DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendments
2. The applicants amendments dates on 11 July, 14 July and 16 July 2025 have all been entered into the record. Currently, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are currently pending in the instant application.
3. The applicant requested amendment to the specification for ¶15, ¶151, ¶152, and ¶164 in the responses filed on 14 July 2025 and 16 July 2025.
Regarding ¶15, substitution of metal porous body sheet (3) for metal porous body sheet (4) is accepted by the examiner since part (4) is not listed in earlier paragraphs in the specification.
Pertaining to ¶151, the applicant has requested the specification should be modified to replace “dividing” with “subtracting” in ¶151 and the examiner finds this amendment is consistent with the formula in Table 9 in the second to last column where it is written: “(P4-W5)/P4”.
Pertaining to ¶152, the applicant has requested the specification should be modified to replace “dividing” with “subtracting” in ¶152 and the examiner finds this amendment is consistent with the formula in Table 9 in the second to last column where it is written: “(P4-W5)/P4”.
Pertaining to ¶164, the applicant has requested the specification should be modified to replace “dividing” with “subtracting” in ¶164 and the examiner finds this amendment is consistent with the formula in Table 9 in the second to last column where it is written: “(P4-W5)/P4”.
4. The examiner finds that the amendments to the specification does not add any new matter based on the above explanation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
5. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al.
Novak et al. (WO1998026112 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a reticulated metals article combining small pores with large apertures (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Novak et al. discloses a metal porous body sheet (“porous metal article 1” on pg. 8 line 7 and FIG. 1) including a metal porous body having a three-dimensional mesh structure as depicted in FIG. 2. Novak et al. further teaches the metal porous body sheet comprises a first main surface (“smooth front face 4” on pg. 8 line 10 and FIGS. 1 and 2) and a second main surface (“rough back face 5” on pg. 8 lines 10 to 11 and FIGS. 1 and 2) that is a reverse to the first main surface as depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2 with the two faces positioned opposite each other. Novak et al. additionally discloses that the first main surface 4 is formed with multiple holes (“apertures 3” pg. 8 line 9 and FIGS. 1 and 2) extending along a first direction (i.e.: through the thickness of the porous body) from the first main surface toward the second main surface (pg. 8 lines 22-24 and in FIG. 2 where the dashed circle 3 extends from surface 5 through surface 4.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
FIG. 1 from Novak et al. showing porous metal article 1)]
[AltContent: textbox (` [img-media_image2.png]
FIG. 2 from Novak et al. showing 3-D mesh structure of porous metal article 1 modified with first direction indicator arrow )]
As indicated in the abstract, Novak et al. is directed toward a reticulated metal article with small pores and large apertures which are useful for electrodes or current collectors in electrolytic cells. However, Novak et al. is silent on the ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter. Suzuki et al. is also directed toward electrolysis devices that perform under high current density to form pure hydrogen (¶14). Suzuki et al, further describes that the pore size of the pores in the porous electrode (i.e.: analogous to the metal porous body of the instant application) can be controlled to enhance the electrochemical performance of the electrochemical cell (¶15). Therefore, Novak et al. and Suzuki et al. are linked by the use of the porous metal body in electrochemical cells and the presence of pores.
Suzuki et al. is directed toward an alkaline water electrolyzer (¶1). Suzuki et al. indicates that the pore size of the pores in an electrode directed the size of the gas bubbles that formed during electrolytic processes (¶23). As per Suzuki et al., small pores forms small gas bubbles, which increases surface area causing lower overvoltage, but can lead to the formation less pure gaseous products especially when the pores are very small (¶23). Conversely, larger pore sizes improved the gas purities, and increased the electrical barrier property of the porous membranes (¶23). According to Suzuki et al., the pore size of the electrode is optimized to control the size of the generated gas bubbles to prevent them from occluding the pores or permeating through the pores of the membrane (¶97).
The ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter value described in Claim 1 of the instant application is a results effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). The value described in Claim 1 of the present invention can be optimized according to the disclosure of Suzuki et al. where the pore size directs the size of bubbles formed in and at the pores of the electrode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the value (the ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter), including values (i.e.: equal to or greater than 1.5) within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have produced a metal porous body sheet that is optimized for reduced over voltage and gaseous product purity.
