussed above wherein energy is generated at the recovery turbine through the reduction in pressure from the elevated pressure to the lower pressure (paragraph 89), but fails to teach wherein at least a portion of the generated energy is configured to be provided to the water pump to assist in operation of the water pump.
Lacroix teaches an electrochemical system comprising a turbine connected to an electrolytic cell and a compression pump; wherein the net power of the process is defined as being the electrical production AC of the cell and of the associated turbine (primary air circuit) from which the consumption of the compressors and recirculators is subtracted. The system thus makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency (paragraphs 53, 226, 229, 240-241, 278).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide at least a portion of the generated energy at the turbine to the water pump in the system of Joos because as taught by Lacroix, this arrangement makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 20, even though Lacroix fails to explicitly teach wherein the generated energy provides 100% of an energy required to operate the water pump during operation of the electrochemical system, Lacroix discloses that the net power of the process is defined as being the electrical production AC of the cell and of the associated turbine (primary air circuit) from which the consumption of the compressors and recirculators is subtracted. The system thus makes it possible to operate over a wide power range, while maintaining a high electrical efficiency (paragraphs 53, 226, 229, 240-241, 278). It has been held by the courts that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 21, Lacroix further discloses wherein at least a portion of the generated energy is configured to be provided to at least one additional component of the electrochemical system, i.e. cell, compressors, cooling units and power electronics, to assist in operation of the at least one additional component of the electrochemical system (paragraph 228).
Regarding claim 22, Lacroix teaches wherein the at least one additional component of the electrochemical system is the electrochemical stack (paragraph 228)
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