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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-2, 4-17. The examined Claims are 1-2, 4-17, with Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Per Applicant’s amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has mainly (1) amended independent Claims 1, 16-17 to each require an electrically non-conductive partition member separating the at least one anode compartment from (“and” in the case of Claim 17) the at least one cathode compartment (“separating the anode compartment of the first fuel cell from the cathode compartment of the second fuel cell” in the case of Claim 16), the partition member being configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte, (2) further clarified Claim 11 to at least require “at least one non-conduction partition member” that separates the anode and cathode compartments in each of the first and second electrolytic cells.
Furthermore, Applicant presents the following arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 7-10 of Remarks):
Regarding Claims 1, 16-17 as amended, Applicant argues that (A) an electrically non-conductive partition member configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte is explicitly required, whereas Smotkin teaches that the proton permeable material is a metal hydride foil, and (B) Smotkin has a complex structure in which the proton must traverse multiple regions, whereas the instantly claimed invention has a more simple and efficient structure (Pages 7-8 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant argues that Smotkin does not teach the partition member as amended (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues that the inherency argument presupposes the same structure, but because Smotkin does not disclose the fuel cell system of Claim 10 as amended, inherency cannot be presumed (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant argues that Gomez-243 does not cure the deficiencies of Smotkin, and there is no persuasive rationale to modify Smotkin with Gomez-243 (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding Claims 5-8, 12, Applicant argues that Gomez-924 does not cure the deficiencies of Smotkin, and neither Gomez-924 nor Smotkin teach the particular operative coupling and performance limitations, and there is no reasonable expectation of achieving the claimed increase, especially because the instantly claimed system is substantially more efficient than Smotkin’s hybrid system (Pages 8-9 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant argues that Thompson does not cure the deficiencies of Smotkin (Page 9 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant argues that the cited combination of prior art does not teach or suggest the instantly claimed architecture of Claim 11 (Page 9 of Remarks).
Regarding Claim 13-16, Applicant argues that Ruthrof does not cure the deficiencies of Smotkin, and neither Ruthrof nor Smotkin teach the specific “preceding/successive electrode coupling” relationships as claimed (Pages 9-10 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are mostly moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
While all previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn, the following responses to Applicant’s remarks are noted:
Regarding Claims 1, 16-17, Applicant’s (A) argument is not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below, and Applicant’s (B) argument is not persuasive because regardless of alleged complexities and/or inefficiencies associated with the traversal of multiple regions in Smotkin, nothing in the instant Claims appears to preclude the presence of such multiple regions and the traversal thereof by a proton (i.e. the structure(s) allegedly allowing Applicant’s system to be simple, efficient, and differing with respect to Smotkin, are not explicitly present in the Claims). Importantly, it is also noted that while Smotkin discloses metal hydride foil as a possible partition member, Smotkin does not require that the partition member be made of such a foil, but instead requires merely that the partition member be made of a material which is permeable to protons but impermeable to chemical species larger than hydrogen (col. 4 lines 44-63).
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Regarding Claim 10, Smotkin, as modified in the new grounds of rejection presented below, does disclose the structure of the fuel cell system of Claim 10 as amended, so inherency can be presumed.
Regarding Claim 4, the alleged deficiencies of Smotkin are cured in the new grounds of rejection presented below. Furthermore, persuasive rationale to further modify with Gomez-243 was provided in the previous rejection of Claim 4, is currently provided in the new grounds of rejection below, and has not been explicitly contested by Applicant (i.e. Applicant argues that no persuasive rationale exists, but does not further expound upon this argument, especially in view of the disclosure of Gomez-243 as previously and currently described).
Regarding Claims 5-8, 12, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Gomez-924 clearly teaches the combination of the electrolysis apparatus with a fuel cell system (i.e. the use of the hydrogen produced as fuel in a fuel cell vehicle), or otherwise clearly intends for the electrolysis apparatus to be used with a fuel cell system, given that Gomez-924 explicitly teaches that the hydrogen produced by the electrolysis apparatus is used/useful in a fuel cell system. In any case, the combination of such an electrolysis apparatus and a fuel cell system, as disclosed by Gomez-924, is clearly and obviously an operative coupling of said structures (and it is noted that Claim 5 uses the term “combined” which does not, itself, appear to impart a specific type of coupling or require particular structure associated with coupling).
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because while Applicant discusses architectural aspects of Claim 11, Gomez-243 does appear to disclose all of the structural aspects of Claim 11, and Applicant does not explicitly point out where the structure of Gomez-243 differs from Claim 11 despite arguing that Claim 11 is distinguished over the prior art.
Regarding Claims 13-16, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below. Furthermore, and at least with respect to Claims 13-15, the plurality of hybrid fuel cells in Smotkin, as modified by Ruthrof, are connected in series, so the instantly claimed preceding/successive” coupling limitations appear to be met, and Applicant does not explicitly point out where/why said limitations are not met.
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 1-2, 10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464).
Regarding Claim 1, Smotkin teaches a hybrid fuel cell (“fuel cell system”) (Abstract, col. 4 lines 44-55). As illustrated in Figure 1, Smotkin teaches that the hybrid fuel cell comprises a first cell, the first cell having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and an acidic electrolyte, and a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and an alkaline electrolyte, wherein said anode and cathode compartments are separated by a proton permeable material (17) (“partition member”) (col. 4 lines 44-55).
Smotkin does not explicitly teach that the proton permeable material is electrically non-conductive and configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte.
However, Becerra teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). Becerra teaches that a fuel cell may typically include a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane therein which permits the migration of hydrogen ions from the anode side to the cathode side while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the proton permeable member of Smotkin as a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane (the proton permeable member is therefore an “electrically non-conductive partition member”), as taught by Becerra, given that such a membrane would permit the migration of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power.
Regarding Claim 2, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the proton permeable member is a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane (“non-conducting membrane”).
Regarding Claim 10, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed fuel cell system comprising all instantly claimed structural components.
Therefore, because the hybrid fuel cell of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, has the same structure/compositions as the instantly claimed fuel cell system, the hybrid fuel cell of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, would inherently possess the same properties, including the cell voltage as claimed (See MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence that the hybrid fuel cell of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not and/or cannot result in the instantly claimed cell voltage.
Regarding Claim 16, Smotkin teaches an apparatus for producing electrical energy, the apparatus comprising a hybrid fuel cell (“fuel cell system”) (Abstract, col. 4 lines 44-55). As illustrated in Figure 1, Smotkin teaches that the hybrid fuel cell comprises a first fuel cell (i.e. the anode half of the hybrid fuel cell) having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and an acidic electrolyte, and a second fuel cell (i.e. the cathode half of the hybrid fuel cell) having a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and an alkaline electrolyte, wherein the anode compartment of the first fuel cell and the cathode compartment of the second fuel cell are separated by a proton permeable material (17) (“partition member”) (col. 4 lines 44-55).
Smotkin does not explicitly teach that the proton permeable material is electrically non-conductive and configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte.
However, Becerra teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). Becerra teaches that a fuel cell may typically include a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane therein which permits the migration of hydrogen ions from the anode side to the cathode side while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the proton permeable member of Smotkin as a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane (the proton permeable member is therefore an “electrically non-conductive partition member”), as taught by Becerra, given that such a membrane would permit the migration of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power.
Regarding Claim 17, Smotkin teaches an apparatus for producing electrical energy, the apparatus comprising a hybrid fuel cell (“fuel cell system”) (Abstract, col. 4 lines 44-55). As illustrated in Figure 1, Smotkin teaches that the hybrid fuel cell comprises a first cell, the first cell having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and an acidic electrolyte, and a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and an alkaline electrolyte, wherein said anode and cathode compartments are separated by a proton permeable material (17) (“partition member”) (col. 4 lines 44-55).
Smotkin does not explicitly teach that the proton permeable material is electrically non-conductive and configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte.
However, Becerra teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). Becerra teaches that a fuel cell may typically include a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane therein which permits the migration of hydrogen ions from the anode side to the cathode side while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the proton permeable member of Smotkin as a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane (the proton permeable member is therefore an “electrically non-conductive partition member”), as taught by Becerra, given that such a membrane would permit the migration of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464) and Gomez (US 2016/0281243).
Regarding Claim 4, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not explicitly teach that at least one of the anode or cathode electrodes is coated with at least one of the instantly claimed materials.
However, Gomez teaches an electrolytic cell (Abstract). Gomez teaches that the cell comprises anode and cathode compartments which house anode and cathode electrodes therein, wherein the anode and cathode electrodes are coated with catalytic material which favors an anodic and/or cathodic reaction occurring at the anode and/or cathode electrode ([0081]). Gomez teaches that the catalytic material is an oxide of ruthenium iridium, or platinum ([0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the anode or cathode of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, is coated with an oxide of ruthenium iridium, or platinum, as taught by Gomez, given that such catalytic materials would help promote the reaction occurring at the anode or cathode electrode.
Claims 5-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464) and Gomez (US 2005/0126924).
Regarding Claim 5, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not explicitly teach that the hybrid fuel cell is combined with a water electrolysis system/unit.