Regarding Claim 2, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. discloses the metal porous sheet according to Claim 1, wherein each of the multiple holes penetrates the metal porous body sheet along the first direction as depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2 showing the apertures 3 penetrating surfaces 4 and 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising an electrolysis electrode having the metal porous body sheet (“porous metal article 1” on pg. 8 line 7 and FIG. 1) according to Claim 1 as described in lines 4-5 of pg. 3.
6. Claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Maekawa et al.
Novak et al. (WO1998026112 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a reticulated metals article combining small pores with large apertures (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 - previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title). Maekawa et al. (JP2011231352A: EPO translation – previously presented) is directed toward an apparatus and method for generating fluorine gas and a carbon electrode for generating gas (title).
Regarding Claim 3, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. discloses the metal porous sheet according to Claim 1. However, Novak et al. does not disclose the multiple holes having an inner diameter that decreases from the first main surface side toward the second main surface side (i.e.: tapering a hole diameter).
Maekawa et al. discloses a conductive porous material as indicated in ¶115 and depicted in FIG. 1 (top-down view) and FIG. 2b (side view) which has pores that pass through the entire thickness of the material. FIG. 2b in Maekawa et al. clearly depicts a tapering of the hole’s diameter going from the first surface to the second surface, that is, the diameter of the aperture at the first surface is wider than the diameter of the aperture at the second surface (¶26-30). The tapered design prevents the electrolyte from penetrating through to the first surface (¶38).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aperture diameter at the second surface of the porous body sheet of Novak et al. and Suzuki et al. by making the aperture at the second surface smaller than the aperture diameter at the first surface at taught in Maekawa et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a porous body sheet with efficient production of gaseous products due to the higher current (Maekawa et al. ¶131) and prevention of electrolyte from penetrating through the body sheet to reach the first surface (Maekawa et al. ¶38).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image3.png][img-media_image4.png]
FIG. 1 from Maekawa et al. showing porous material 10 with arrow indicating the first direction)]
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image5.png]
FIG. 2b from Maekawa et al. showing porous material 10 with pores have a tapered structure and indicated of the first direction)]
Regarding Claim 4, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 1. However, Novak et al. does not disclose wherein the first main surface is divided into multiple regions (i.e.: each horizontal row of apertures of the same size are one region in FIG. 7 below) along a second direction (down arrow in FIG. 7 below) orthogonal to the first direction (Ⓧ in FIG. 7 below), and inner diameters of the multiple holes located in a first region that is one of the multiple regions are smaller than the inner diameter of the multiple holes located in the second region that is another region of multiple holes.
Maekawa et al. discloses a conductive porous material as indicated in ¶115 and depicted in FIG. 1 (top-down view) and FIG. 2b (side view) which has pores that pass through the entire thickness of the material. Maekawa et al. depicts a top-down view of the first surface of an embodiment in FIG. 7 (below and explained in ¶108) which shows holes running horizontally of a single size (i.e.: one region). Moreover, the inner diameter of holes of the first surface in each subsequent row grower smaller as depicted in FIG. 7 below of Maekawa et al., thus showing multiple regions of holes in a second direction (i.e.: down arrow in FIG. 7 below) that have progressively smaller inner diameters as per the limitation of Claim 4 of the instant application. Maekawa et al. indicates in ¶110 that the wider aperture of the holes in the upper regions of the first surface facilitates the flow of gaseous products out of the aperture. Additionally, the narrower pore diameter at the lower regions of the first surface prevents the flow of electrolyte into the pore according to Maekawa et al. (¶110). Lastly, the wider pore diameter for the holes at the upper region of the first surface have a larger voltage drop and higher current density allowing more efficient production of gaseous product as discussed in ¶111 of Maekawa et al.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aperture diameter on the first surface of the porous body sheet of Novak et al. and Suzuki et al. by making the apertures running in the second direction (i.e.: vertically) to become progressively smaller in inner diameter as taught in Maekawa et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a porous body sheet with efficient production of gaseous products due to the higher current (Maekawa et al. ¶131) and easy of flow out of the apertures of varying diameter across the multiple regions of the first surface (Maekawa et al. ¶110-111).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image6.png]
FIG. 7 from Maekawa et al. showing porous material 10 with different regions of the first surface )]
Regarding Claim 5, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 1. However, Novak et al. in view of Suzuki et al. does not disclose the first main surface is divided into multiple regions orthogonal to the first direction, nor a value obtained by dividing a number of the multiple holes located in a first region that is one of the multiple regions by an area of the first region is smaller than a value obtained by dividing a number of the multiple holes located in a second region that is another one of the multiple regions by an area of the second region. This preceding limitation indicates that the density of holes increases in the second region compared to the first region and so on.
