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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
07/16/2025.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are maintained.
Claims 7, 8, and 21-24 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 7, 8, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al (“Low cost hydrogen production by anion exchange membrane electrolysis: A review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 81, Part 2, January 2018, Pages 1690-1704) in view of Andronescu et al (WO 2018/127536 A1).
Claim 7: Vincent an alkaline electrolyzer (see e.g. abstract and page 1700, col 1, paragraph starting with “The electrolyte plays”) comprising
an electrolyte (see e.g. page 1700, col 1, paragraph starting with “The electrolyte plays”);
a separator electrode assembly (see e.g. abstract and Fig 2A-2C) comprising,
an electrode (see e.g. connecting sentence of page 1692 and 1693), wherein the electrode comprises a plurality of openings (foam or mesh, see e.g. page 1694, Table 3 and page 1698, col 1, paragraph starting with “Leng et al”) therethrough;
a separator (membrane, see e.g. page 1693, section 3.1), wherein the electrode directly contacts the separator (see e.g. Fig 1) and the separator has an electrolyte-exposed surface (see e.g. AEM on Fig 1) defined by the plurality of openings (openings are needed to transfer OH- and H2O, see e.g. connecting paragraph of page 1692 and 1693 and Fig 1); and
an electrocatalyst, wherein the electrocatalyst is deposited on to the electrode (“The ink is applied to both sides of the AEM (e.g., by spraying) and dried. It is then placed between the GDLs and subjected to mechanical or hot pressing”, see e.g. ACL and CCL on Fig 1 and page 1697, col 1, paragraph starting with “The MEA”).
The electrolyte of Vincent can be KOH, water, K2CO3, and KHCO3 (see e.g. page 1700, col 1, paragraph starting with “The electrolyte plays”). KSR rationale E states that is it obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select KOH as the electrolyte. KOH dissociates in water into K+ and OH-, which reads on the claim limitation requiring OH-.
Vincent teaches states that the OER catalyst can be “IrO2, Ni, Ni-Fe alloys, graphene,
Pb2Ru2O6.5, and Cu0.7CO2.3O4” and the HER catalyst can be “Pt black, CuCoOx, Ni-Mo, Ni/CeO2-La2O3/C, Ni, and graphene” (see e.g. page 1696, col 1, paragraph starting with “The theoretical”). Furthermore, Table 3, shows an embodiment where Ni is selected for the anode and the cathode (see e.g. page 1694, Table 3, example Ahn). Based on KSR rationale E and MPEP § 2144.07, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select Ni for the ACL. Additionally, Based on KSR rationale E and MPEP § 2144.07, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select Ni for the CCL.
Vincent does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte also comprises additional electrocatalyst. Andronescu teaches an electrolyzer (see e.g. abstract) that has self-healing catalysts on the electrodes (see e.g. abstract). The self-healing is achieved by including catalyst particles in the electrolyte (see e.g. abstract) which are pumped to the electrodes see e.g. page 7, paragraph starting with “The aspect (2)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Vincent by including electrocatalyst in the electrolyte as taught in Andronescu to give the electrodes the ability to self-heal the catalyst.
Claim 8: Liu in view of Andronescu discloses that the electrode comprises a foam or mesh (see e.g. page 1694, Table 3 and page 1698, col 1, paragraph starting with “Leng et al”).
Claim 21: Vincent does not explicitly teach a pump configured to circulate the electrolyte through the electrolyzer. However, as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above, Andronescu teaches an electrolyzer (see e.g. abstract) that has self-healing catalysts on the electrodes (see e.g. abstract). The self-healing is achieved by including catalyst particles in the electrolyte (see e.g. abstract) which are pumped to the electrodes see e.g. page 7, paragraph starting with “The aspect (2)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Vincent by including the pump for moving said electrolyte as taught in Andronescu to give the electrodes the ability to self-heal the catalyst.
Claim 22: Vincent in view of Andronescu teaches that the pump is configured to circulate the electrolyte through a deposition recirculation loop (the particles are suspended in the electrolyte, see e.g. page 6, paragraph starting with “In a preferred embodiment” of Andronescu, and the electrolyte has a closed loop circulation, see e.g. Fig 6 of Andronescu).
Claim 23: Vincent in view of Andronescu teaches that the pump comprises
a cathode deposition pump configured to circulate the hydrogen evolution electrocatalyst or bifunctional hydrogen/oxygen evolution electrocatalyst through a cathode deposition recirculation loop (see e.g. page 13, paragraph starting “Electrochemical measurements” and Fig 6 of Andronescu), and
an anode deposition pump configured to circulate the oxygen evolution electrocatalyst or bifunctional hydrogen/oxygen evolution electrocatalyst through an anode deposition recirculation loop (see e.g. page 13, paragraph starting “Electrochemical measurements” and Fig 6 of Andronescu).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent in view of Andronescu as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Azra et al (US 20230369612 A1)
Claim 24: Vincent in view of Andronescu discloses that the electrolyte comprises KOH (see e.g. page 1700, col 1, paragraph starting with “The electrolyte plays”) and that the electrocatalyst is a bifunctional catalyst comprising Ni (see e.g. page 1696, col 1, paragraph starting with “The theoretical”).
Vincent discloses that the electrode can be a mesh (foam or mesh, see e.g. page 1694, Table 3 and page 1698, col 1, paragraph starting with “Leng et al”). Based on KSR rationale E and MPEP § 2144.07, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a mesh as the form of the electrode for Vincent.
Vincent does not explicitly teach that the electrode is a nickel mesh. Vincent discloses that suitable nickel electrodes are foam (foam or mesh, see e.g. page 1694, Table 3 and page 1698, col 1, paragraph starting with “Leng et al”). Azra teaches that nickel meshes are suitable alternatives to nickel foams (see e.g. [0078]) for membrane assemblies (see e.g. abstract) comprising catalyst coated membranes (see e.g. [0058]). KSR rationale B states that it is obvious to have a ”[s]imple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the nickel foam of Vincent with the nickel mesh taught in Azra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 7, the Applicant argues that there is a lack of motivation to combine Vincent with Andronescu because Vincent is “a review article with the express aim of identifying gaps in anion exchange membrane (AEM) water electrolysis research” and “is entirely silent on the need for selfhealing catalysts”. This is not considered persuasive. Although Vincent might be a review, the reference still discloses and discusses various aspects regarding alkaline electrolyzer including the structure disclosed in claim 1. Furthermore, Vincent discusses the reduction in electrode performance over time (see e.g. page 1701, col2, paragraph starting with “Another study” and pages 1701-1702, connecting paragraph). Thus, there would be sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to find solutions to reductions in performance. Andronescu teaches an innovative approach to depositing catalysts onto electrodes that also gives the electrode self-healing capabilities (see e.g. page 3, paragraph starting with “An innovative approach”).
On page(s) 7-8, the Applicant argues that there is no expectation of success when combining Vincent with Andronescu because Vincent cautions against “excessive loading” of non-noble metal catalysts at the anode. This is not considered persuasive. Although Vincent cautions against excessive loading at the anode, the disclosure of Andronescu does not state that the process leads to excessive loading. Rather, the process of Andronescu allows for the amount of catalyst deposited to be controlled (see e.g. page 8, paragraph starting with “It should”). Furthermore, Vincent states that the excessive loading can lead to potential drops and the process of Andronescu results in steady cell voltages (see e.g. page 8, paragraph starting with “It should”).
On page(s) 8, the Applicant argues that the combination of Vincent with Andronescu is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. This is not considered persuasive. Vincent discusses the reduction in electrode performance over time (see e.g. page 1701, col2, paragraph starting with “Another study” and pages 1701-1702, connecting paragraph). Thus, there would be sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to find solutions to reductions in performance. Andronescu teaches an innovative approach to depositing catalysts onto electrodes that also gives the electrode self-healing capabilities (see e.g. page 3, paragraph starting with “An innovative approach”) that helps maintain cell voltage.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Luan 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 W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795