However, Gomez teaches a water electrolysis apparatus (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 4, Gomez teaches that the water electrolysis apparatus is a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus ([0098], [0114]-[0115]). Gomez teaches than an immediate application of the electrolytic process of the apparatus is the production of hydrogen (e.g. for use as fuel in fuel cells) using off-peak thermal/nuclear/hydroelectric electricity cheaper than producing such hydrogen using petroleum fuels ([0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the hybrid fuel cell of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, with a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus (“water electrolysis system/unit”), as taught by Gomez, given that such an apparatus would be operable to produce hydrogen for use as fuel in the hybrid fuel cell using off-peak thermal/nuclear/hydroelectric electricity cheaper than producing such hydrogen using petroleum fuels.
Regarding Claim 6, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 5), the hybrid fuel cell is combined with a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus (“unipolar water electrolysis system/unit”) which produces hydrogen for use as fuel in the hybrid fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 7, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not explicitly teach that the hybrid fuel cell generates electrical energy for a power generation apparatus.
However, Gomez teaches a water electrolysis apparatus (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 4, Gomez teaches that the water electrolysis apparatus is a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus ([0098], [0114]-[0115]). Gomez teaches than an immediate application of the electrolytic process of the apparatus is the production of hydrogen (e.g. for use as fuel in fuel cells) using off-peak thermal/nuclear/hydroelectric electricity cheaper than producing such hydrogen using petroleum fuels ([0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the hybrid fuel cell of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, with a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus, as taught by Gomez, given that such an apparatus would be operable to produce hydrogen for use as fuel in the hybrid fuel cell using off-peak thermal/nuclear/hydroelectric electricity cheaper than producing such hydrogen using petroleum fuels. The hybrid fuel cell and unipolar water electrolysis apparatus, in combination, of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, is interpreted to be a “power generation apparatus,” wherein the hybrid fuel cell would therefore generate electrical energy for such a “power generation apparatus.”
Regarding Claim 8, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 7), the hybrid fuel cell is operatively coupled to a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus (a “water electrolysis system/unit” which is a “unipolar water electrolysis system/unit”) which produces hydrogen for use as fuel in the hybrid fuel cell, thereby providing an increased electrical energy output.
Regarding Claim 12, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 5), the hybrid fuel cell is operatively coupled to a unipolar water electrolysis apparatus which produces hydrogen for use as fuel in the hybrid fuel cell, thereby providing a synergistic increase in energy generation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464) and Gomez (US 2005/0126924) and Thompson et al. (US 2006/0127742).
Regarding Claim 9, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 8, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, does not explicitly teach that the increased electrical energy output is an increase of >50%.
However, Thompson teaches a fuel cell (Abstract). Thompson teaches that while the voltage provided by a single fuel cell unit is typically too small for useful application, it is common to arrange a plurality of fuel cell stacks together in a stack to increase the electrical output of the overall assembly ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrange a plurality of the hybrid fuel cell/unipolar water electrolysis apparatus combinations of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, together, as taught by Thompson, given that such an arrangement would provide for a desired and/or or required increase in electrical output (for example, to a value in accordance with the instantly claimed range), thereby enabling useful application of the combinations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464) and Gomez (US 2005/0126924) and Gomez (US 2016/0281243, hereinafter referred to as “Gomez2”).
Regarding Claim 11, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, does not explicitly teach that the unipolar water electrolysis apparatus is structured in the instantly claimed manner.
However, Gomez2 teaches an electrolytic cell (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 4A, Gomez2 teaches that the electrolytic cell comprises a first electrolytic cell having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and alkaline electrolyte producing oxygen wherein the alkaline electrolyte comprises a positively charged alkaline electrolyte, and a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and acidic electrolyte producing hydrogen wherein the acidic electrolyte comprises a negatively charged acidic electrolyte, and a membrane or diaphragm separating the anode and cathode compartments from one another, and a DC power source supplied to the anode and cathode electrodes ([0078]-[0089]). As illustrated in Figure 4A, Gomez2 teaches that the electrolytic cell comprises a second electrolytic cell having a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode receiving positively charged alkaline electrolyte from the first electrolytic cell and producing hydrogen, and an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and receiving negatively charged acidic electrolyte from the first electrolytic cell an producing oxygen, and a membrane or diaphragm separating the anode and cathode compartments from one another, when the anode and cathode electrodes are connected in short circuit producing hydrogen and oxygen without the DC power source ([0078]-[0089], [0092]). Gomez2 teaches that a membrane or diaphragm separates the anode and cathode compartments in each of the first and second electrolytic cells, wherein the membrane or is a non-conductive electrolytic membrane, and the diaphragm is a non-conductive porous diaphragm ([0088], [0090]). Gomez2 teaches the electrolytic cell provides for increased hydrogen production as compared to conventional alkaline or acid electrolyte electrolytic cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the unipolar water electrolysis apparatus of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Gomez, in the manner disclosed by Gomez2 (i.e. construct the apparatus such that is has (1) a first electrolytic cell having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and alkaline electrolyte producing oxygen wherein the alkaline electrolyte comprises a positively charged alkaline electrolyte, (2) and a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and acidic electrolyte producing hydrogen wherein the acidic electrolyte comprises a negatively charged acidic electrolyte, (3) and a membrane or diaphragm separating the anode and cathode compartments from one another, (4) and a DC power source supplied to the anode and cathode electrodes, and (5) a second electrolytic cell having a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode receiving positively charged alkaline electrolyte from the first electrolytic cell and producing hydrogen, (6) and an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and receiving negatively charged acidic electrolyte from the first electrolytic cell an producing oxygen, (7) and a membrane or diaphragm separating the anode and cathode compartments from one another, wherein when the anode and cathode electrodes are connected in short hydrogen and oxygen are produced without the DC power source, wherein (8) the membrane is a non-conductive electrolytic membrane (a “non-conductive partition member” which is an “electronic membrane”), and the diaphragm is a porous diaphragm (alternatively, a “non-conductive partition member” which a “porous diaphragm”), given that such an apparatus would help provide for increased hydrogen production as comparted to conventional alkaline or acid electrolyte electrolytic cells.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotkin et al. (US 5,846,669), and further in view of Becerra et al. (US 2003/0129464) and Ruthrof et al. (WO 2000/062363, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 13, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not explicitly teach a plurality of additional hybrid fuel cells.
However, Ruthrof teaches a fuel cell (1st full paragraph of Page 2 of translation). As illustrated in Figure 5, Ruthrof teaches that a plurality of the fuel cells can be connected in series to increase a produced voltage, wherein the series connection involves connecting a positive pole of one given fuel cell to a negative pole of a subsequent fuel cell (4th full paragraph of Page 6 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would connect a plurality of hybrid fuel cells of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, together (wherein, as with the initial hybrid fuel cell as described in Claim 1, each hybrid fuel cell would have an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and acidic electrode, and a cathode comparting housing a cathode electrode and alkaline electrolyte, wherein a proton permeable material separates the anode and cathode compartments) in series, as taught by Rutrof, given that a plurality of series-connected hybrid fuel cells would provide for an increased voltage.
Regarding Claim 14, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Ruthrof, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the plurality of hybrid fuel cells are connected in series. Accordingly, the anode electrode in the anode compartment of each hybrid fuel cell is electrically coupled to a preceding cathode electrode of a preceding hybrid fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 15, Smotkin, as modified by Becerra and Ruthrof, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the plurality of hybrid fuel cells are connected in series. Accordingly, the cathode electrode in the cathode compartment of each hybrid fuel cell is electrically coupled to a successive anode of a successive fuel cell system.
Regarding Claim 16, Smotkin teaches a hybrid fuel cell (“fuel cell system”) (Abstract, col. 4 lines 44-55). As illustrated in Figure 1, Smotkin teaches that the hybrid fuel cell comprises a first cell, the first cell having an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and an acidic electrolyte, and a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and an alkaline electrolyte, wherein said anode and cathode compartments are separated by a proton permeable material (17) (“partition member”) (col. 4 lines 44-55).
Smotkin does not explicitly teach that the proton permeable material is electrically non-conductive and configured to permit passage of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte.
However, Becerra teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). Becerra teaches that a fuel cell may typically include a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane therein which permits the migration of hydrogen ions from the anode side to the cathode side while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the proton permeable member of Smotkin as a proton-conductive, electronically non-conductive membrane (the proton permeable member is therefore an “electrically non-conductive partition member”), as taught by Becerra, given that such a membrane would permit the migration of hydrogen ions from the acidic electrolyte to the alkaline electrolyte while helping force electrons to travel a different path such as through a load to provide electrical power.
Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, does not explicitly teach a plurality of hybrid fuel cells such that there is a first fuel cell and a second fuel cell separated in the instantly claimed manner.
However, Ruthrof teaches a fuel cell (1st full paragraph of Page 2 of translation). As illustrated in Figure 5, Ruthrof teaches that a plurality of the fuel cells can be connected in series to increase a produced voltage, wherein the series connection involves connecting a positive pole of one given fuel cell to a negative pole of a subsequent fuel cell (4th full paragraph of Page 6 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would connect a plurality of hybrid fuel cells of Smotkin, as modified by Becerra, in series, as taught by Rutrof, given that a plurality of series-connected hybrid fuel cells would provide for an increased voltage. Therefore, a first of said plurality of hybrid fuel cells would have an anode compartment housing an anode electrode and acidic electrolyte, and a second of said hybrid fuel cells would have a cathode compartment housing a cathode electrode and alkaline electrolyte, wherein the proton permeable material of either of said first or second hybrid fuel cells would, at least in part, separate the first and second hybrid fuel cells from each other.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728