Maekawa et al. discloses a conductive porous material as indicated in ¶115 and depicted in FIG. 1 (top-down view) and FIG. 2b (side view) which has pores that pass through the entire thickness of the material (i.e.: the first direction). Maekawa et al. depicts a top-down view of the first surface of an embodiment in FIG. 7 (above and explained in ¶108) which shows holes running horizontally of a single size (i.e.: multiple regions with a single region defined by a single pore size). Moreover, the inner diameter of holes of the first main surface in each subsequent row grows smaller as depicted above in FIG. 7 of Maekawa et al. Therefore, Maekawa et al. teaches multiple regions of holes in a second direction (i.e.: down arrow in FIG. 7 above) that is orthogonal to the first direction (into the plane of the page or Ⓧ in FIG. 7 above). In ¶108, Maekawa et al. described an embodiment where the recesses 24 may be formed such that the center-to-center distance between the recesses 24 is shortened as the opening width of the recesses 24 is reduced, that is, the number density of the recesses 24 is increased as the aperture inner diameter decreases as per the limitation of Claim 5 of the instant application.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aperture diameter on the first surface of the porous body sheet of Novak et al. and Suzuki et al. by making the apertures running in the second direction (i.e.: vertically, the according to the down arrow in FIG. 7 above) to become progressively smaller in inner diameter with increased aperture density as taught in Maekawa et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a porous body sheet with efficient production of gaseous products due to the higher current (Maekawa et al. ¶131) and easy of flow out of the apertures of varying diameter across the multiple regions of the first surface (Maekawa et al. ¶ 110-111).
7. Claims 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al.
Bulan et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0240372 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a process for electrolysis of alkali metal chlorides with oxygen-consuming electrodes having orifices (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title). Numata et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0350600 A1 - previously presented) is drawn towards a porous body and a current collector (title).
Regarding Claim 7, Bulan et al. discloses a metal porous body sheet (“a plate of porous metal, which is analogous to 3D mesh structure) in ¶11, ¶52, OCE 8 and FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) comprising a first main surface and a second main surface that is a reverse surface to the first main surface (FIG. 5). FIG. 5 of Bulan et al. depicts plate 8 has a first and a second surface disposed opposite of each other. Bulan et al. additionally depicts the first main surface is formed with multiple holes penetrating the metal porous body sheet along a first direction from the main surface toward the second main surface (“apertures in hole form” in ¶53 and FIGS. 3, 4, and 5). Bulan et al. additionally discloses a value obtained by dividing a total opening area of the multiple holes in the first main surface by an area of the first main surface is greater than or equal to 0.01 to 0.12 as per ¶55 and ¶59. Although Bulan et al. indicates that the apertures somewhat reduce the area of the catalytically active layer, those losses are small and are acceptable in light of the advantages of long-term stability for a multitude of startup and shutdown operations (¶55). This is particularly true when the total area of the apertures in relation to the size of the electrode (i.e.: the of face the ion exchange membrane or the first main surface) is preferably 0.01 to 0.12 of the electrode area (¶55). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed in the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
However, Bulan et al. is silent on the porosity of the metal porous body sheet. High porosity is standard in porous water splitting electrodes allowing for high surface area to enhance reactivity and faster mass transfer of reactants and products. High porosity use in an electrolytic cell is exemplified in Numata et al., which is directed at a porous body with a framework having an integrally continuous, three-dimensional network structure (abstract) used for electrolysis (¶145). In the example in Numata et al., the porosity of the porous body is 96% (¶142). Numata et al. further explains that a porosity above 98% will negatively impact the strength of the porous body (¶63). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example from the prior art is contained within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous body sheet of Bulan et al. with the porous body of Numata et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a sufficiently strong porous body (Numata et al. ¶63) with high surface area resulting in a porous body sheet with high catalytic activity and durability.
As indicated in the Bulan et al. is directed toward an electrode with apertures of a small size relative to the overall electrode area (¶47). This arrangement sustains performance over a long period (¶47 in Bulan et al.). Numata et al. is also directed toward the porosity of the electrode (i.e.: number of holes relative to the size of the electrode) to ensure robust strength of the electrode. However, Bulan et al. and Numata et al. is silent on the ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter. Suzuki et al. is also directed toward electrolysis devices that perform under high current density to form pure hydrogen (¶14). Suzuki et al, further describes that the pore size of the pores in the porous electrode (i.e.: analogous to the metal porous body of the instant application) can be controlled to enhance the electrochemical performance of the electrochemical cell (¶15). Therefore, Bulan et al., Numata et al, and Suzuki et al. are linked by the use of the porous metal body in electrochemical cells and control of aperture spacing and size.
Suzuki et al. is directed toward an alkaline water electrolyzer (¶1). Suzuki et al. indicates that the pore size of the pores in an electrode directed the size of the gas bubbles that formed during electrolytic processes (¶23). As per Suzuki et al., small pores forms small gas bubbles, which increases surface area causing lower overvoltage, but can lead to the formation less pure gaseous products especially when the pores are very small (¶23). Conversely, larger pore sizes improved the gas purities, and increased the electrical barrier property of the porous membranes (¶23). According to Suzuki et al., the pore size of the electrode is optimized to control the size of the generated gas bubbles to prevent them from occluding the pores or permeating through the pores of the membrane (¶97).
The ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter value described in Claim 1 of the instant application is a results effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). The value described in Claim 1 of the present invention can be optimized according to the disclosure of Suzuki et al. where the pore size directs the size of bubbles formed in and at the pores of the electrode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the value (the ratio of the inner diameter and the average pore diameter), including values (i.e.: equal to or greater than 1.5) within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have produced a metal porous body sheet that is optimized for reduced over voltage and gaseous product purity.
Regarding Claim 8, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 7, wherein the metal porous body sheet includes a metal porous body having a 3D mesh structure (FIGS. 1 and 2 of Numata et al.) and an average pore diameter of 450 microns as per the example in Numata et al. (¶142). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example from the prior art is contained within the claimed range (i.e.: average pore diameter greater than or equal to 100 microns). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 9, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 7, wherein the holes are arranged along a second direction (the horizontal direction below in FIG. 4 – dashed arrow) orthogonal to the first direction (into the page as indicated by the Ⓧ in FIG. 4) so as to form multiple columns, the multiple holes included in each of the multiple columns are periodically arranged at a first interval in the second direction, and each of the multiple columns is periodically arranged at a second interval in a third direction orthogonal (the vertical direction in FIG. 4 – solid arrow) to the first and second direction as depicted in FIG. 4 of Bulan et al. and further described in ¶51 and ¶53 where the holes are described as being homogenously distributed over the surface of the electrode.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image7.png]
FIG. 4 from Bulan et al modified with arrows showing first, second, and third directions )]
8. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Hoshino et al.
Bulan et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0240372 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a process for electrolysis of alkali metal chlorides with oxygen-consuming electrodes having orifices (title). Numata et al. is drawn towards a porous body and a current collector (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 - previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title). Hoshino et al. (JP2005056619A translation from EPO – previously presented) is directed toward an oxygen electrode current collector (title).
Regarding Claim 10, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 9 wherein the shapes of the holes is generally depicted as circular, but Bulan et al. does disclose shapes with different aspect ratios such as rectangles, ellipses, and trapezoids as indicated in ¶53. These shapes would inherently have a first width in the second direction and a second width in the third direction. Bulan explicitly states that the range of the diameter of the aperture ranges from 0.5 mm to 20 mm with a preference for 1 mm to 10 mm (¶54). However, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., and Numata et al. does not provide any information on appropriation selection of the magnitude of the first width (in the second direction) nor second width in the third direction.
Hoshino et al. which is directed toward an oxygen electrode current collector, provides a parameter to optimize the aspect ratio of ellipse shaped apertures in the embodiment depicted below in FIG. 5. The parameter is called the flattening ratio (“a/b”) and is the quotient of the minimum diameter (“a”) and the maximum diameter (“b”). Hoshino et al. indicates this ratio should be greater than 0.2 and less than 0.7. When flattening ratio is less than 0.2, the gas flow in the surface direction is not uniform in said direction (pg. 3 middle of ¶12). When the flattening ratio is greater than 0.7, the current collector will gradually undergo slight but significant compression deformation over a long period of power generation thus damaging the entire stack (pg. 3 middle of ¶12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal porous body sheet by using elliptical shaped apertures as described in Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. while using ellipses having a flattening ratio between 0.2 and 0.7 as taught by Hoshino et al. with the reasonable expectation of making a metal porous body sheet having uniform gas flow across the surface and stable mechanical properties (pg. 3: middle of ¶12 from Hoshino et al.). Setting the flattening ratio in between the values described in Hoshino would obviously balance the two risks (non-uniform gas flow and surface compression) previously described.
If the flattening ratio is set to the approximate midpoint of the range (~0.5) from Hoshino et al. (to balance risks discussed above) and the minimum diameter a (1.0 mm) is set to the lower end of the preferred range from Bulan et al., the resultant maximum diameter (b) is 1.5 mm. Therefore, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al. and Numata et al. in view of Hoshino et al. discloses a first width of at least 1.0 mm and a second width of at least 1.5 mm. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range discloses in the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image8.png]
FIG. 5 from Hoshino et al. modified with minimum and maximum diameter labels)]
Regarding Claim 11, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al, and Numata et al. in view of Hoshino et al. discloses the metal porous body sheet as per Claim 10, wherein the second width is greater than or equal to twice the first width as indicated by the range of the flattening ratio disclosed in Hoshino et al. which is between 0.2 and 0.7 (pg. 3 middle of ¶12 from Hoshino et al.). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range discloses in the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulan et al. in Suzuki et al, Numata et al. and Hoshino et al. as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Ueno et al.
Bulan et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0240372 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a process for electrolysis of alkali metal chlorides with oxygen-consuming electrodes having orifices (title). Numata et al. is drawn towards a porous body and a current collector (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title). Hoshino et al. (JP2005056619A translation from EPO – previously presented) is directed toward an oxygen electrode current collector (title). Ueno et al.(US Pub. No. 2012/0168318 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a gas generating device and a method for generating gas (Title).
Regarding Claim 12, Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al. and Hoshino et al. disclose the metal porous body sheet according to claim 11, wherein the multiple columns include multiple first columns and multiple second columns, the multiple first columns and the multiple second columns are alternately arranged in the third direction, and the multiple first columns are located at positions shifted from the multiple second columns as depicted in FIG. 4 from Bulan et al. below. However, the combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al. and Hoshino et al. is silent on the magnitude of the shifted position.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image7.png]
FIG. 4 from Bulan et al modified with arrows showing first, second, and third directions and showing the shift between the first and second multiple columns. )]
Ueno et al. is directed toward a gas generating device for the production of oxygen and/or hydrogen using an electrolytic process (abstract). Ueno et al. discloses electrodes with a plurality of holes (abstract). FIG. 7 from Ueno et al. depicts the shift between columns and is reflected in the “pitch” which is the distance between aperture centers (¶156-7). In FIG. 13 from Ueno et al. (reproduced below), a specific embodiment showing an aperture diameter of 100 microns and a pitch of 150 microns (although measured from left edge to left edge of adjacent apertures) is depicted, which results in a shifted position of 0.5 times as required by the limitations of Claim 12 for the multiple second columns relative to the multiple first columns. In other words, the adjacent holes in the first row are separated by 50 µm (i.e.: first interval) and the second row of adjacent holes are offset 25 µm from the holes in the rows above and below (i.e.: the second interval). Optimization of performance can be achieved by ensuring the ratio of the two quantities (i.e.: pitch distance ÷ hole diameter) is at least 1.5 and at most 5.0 as described in Ueno et al. (¶156-161). This arrangement allows the movement for the efficient generation of gas, prevents the gas from being attached to the surface of the catalyst, allows excellent gas generation, and separation (¶160).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shift in position in the multiple first columns relative to the multiple second columns described by the combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al., and Hoshino et al. to 0.5 times as disclosed in Ueno et al. with the reasonable expectation of efficiently producing and separating the gaseous products (¶156-161).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image9.png]
FIG. 7 from Ueno et al. depicting the aperture diameter and the pitch)]
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image10.png]
FIG. 13 from Ueno et al. depicting an embodiment with an aperture diameter of 100 microns and a pitch of 150 microns (measured left edge to left edge))]
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al., and Hoshino et al. in view of Ueno et al. discloses the metal porous body of sheet according to Claim 12 as discussed above. The combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al., and Hoshino et al. in view of Ueno et al. does not explicitly disclose a value obtained by dividing, by the second interval, a value obtained by subtracting the second width from the second interval as greater than or equal to 0.5. The preceding combination of references does disclose two different properties that can be optimized in the design the spacing and shape of the holes in a metal porous body.
As described above, Hoshino et al. discloses the flattening ratio which relates to the first width (analogous to minimum diameter in Hoshino et al.) in a second direction and a second width (analogous to the maximum diameter in Hoshino et al) in the third direction which is calculated from the ratio of the minimum diameter (“a”) over the maximum diameter (“b”) as depicted in FIG. 5. Hoshino et al. indicates this ratio should be greater than 0.2 and less than 0.7. When flattening ratio is less than 0.2, the gas flow in the surface direction is not uniform in said direction (pg. 3 middle of ¶12 of Hoshino et al.). When the flattening ratio is greater than 0.7, the current collector will gradually undergo slight but significant compression deformation over a long period of power generation thus damaging the entire stack (pg. 3 middle of ¶12 of Hoshino et al.).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image8.png]
FIG. 5 from Hoshino et al. modified with minimum and maximum diameter labels)]
The second parameter that can be optimized is described in Ueno et al. FIG. 7 from Ueno et al. depicts the shift between columns and is reflected in the “pitch” which is the distance between aperture centers (¶156-7). Optimization of performance can be achieved by ensuring the ratio of the two quantities (i.e.: pitch distance ÷ hole diameter) is at least 1.5 and at most 5.0 as described in Ueno et al. (¶156-161). This arrangement allows the movement for the efficient generation of gas, prevents the gas from being attached to the surface of the catalyst, allows excellent gas generation, and separation (¶160).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image9.png]
FIG. 7 from Ueno et al. depicting the aperture diameter and the pitch)]
The value described in Claim 13 of the instant application is a results effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). The value described in Claim 13 of the present invention can be optimized using the two parameters discussed above, i.e., the flatness ratio from Hoshino et al. and the ratio of the hole pitch to the hole diameter from Ueno et al. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the value (obtained by dividing, by the second interval, a value obtained by subtracting the second width from the second interval), including values (i.e.: at least 0.5) within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have produced a metal porous body sheet that is dimensionally stable and efficiently generated gaseous products during the electrolytical process.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al., Hoshino et al., and Ueno et al. as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Speranza et al.
Bulan et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0240372 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a process for electrolysis of alkali metal chlorides with oxygen-consuming electrodes having orifices (title). Numata et al. is drawn towards a porous body and a current collector (title). Suzuki et al. (EP3575442 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a bipolar electrolyzer for alkaline water electrolysis, and hydrogen production method (title). Hoshino et al. (JP2005056619A translation from EPO – previously presented) is directed toward an oxygen electrode current collector (title). Ueno et al.(US Pub. No. 2012/0168318 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a gas generating device and a method for generating gas (Title). Speranza et al. (US Pub. No. 2001/0008722 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an integral screen/frame assembly for an electrochemical cell (title)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bulan et al., Suzuki et al., Numata et al., Hoshino et al., and Ueno et al. disclose an electrode comprising the metal porous body sheet according to Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose a support that has a plate shape with multiple rhombic holes penetrating the support.
Speranza et al. is directed toward a screen assembly that is comprised of planar screen layers with a frame disposed around the periphery of said layers (abstract). In ¶1 of Speranza et al, it is indicated that the screen assembly invention is pertinent to electrochemical cells. Speranza et al. teaches a membrane and electrode assembly in which a screen layer formed of strands is provided between a membrane and an electrode in which the screen is a woven mesh corresponding to the metal porous body sheet, and a plurality of elongated diamond-shaped holes (analogous to rhombic holes of the present invention) passing through in the first direction (¶23-6 and FIG. 7). Since the diamond-shaped holes (“rhombic”) of Speranza et al. are elongated, portions of the strands corresponding to intermediate positions between a first intersection and a second intersection are arranged so as to overlap the plurality of holes provided in the woven mesh (FIG. 7).[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image11.png]
FIG. 7 from Speranza et al. showing support member with diamond-shaped holes)]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode comprised of the metal porous body sheet of Bulan et al., Numata et al., Hoshino et al., and Ueno et al with the diamond-holed screen assembly disclosed in Speranza et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a membrane electrode assembly with increased structural integrity and simplified design with an improvement in the cell’s mass flow characteristics (¶5-7 in Speranza et al.).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed 11 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 7 (and subsequent dependent claims) under 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground for rejection have been made with the addition of Suzuki et al. The rejection of Claims, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 103 and relevant references are discussed at length in the Office action above.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carlson et al. (US Pub. No. 5296109 A) is directed toward a method for electrolyzing water with dual directional membrane (title).
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, 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.
15. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights