Patent Application 17801976 - ELECTROLYZER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER

Title: ELECTROLYZER, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER

Application Information

Invention Title: ELECTROLYZER, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER
Application Number: 17801976
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-08-24T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-08-24T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 204
National Sub-Class: 252000
Examiner Employee Number: 98185
Art Unit: 1795
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I, drawn to an electrolyzer/electrolysis cell, in the reply filed on 04/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-12 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/18/2025.

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.

Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 19 reads “electrolytic cells 2”, but should read “electrolytic cells 50” to be consistent with the remainder of the specification.
Para. 73 reads “first layer 30”, but should read “second layer 30” to be consistent with the remainder of the specification.
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 3-4 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 claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitations “a normal surface pressure of the second elastic body” and “a normal surface pressure of the first elastic body”. It is not clear, in light of the specification, what is meant by a “normal surface pressure”.
Specifically, it is unclear whether the term “normal” is intended to indicate:
a) the usual or ordinary surface pressure e.g., when the elastic body is compressed to a usual or ordinary amount, or
b) the surface pressure that is exerted by the elastic body in a perpendicular direction from the elastic body e.g., towards the cathode or first electrode for electrolysis.
Claim 3 is therefore considered indefinite.

Regarding claim 4, claim 4 optionally depends from claim 3, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 3.
Claim 4 is therefore indefinite.

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.

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asaumi (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0114830 A1).

Regarding claim 1, Asaumi teaches an electrolyzer (abstract) comprising:
an anode (“rigid anode (21a)” Fig. 7, annotated below, and para. 42), a cathode that is opposed to the anode (“rigid cathode (22a)”), a membrane that is arranged between the anode and the cathode (“ion exchange membrane (27)” Fig. 7 and “an ion exchange membrane interposed between respective units” para. 42);
a first elastic body that presses the cathode in a direction toward the anode (“V-shaped springs (23)”, a first electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the membrane and the cathode (“flexible cathode (26)” Fig. 7 and para. 44);
and a second elastic body that is arranged between the first electrode for electrolysis and the cathode (“metal elastic body (25)”) and presses the first electrode for electrolysis in the direction toward the anode (“metal elastic bodies … (25) … pressing a pliable flexible cathode … (26) toward an ion exchange membrane … (27)” para. 45 and see annotated Fig. 7), wherein the first electrode for electrolysis serves as a cathode electrode (“flexible cathode (26)”), and
the first electrode for electrolysis, the second elastic body, the cathode, and the first elastic body are electrically connected (“compressing a V-shaped spring (23) provides a contact and then an electrically connection between the ends on the opening side of the V-shaped spring (23)” para. 43 and “examples of metal elastic bodies … (25) … is not particularly limited as long as it is made of a conductive material and has an elastic property such that it can supply electric power while pressing a pliable flexible cathode … (26)” para. 45).

PNG
media_image1.png
478
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale

Annotated Asaumi Fig. 7, modified to show repeating unit cell

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.
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.

Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asaumi (US Pat. Pub. 20150114830 A1) in view of Hatano (US Pat. No. 10208388 B2).

Regarding claim 2, Asaumi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.

Asaumi further teaches the thickness of the second elastic body is 10 mm (“an elastic cushion member of roughly 350 mm in lengthx110 mm in widthx10 mm in height [sic]” para. 60).
However, Asaumi is silent on the thickness of the first elastic body, and thus does not teach the thickness of the second elastic body is larger than a thickness of the first elastic body.
Because Asaumi is silent on the thickness of the first elastic body, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify a suitable thickness for this body in the prior art.
Hatano teaches an electrolyzer (title) comprising a cathode (“cathode 7” Fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 10-16) supported on an elastic body (“elastic bodies 8”), wherein the elastic body has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.2 mm (“A thickness of the base material of the elastic bodies 8, that is, a thickness of the fixed part 81 and the elastic parts 82 is preferably from 0.02 mm to 0.3 mm, and particularly preferably from 0.1 mm to 0.20 mm.” col. 7 lines 17-27), a range fully within the claimed range i.e., less that the thickness of the second elastic body in Asaumi.
As Asaumi and Hatano each teach zero-gap membrane electrolyzers, they are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Asaumi, such that the first elastic body has a thickness between 0.1 and 0.2 mm, as taught by Hatano i.e., such that the thickness of the second elastic body (10 mm) is larger than a thickness of the first elastic body (0.1-0.2 mm). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hatano teaches this thickness range is suitable for a first elastic body in a zero-gap membrane electrolyzer. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).

Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asaumi (US Pat. Pub. 20150114830 A1) in view of deNora (US Pat. No. 4340452) and Hatano (US Pat. No. 10208388 B2).

Regarding claim 3, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the term “normal surface pressure” has been interpreted as the surface pressure under usual i.e., normal, compression.
Asaumi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Asaumi is silent as to the normal surface pressures of the first and second elastic bodies. Asaumi thus does not teach the normal surface pressure of the second elastic body is larger than a normal surface pressure of the first elastic body.
Because Asaumi is silent as to the normal surface pressures of the first and second elastic bodies, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify suitable values or ranges in the prior art.
Asaumi teaches the second elastic body is a metal coil body made of nickel wire (para. 60). DeNora teaches an elastic body (“resilient compressible electrode element 13” Fig. 4 and col. 11 lines 1-14) for use in a zero-gap electrolyzer (title and see Fig. 6) comprising a metal coil body (“helical wire coil” col. 11 lines 22-31) made of nickel alloy (“made of nickel-alloy” col. 11 lines 1-14), wherein the normal surface pressure is between 80 and 1000 gf/cm2 (“exerting an elastic reaction force, preferably in the range of 80-1000 g/cm2 of projected surface.” col. 11 lines 22-31).
As Asaumi and deNora each teach zero-gap membrane electrolyzers, they are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an elastic body with a normal surface pressure between 80 and 1000 gf/cm2 as the second elastic body in the system of Asaumi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an elastic body with a normal surface pressure in this range because deNora teaches this is a suitable normal surface pressure for a metal coil body used as an elastic body in a zero-gap membrane electrolyzer. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Furthermore, Hatano teaches an electrolyzer (title) comprising a cathode (“cathode 7” Fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 10-16) supported on an elastic body (“elastic bodies 8”), wherein the elastic body has a normal surface pressure of between 71 and 153 gf/cm2 (“a pressure applied to the base part 6 and the cathode 7 by the elastically deformed elastic parts 82 is … particularly preferably from 7 kPa to 15 kPa.” col. 7 line 65 through col. 8 line 7).
As Hatano teaches a zero-gap membrane electrolyzer, Hatano is analogous art.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an elastic body having a normal surface pressure of between 71 and 153 gf/cm2 as the first elastic body, as taught by Hatano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a first elastic body having a normal surface pressure in this range because Hatano teaches this is a suitable range for a first elastic body in a zero-gap membrane electrolyzer. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a second elastic body having a normal surface pressure of between about 0.5 and about 143 times the normal surface pressure of the first elastic body (see calculations, below), a range overlapping the claimed range i.e., >1. A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).

Furthermore, when assembling the system of Asaumi, only three options are possible for the relative values of the normal surface pressures of the first and second elastic bodies:
a) the normal surface pressure of the second elastic body is larger than the normal surface pressure of the first elastic body;
b) the normal surface pressure of the second elastic body is smaller than the normal surface pressure of the first elastic body; or
c) the normal surface pressure of the second elastic body is the same as the normal surface pressure of the first elastic body.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select a second elastic body having a larger normal surface pressure than the first elastic body, as only three options are possible. Selecting an option from a finite number of predictable, art recognized solutions to a problem with a reasonable expectation of success establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).

Calculations: kPa were converted to gf/cm2 by multiplying by 10.2. The minimum value of the of normal surface pressure ratio between the second and first elastic bodies to was calculated by dividing the smallest surface pressure of the second elastic body i.e., 80 gf/cm2, by the largest surface pressure of the first elastic body i.e., 153 gf/cm2. The maximum value of the of normal surface pressure ratio between the second and first elastic bodies to was calculated by dividing the largest surface pressure of the second elastic body i.e., 1000 gf/cm2, by the smallest surface pressure of the first elastic body i.e., 71 gf/cm2.

Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asaumi (US Pat. Pub. 20150114830 A1) in view of Gestermann (US Pat. No. 6841047 B2).

Regarding claim 4, Asaumi anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Asaumi does not teach a second electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the anode and the membrane, wherein the second electrode for electrolysis serves as an anode electrode, and the second electrode for electrolysis and the anode are electrically connected.
However, Gestermann teaches a zero-gap membrane electrolyzer (abstract) wherein a second electrode for electrolysis that serves as an anode (“anode 24” Fig. 3) is arranged between an anode (“connecting pieces 20”) and an ion-exchange membrane (“cation-exchange membrane 34”), wherein the second electrode for electrolysis and the anode are electrically connected (“electrical contact to the anode and/or to the current collector is likewise established via the holding elements. …” col. 2 lines 50-64), which provides the predictable benefit further ensuring zero-gap is maintained between the electrodes and the membrane, relative to configurations where only the anode side or the cathode side comprise electrodes for electrolysis (“in this embodiment [i.e., the embodiment of Fig. 3] it is particularly reliably ensured that these components of the electrolysis cell are in contact with one another without any gaps.” col. 6 lines 49-67).
As Asaumi and Gestermann each teach zero-gap membrane electrolyzers, they are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Asaumi by adding a second electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the anode and the membrane, wherein the second electrode for electrolysis serves as an anode electrode and the second electrode for electrolysis and the anode are electrically connected, as taught by Gestermann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of further ensuring no gap is formed between the electrodes and the membrane, as taught by Gestermann. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).

Claims 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deNora (US Pat. No. 4340452).

Regarding claim 13, deNora teaches an electrolyzer (title and col. 13 lines 26-38) comprising:
an anode (“anode sheet 108” Fig. 6),
a cathode that is opposed to the anode (“cathode pressure plate 122”),
a membrane that is arranged between the anode and the cathode (“membrane 105”),
a first electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the membrane and the cathode (“cathode screen 114”),
a second electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the anode and the membrane (“fine mesh screen 108a”),
an elastic body that is arranged between the first electrode for electrolysis and the cathode (“compressible mat 113”) and presses the first electrode for electrolysis in a direction toward the anode (see Fig. 6 and col. 15 lines 22-30), and
a support that directly supports the cathode (“conductive ribs 120”), wherein
the first electrode for electrolysis serves as a cathode electrode (“cathode screen 114”),
the second electrode for electrolysis serves as an anode electrode (“opposed anode 108a”),
a thickness of the first electrode for electrolysis is at least about 40-150 µm, a range overlapping the claimed range (“a porous electrode layer of electrode particles … is at least about 40 to 150 microns in thickness” col. 6 lines 20-38),
the first electrode for electrolysis, the elastic body, the cathode, and the support are electrically connected (see Fig. 6 and e.g., col. 12 lines 65-68), and
the second electrode for electrolysis and the anode are electrically connected (see Fig. 6 and e.g., col. 12 lines 59-64).
A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range (i.e., the thickness of the first electrode for electrolysis) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).

Regarding claim 16, deNora teaches an electrolytic cell (title) comprising:
an anode (“anode sheet 108” Fig. 6),
a cathode that is opposed to the anode (“cathode pressure plate 122”),
a membrane that is arranged between the anode and the cathode (“membrane 105”),
a first electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the membrane and the cathode (“cathode screen 114”),
a second electrode for electrolysis that is arranged between the anode and the membrane (“fine mesh screen 108a”),
an elastic body that is arranged between the first electrode for electrolysis and the cathode (“compressible mat 113”) and presses the first electrode for electrolysis in a direction toward the anode (see Fig. 6 and col. 15 lines 22-30), and
a support that directly supports the cathode (“conductive ribs 120”), wherein
the first electrode for electrolysis serves as a cathode electrode (“cathode screen 114”),
the second electrode for electrolysis serves as an anode electrode (“opposed anode 108a”),
a thickness of the first electrode for electrolysis is at least about 40-150 µm, a range overlapping the claimed range (“a porous electrode layer of electrode particles … is at least about 40 to 150 microns in thickness” col. 6 lines 20-38),
the first electrode for electrolysis, the elastic body, the cathode, and the support are electrically connected (see Fig. 6 and e.g., col. 12 lines 65-68), and
the second electrode for electrolysis and the anode are electrically connected (see Fig. 6 and e.g., col. 12 lines 59-64).
A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range (i.e., the thickness of the first electrode for electrolysis) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).

Regarding claim 17, deNora further teaches an electrolyzer comprising the electrolytic cell according to claim 16 (“The advantages of the resilient electrode of the invention are fully realized and appreciated in industrial filter press-type electrolyzers” col. 13 lines 26-38).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Federico (US Pat. No. 9797051 B2) teaches a method of retrofitting a finite-gap electrolyzer by inserting a first electrode for electrolysis supported by an elastic body.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.

/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795

Patent Application 17801976 - ELECTROLYZER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER - Rejection

Patent Application 17801976 - ELECTROLYZER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER

Application Information

Rejection Summary

Cited Patents

Office Action Text

(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months

Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months