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 non-final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 03/23/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim(s) 35 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Claims 11, 17, 19-20, 28-29 and 35 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
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.
Claim 35 is 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.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the electrolyzer component" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of an “electrolyzer component” in the apparatus claim.
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.
Claims 11, 19-20, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bӧhm et al. (“Pulsed electrodeposition of iridium catalyst nanoparticles on titanium suboxide supports for application in PEM electrolysis”, Mater. Today, Jan 2021) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2021/0340682), and further in view of Haas et al. (U.S. 2013/0017471); claims 1 and 35 evidenced by Muntean et al. (“Investigation of Iridium Nanoparticles Supported on Sub-stoichiometric Titanium Oxides as Anodic Electrocatalysts in PEM Electrolysis. Part I.: Synthesis and Characterization”, Top Catal, 2019).
Regarding claim 11, Bӧhm teaches a method (see e.g. Page 4255, Col. 1, lines 5-6, manufacturing process) comprising
coating a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer component including a porous transport layer with an electrically conductive and oxidatively stable coating comprising an electrically conductive metal oxide on a surface thereof (see e.g. Page 4254, Col. 2, last 5 lines, and Page 4255, Col. 1, lines 5-8, and under “2.1”, lines 1-2, conductive and corrosion resistant, i.e. oxidatively stable, substoichiometric titanium oxide coated on titanium porous transport layer substrate for PEM electrolyzer electrode),
wherein the electrically conductive and oxidatively stable coating is formed before the porous transport layer is sintered (see e.g. Page 4255, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-6, PTLs with TiO2-x- coating sintered), and
wherein the electrically conductive metal oxide is a metal rich titanium oxide having a formula TiO2-x, where 0<x<0.5 (see e.g. Page 4255, Col. 1, section “2.1”, TiO2-x- made by the described method evidenced by Muntean to comprise Ti in a mix of the +4 and +3 oxidation states, resulting in a formula between TiO1.5 and TiO2; see e.g. Muntean Page 430, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, and connecting paragraph of Pages 433-434), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Bӧhm does not teach the coating being accomplished by tape casting, instead teaching it being accomplished by air brushing (see e.g. Page 4255, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-3).
Lee teaches an electrocatalytic device (see e.g. Abstract) wherein an electrically conductive network is coated with a titanium dioxide powder by methods such as tape casting, followed by sintering the coated network in an oven (see e.g. Paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bӧhm to comprise accomplishing the coating by tape casting instead of air brushing as taught by Lee as an alternate suitable method of forming a titanium oxide coating on a conductive electrochemical cell component. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Modified Bӧhm does not teach the coating consisting of the electrically conductive metal oxide, instead teaching the metal oxide being dispersed with Nafion to form the coating (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, bottom paragraph, lines 1-3).
Haas teaches an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a conductive metal oxide material such as non-stoichiometric TiOx which may be coated on cell components such as a gas diffusion layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, and Paragraph 0031, lines 1-8), wherein the coating may be applied by forming a dispersion of the metal oxide material, which may optionally, i.e. may or may not, include additional ingredients such as an ionomer binder (see e.g. Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of modified Bӧhm to be formed from a dispersion without the Nafion ionomer and therefore consist of the conductive metal oxide as taught by Haas as an alternate suitable method of providing a conductive coating of a metal oxide such as non-stoichiometric TiOx on an electrochemical cell component. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Bӧhm teaches the porous transport layer comprising a porous titanium sheet (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 1-2, titanium-based porous transport layer substrate with microporous titanium sintered powder plate).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bӧhm teaches incorporating the porous transport layer into a PEM electrolyzer (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, lines 5-6, manufactured coated substrate to be used for PEM electrolyzer electrodes).
Regarding claim 28, modified Bӧhm teaches the PEM electrolyzer component having an interfacial resistance of 0.51 or 0.53 milliohm*cm2 (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, under “2.2”, line 1, and Table 2, average resistivity of TiO2-x coated and sintered substrates).
Regarding claim 35, Bӧhm as modified by Haas teaches a porous transport layer made by the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 cited above), the porous transport layer comprising an electrically conductive and oxidatively stable coating consisting of an electrically conductive metal oxide on at least one surface of the electrolyzer component (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4254, Col. 2, last 5 lines, and Page 4255, Col. 1, lines 5-8, and under “2.1”, line 1, conductive and corrosion resistant, i.e. oxidatively stable, substoichiometric titanium oxide coated on titanium porous transport layer substrate for PEM electrolyzer electrode; see e.g. Haas Paragraph 0040, coating dispersion without optional ionomer), wherein the electrically conductive metal oxide is a metal rich titanium oxide having a formula TiO2-x, where 0<x<0.5 (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, section “2.1”, TiO2-x- made by the described method evidenced by Muntean to comprise Ti in a mix of the +4 and +3 oxidation states, resulting in a formula between TiO1.5 and TiO2; see e.g. Muntean Page 430, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, and connecting paragraph of Pages 433-434).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bӧhm, Lee, and Haas, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dadheech et al. (U.S. 2013/0095251).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bӧhm teaches all the elements of the method of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Bӧhm does not explicitly teach the electrically conductive and oxidatively stable coating having a thickness of about 0.2 microns to about 2 microns.
Dadheech teaches an PEM electrochemical cell component comprising a coating of a non-stoichiometric metal oxide such as a TiOx, where x is 0.1-6, for making the component conductive and corrosion resistant (see e.g. Fig. 1, metal oxide layers 50 and 52 provided on bipolar plates 18 and 30; Paragraph 0025, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0030), wherein the coating may have a thickness of 0.005 to 1 microns (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 15-16), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of modified Bӧhm to have a thickness of 0.005 to 1 microns as taught by Dadheech as a suitable thickness for an electrically conductive and corrosion resistant non-stoichiometric titanium oxide coating for a PEM electrochemical cell component. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bӧhm, Lee, and Haas, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Grigoriev et al. (“Optimization of porous current collectors for PEM water electrolysers”, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2009).
Regarding claim 29, modified Bӧhm teaches all the elements of the method of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Bӧhm does not explicitly teach the PEM electrolyzer component having a porosity from about 30% to about 50%, but does teach it being a porous transport layer for an anode of the PEM electrolyzer made from sintered Ti (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 1-2, titanium-based porous transport layer substrate with microporous titanium sintered powder plate).
Grigoriev teaches porous current collectors, i.e. transport layers, for PEM water electrolysers (see e.g. Abstract) made from sintered titanium powder (see e.g. Page 4969, Col. 2, center paragraph, lines 1-2), wherein such current collectors have an optimum porosity in the range of 30-50% (see e.g. Page 4969, Col. 2, center paragraph, last 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous transport layer PEM electrolyzer component of modified Bӧhm to have a porosity of 30-50% as taught by Grigoriev as an optimum porosity range for sintered titanium porous current collectors for PEM water electrolysers. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bӧhm in view of Haas; as evidenced by Muntean.
Regarding claim 35, Bӧhm teaches a porous transport layer comprising an electrically conductive and oxidatively stable coating comprising an electrically conductive metal oxide on at least one surface of an electrolyzer component (see e.g. Page 4254, Col. 2, last 5 lines, and Page 4255, Col. 1, lines 5-8, and under “2.1”, line 1, conductive and corrosion resistant, i.e. oxidatively stable, substoichiometric titanium oxide coated on titanium porous transport layer substrate for PEM electrolyzer electrode), wherein the electrically conductive metal oxide is a metal rich titanium oxide having a formula TiO2-x, where 0<x<0.5 (see e.g. Page 4255, Col. 1, section “2.1”, TiO2-x- made by the described method evidenced by Muntean to comprise Ti in a mix of the +4 and +3 oxidation states, resulting in a formula between TiO1.5 and TiO2; see e.g. Muntean Page 430, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, and connecting paragraph of Pages 433-434), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Bӧhm does not teach the coating consisting of the electrically conductive metal oxide, instead teaching the metal oxide being dispersed with Nafion to form the coating (see e.g. Bohm Page 4255, bottom paragraph, lines 1-3).
Haas teaches an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a conductive metal oxide material such as non-stoichiometric TiOx which may be coated on cell components such as a gas diffusion layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, and Paragraph 0031, lines 1-8), wherein the coating may be applied by forming a dispersion of the metal oxide material, which may optionally, i.e. may or may not, include additional ingredients such as an ionomer binder (see e.g. Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Bӧhm to be formed from a dispersion without the Nafion ionomer and therefore consist of the conductive metal oxide as taught by Haas as an alternate suitable method of providing a conductive coating of a metal oxide such as non-stoichiometric TiOx on an electrochemical cell component. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
The limitation of the porous transport layer being “made by the method of claim 11” is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Modified Bӧhm teaches all the structural limitations of the claim as stated above. The only indication of a structural effect achieved by the method of making is the description of paragraph 0043 of the instant specification of the in-situ formation by sintering the coated electrolyzer component after application of the coating material resulting in decreased contact resistance. Bӧhm similarly describes the sintered coated component having a decreased resistance of 0.51 or 0.53 milliohm*cm2 (see e.g. Bӧhm Page 4255, Col. 1, under “2.2”, line 1, and Table 2, average resistivity of TiO2-x coated and sintered substrates), which falls within the range described in paragraph 0034 of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 35 under 35 USC 103 over Bӧhm in view of Lee, particularly regarding the coating consisting of the metal oxide, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bӧhm, Lee and Haas.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 under 35 USC 103 over Bӧhm, particularly regarding the coating consisting of the metal oxide, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bӧhm and Haas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sano et al. (U.S. 2020/0407858) discloses a porous anode structure for a water electrolysis device comprising a titanium base material body provided with a Magneli phase titanium oxide film preferably containing Ti4O7 and/or Ti5O9 on a surface thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights