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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-19 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 14 and 19 have been amended. Claims 6, 15 and 20 have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to rejections under 102 and 103 over Tang et al. (CN 106222687 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-3, 8-12, 18 and 19 under 102 and 103 over Ueda et al. (JP 2021085081 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections have been modified as necessitated by the amendment. See response to arguments below.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 2 and 10.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (JP 2021085081 A, machine translation).
Considering claims 1, 8 and 10, Ueda discloses an electrolyzer system and method comprising: a water storage tank (41) configured to store water; an electrolyzer (10) in fluid communication with the water storage tank (41), the electrolyzer configured to generate a water-oxygen mixture from the water [0010]; a pressure reducer (valve 22) configured to reduce pressure (inherently) of the water upstream of the of the electrolyzer (10), the pressure reducer located between the water storage tank (41) and the electrolyzer (10) [0022]; and a post-stack pump (77) configured to increase pressure (inherently) of the water-oxygen mixture downstream of the electrolyzer (10) (Fig. 2 and [0052]),
wherein the electrolyzer is pressure isolated from the water storage tank through one or more controllable pressure isolating components (valves 22 and 44) such that the water stored in the water tank 41 may be pressurized and supplied to the electrolytic cell 10 [0075], therefore the pressure within the water storage tank is inherently greater than pressure within the electrolyzer in order for the water to be delivered to the electrolyzer by pressurizing the water in the water storage tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Ueda does not disclose a pre-stack pump (41) located between the pressure reducer (22) and the electrolyzer (10), the pre-stack pump inherently capable to control pressure of the water supplied to the electrolyzer (Fig. 2).
Considering claim 19, Ueda discloses a fluid circuit for an electrolyzer system, comprising: a water storage tank (41) configured to store water; and an electrolyzer in fluid communication with the water storage tank, the electrolyzer (10) configured to generate a water-oxygen mixture from the water; wherein the electrolyzer is pressure isolated from the water storage tank through one or more controllable pressure isolating components, by valves (22) and (44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al., as applied to claim 1.
Considering claims 1-3 and 10-12, Ueda discloses an electrolyzer system comprising: a water storage tank (41) configured to store water; an electrolyzer (10) in fluid communication with the water storage tank (41), the electrolyzer configured to generate a water-oxygen mixture from the water [0010]; and a post-stack pump (77) configured to increase pressure (inherently) of the water-oxygen mixture downstream of the electrolyzer (10) (Fig. 2 and [0052]);
wherein the electrolyzer is pressure isolated from the water storage tank through one or more controllable pressure isolating components (valves 22 and 44) such that the water stored in the water tank 41 may be pressurized and supplied to the electrolytic cell 10 [0075], therefore the pressure within the water storage tank is inherently greater than pressure within the electrolyzer in order for the water to be delivered to the electrolyzer by pressurizing the water in the water storage tank.
Ueda does not disclose a pressure reducer configured to reduce pressure of the water upstream of the of the electrolyzer, the pressure reducer located between the water storage tank and the electrolyzer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add valves at the inlet and the outlet of the pump, because it is well-known pluming practice to have the valves in order to service the pump without need to drain the whole system. In this case there will be an inherent pressure reducing valve (closed position) located between the storage tank and the electrolizer. The pre-stack pump inherently capable to control pressure of the water supplied to the electrolyzer by pumping water or stopping pumping, this inherently increasing the pressure of the water in the water storage tank.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al., as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ballantine et al. (US 20230175155 A1).
Considering claims 9 and 18, Tang does not disclose the electrolyzer system is configured to provide oxygen to a downstream sewage treatment system.
However, Ballantine teaches supplying oxygen generated by water electrolyzer to sewage to increase the oxygen concentration of the water to disrupt bacterial growth and to facilitate oxidation of organic effluents contained in the wastewater supply [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply the oxygen generated by the electrolyzer of Ueda, because Ballantine teaches supplying oxygen generated by water electrolyzer to sewage to increase the oxygen concentration of the water to disrupt bacterial growth and to facilitate oxidation of organic effluents contained in the wastewater supply.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (JP 2021085081 A, machine translation).
Considering claims 1 and 10, Ueda discloses a fluid system for an electrolyzer system comprising: a water storage tank (41) configured to store water; an electrolyzer (10) in fluid communication with the water storage tank (41), the electrolyzer configured to generate a water-oxygen mixture from the water [0010]; wherein the electrolyzer is pressure isolated from the water storage tank through one or more controllable pressure isolating components (valves 22 and 44) such that the water stored in the water tank 41 may be pressurized and supplied to the electrolytic cell 10 [0075], therefore the pressure within the water storage tank is inherently greater than pressure within the electrolyzer in order for the water to be delivered to the electrolyzer by pressurizing the water in the water storage tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art (Ueda et al. JP 2021085081 A) discloses an electrolyzer system as claimed including a water storage tank and an electrolyzer configured to generate a water-oxygen mixture, pressure reducer and a pump.
However, the independent claims 4, 5, 7 and 13 require a water-oxygen separator located downstream of the post-stack pump.
The prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest the instantly claimed invention as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part. Applicant argues that Ueda describes a circulation pump (77) positioned upstream of the electrolytic cell to push water into it, and Ueda fails to teach or suggest a post-stack pump located downstream of the electrolyzer and upstream of the water storage tank, and the post-stack pump renders the pressure of the water storage tank to be greater than the pressure within the electrolyzer.
These arguments are not persuasive, because the pump 77 of Ueda is placed in a circulation loop, where it is downstream of the electrolyzer 10, as it pushes pressure from oxygen exhausted by the electolyzer [0067]. Furthermore, the pressure within the water storage tank is inherently greater than pressure within the electrolyzer in order for the water to be delivered to the electrolyzer by pressurizing the water in the water storage tank in case when the water stored in the water tank 41 may be pressurized and supplied to the electrolytic cell 10 [0075]. For the water to flow from the storage to the electrolyzer the pressure in the storage tank must be higher.
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 Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights