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 .
The Applicants arguments have been received on 6/30/25.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/25 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, on claims 8-9 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, it is unknown how “-H-“ in Pt/C-H-Nb2O5 is bonded without the H comprising a charge. Appropriate corrections are required.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 8-9 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are 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. Specifically, it doesn’t appear that “-“ in “-H-“ represents a bond, since H is neutral. It is unclear how the compound comprises the structure and how the components are structurally attached. Appropriate corrections or further clarification is required.
As best understood, please see the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection below.
Claim Analysis
For the purpose of compact prosecution, it appears that mixing in the Applicant’s specification results in both the catalyst and the bronze to by interspersed throughout the anode and will be interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. as evidence by Soo et al. in view of China University of Geoscience, on claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12-13 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (WO2000035037) as evidence by the Soo et al. (KR 10-2008-0107997) in view of China University of Geoscience (US Publication 2015/0105244 hereinafter, “Geosciences”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the Cooper et al. reference membrane electrode assembly comprising an anode structure comprising a cathode layer, an anode layer (claim 16). The anode substrates were combined with membranes and cathodes to from membrane electrode assemblies and were test in a fuel cell. The anode includes an a first electrocatalyst of formula Pt-X-Y or Pt-Y and second catalyst of Pt-M (claim 1) mixture. As evidence by the Soo et al. reference, materials interspersed are formed by mixing (claims). The membrane electrode assembly comprises a proton exchange membrane disposed between the cathode and anode layer.
The Cooper et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the bronze of the anode layer includes hydrogen bronze. However, the Geosciences is in the field of electrode material for fuel cell (Abstract) and teaches including a hydrogen bonze ([0036]), a bronze compound may be formed after proton intercalation is performed on an oxide of the transition metal (such as MoO3 or Nb2O5), the bronzed compound has desirable electrically conductive and proton transfer capability and can be used as a potential inexpensive electrode material. Moreover, it is found through experimentation and research that hydrogen bronze (Hn-MO3) and a corresponding dehydrogenation product can be produced when MoO3 is reacted with hydrogen ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bronze compound disclosed by the Cooper et al. reference with the electrode material teaching disclosed by the Geosciences for the purpose of the anode layer including hydrogen bronze to produce desirable electrically conductivity and proton transfer capabilities that can be produced inexpensively ([0036]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Cooper et al. discloses the membrane electrode assembly wherein the anode layer is selected from Rh (claim 4), thus as a result, the anode layer can be free of Ru. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 3, modified Cooper et al. reference discloses the membranes electrode assembly according the claim 1. The Cooper reference further discloses wherein the anode layer comprises Pt catalyst loading on carbon which is equivalent to Pt/C catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the modified Cooper et al. reference discloses the membrane electrode assembly according to claim 1. The modified Cooper et al. reference further discloses wherein the hydrogen bronze includes a metal oxide wherein the metal is selected from niobium.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the modified Cooper et al. reference discloses the membrane electrode assembly according to claim 1, but is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the hydrogen bronze includes Pt/C-H-Nb2O5. The Cooper reference teaches Pt loaded carbon catalyst as one of the two different catalyst. The other catalyst is a Nb oxide bronze. The Geosciences teaches wherein the electrode material can comprise a Nb oxide bronze and hydrogen bronze includes a member selected from a group consisting of H-Nb2O5 ([0037]) were used as a component of the anode for desirable electron conductivity and inexpensive electrode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a bronze compound as an electrode material disclosed by the Geosciences material that for the node component requiring a bronze compound disclosed by the Cooper et al. reference for desirable electrical conductivity and proton transfer capability that can be produce inexpensively (Geosciences [0036]-[0039]). As a result the hydrogen bronze may be represented by Pt/C-H-Nb2O5.
Regarding claims 13-14, the Cooper et al. reference discloses vehicle comprising fuel cells (fuel cell stacks) including a membrane electrode assembly according to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image1.png
442
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
308
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the Applicant’s specification discloses Pt/C-H-MOx wherein MOx -is a doped metal oxide. Doped components are chemically bonded to the host. That is, “-“ in Pt/C-H-MOx illustrates a bond which would render -H- to become Pt/C-H+-MOx and not Pt/C-H- MOx as disclosed. Thus, the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are maintained.
The Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “intersperse throughout the anode”
However, the Applicant’s specification does not further define “intersperse.” The Soo reference provides evidence that intersperse is mixing. The Cooper reference discloses that the bronze material and the catalyst are mixed. That is, the teachings of Cooper with evidence by Soo teaches the claimed invention. The rejections are maintained.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image3.png
274
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the Geoscience reference was used to disclose the field of electrode material for fuel cell (Abstract) and teaches including a hydrogen bonze ([0036]), a bronze compound may be formed after proton intercalation is performed on an oxide of the transition metal (such as MoO3 or Nb2O5), the bronzed compound has desirable electrically conductive and proton transfer capability and can be used as a potential inexpensive electrode material. Moreover, it is found through experimentation and research that hydrogen bronze (Hn-MO3) and a corresponding dehydrogenation product can be produced when MoO3 is reacted with hydrogen ([0037]). In arguendo, even if Geoscience may not teach an anode, the rejection clearly states that the Cooper reference teaches an anode, anodes in fuel cells react with hydrogen. Therefore, the combination taught the Cooper reference as evidence by the Soo reference in view of the Geoscience discloses the claimed invention. Thus, the rejections are maintained and the claimed invention is not allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752