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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-20 and 23-26 are pending in the current Office action. Claims 1 and 23 were amended by Applicant. Claims 21 and 22 were cancelled by Applicant. Claims 24-26 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The rejections of claims 1-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 4, 17, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections of claims 1-20 and 23-26 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 25 is 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 25, claim 25 recites the limitation "the metal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 25 depends, does not recite “a metal” or “metal”, and it is therefore unclear to what the term “the metal” refers.
Claim 25 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 25 to depend from claim 18 or 19.
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 1-6, 15-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (“Hydrogen extraction characteristics of high-temperature proton conductor ceramics for hydrogen isotopes purification and recovery” Fusion Engineering and Design 89 (2014) 1500–1504) in view of Lozada (WO 2017/017433 A2) and as evidenced by, in the case of claim 20, Sala (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0016124 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xia teaches a system for separation of hydrogen isotopes from one another (title), the system comprising:
a separation device (“electrochemical hydrogen pump” abstract and Fig. 2, annotated below), the separation device including:
a feed chamber (the interior of the ceramic tube, see § 2.2 and annotated Fig. 2), the feed chamber comprising a sample comprising a first hydrogen isotope (“He + (500-1500) ppm H2” Fig. 2), the sample being free of water (“Dry H2” Fig. 3, 6, 9 insets);
a product chamber (the space between the ceramic tube and the quartz tube, see annotated Fig. 2); and
a separation membrane forming a gas-tight seal between the feed chamber and the product chamber (“test ceramic tube” § 2.2 and Fig. 2),
the separation membrane including a hydrogen ion conductive layer (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α ceramic tube as the solid electrolyte proton conductor” p. 1501 bridging para. and Fig. 2),
the hydrogen ion conductive layer comprising a hydrogen ion conductive ceramic (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α ceramic tube as the solid electrolyte proton conductor” p. 1501 bridging para. and Fig. 2),
the separation membrane having a first side and an opposite second side, the first side facing the feed chamber and the second side facing the product chamber (see Fig. 2);
an electric circuit in electrical communication with the separation membrane (“Potentiostate [sic]” Fig. 2) and configured to apply a voltage between the first side and the second side of the separation membrane (“A voltage was applied between 0 and 3.5 V by a potentiostat.” § 2.2); and
a heater (“Electric Furnace” Fig. 2) configured to increase the temperature of the separation membrane (“The proton-conducting ceramic tube specimen was heated by a dual stage electric furnace,” § 2.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Xia Fig. 2
Xia does not explicitly teach the sample comprises a second hydrogen isotope.
However, Xia teaches that the apparatus is intended to recover tritium i.e., a second hydrogen isotope, from a hydrogen source comprising multiple hydrogen isotopes (p. 1501 col. 1 middle para.).
As Xia teaches a system for electrochemically purifying hydrogen isotopes, Xia is 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 Xia such that the feed chamber comprises a second hydrogen isotope e.g., tritium. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Xia explicitly suggests using a sample comprising tritium and other hydrogen isotopes.
Xia does not teach the separation membrane includes a hydrogen isotope selective layer, the hydrogen isotope selective layer comprising a crystalline material.
However, Lozada teaches a separation membrane for separation of hydrogen isotopes from one another (abstract), the separation membrane including a hydrogen isotope selective layer (“a monolith of a 2D material” p. 12 lines 21-27) and a hydrogen ion conductive layer (“an ionomer coating” p. 12 lines 21-27), the hydrogen isotope selective layer comprising a crystalline material (“crystalline sheets of graphene and hBN monolayers” p. 19 lines 18-21 and see p. 19 lines 8-17), wherein the inclusion of the hydrogen isotope selective layer provides the predictable benefit of allowing the separation membrane to be made thinner and lighter (“One benefit of our approach is that this allows the possibility of decreasing thickness of existing proton membranes (which is currently quite a difficult problem) by stopping permeation of other species even using the thinnest possible membranes. We can thus produce light, cost effective membranes.” p. 19 lines 25-29).
As Lozada teaches a system for separating hydrogen isotopes comprising a separation membrane in communication with an electric circuit, Lozada is 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 separation membrane of Xia by adding a hydrogen isotope selective layer comprising a crystalline material (i.e., graphene, hBN, MoS, or WS2), as taught by Lozada. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing the thickness and weight of the membrane, as taught by Lozada. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the hydrogen isotope selective layer comprises from 1 to about 5 atomic layers of the crystalline material (“The material is a monolayer (for graphene and hBN this means one atomic layer; in the case of other 2D materials such as MoS2 etc. this means one molecular layer which actually comprises three atomic layers due to the crystal structure). However, in certain cases a few layers i.e. 2 to 5 layers of the 2D material are permitted.” p. 19 lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the atomic layers of the hydrogen isotope selective layer comprise atoms in a hexagonal pattern (“A single piece of graphene or hBN is preferred.” p. 19 lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the crystalline material comprises graphene, hexagonal boron nitride, or a transition metal chalcogenide (“a 2-D material selected from graphene, hBN, MoS2 and WS2” p. 9 lines 15-25, see also p. 19 lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Xia further teaches the hydrogen ion conductive layer comprises a perovskite type ceramic (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α (effective electrode area: 160 cm2) was developed because of its high chemical stability, mechanical strength, and durability in a series of perovskite-type proton conductors.” abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 5. Xia further teaches the perovskite type ceramic comprises CaZrO3 (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α” abstract i.e., indium doped CaZrO3).
Regarding claim 16, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Modified Xia does not teach a second separation membrane forming a gas-tight seal between the product chamber and a third chamber, a first side of the second separation membrane facing the product chamber and a second side of the second separation membrane facing the third chamber.
However, Lozada further teaches that several stages of isotope enrichment can be arranged in series to provide a desired level of isotope enrichment (p. 48 lines 21-30).
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 Xia, by adding a second separation membrane forming a gas-tight seal between the product chamber and a third chamber, a first side of the second separation membrane facing the product chamber and a second side of the second separation membrane facing the third chamber. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a second enrichment stage, thereby enhancing the final level of isotope enrichment, as taught by Lozada. Furthermore, duplication of parts (i.e., the separation membrane), absent evidence of a new and unexpected result, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Xia further teaches a gas flow line to the feed chamber (“H2 balanced with He was supplied to the anode of hydrogen pump” § 2.2 and see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the hydrogen isotope selective layer further comprises a metal selected from Groups 8 to 10 of the periodic table (“2-D material selected from graphene, hBN, MoS2 and WS2 which has been decorated with a discontinuous film formed from one or more transition metals selected from groups 8 to 10 of the periodic table,” p. 9 lines 15-25, see also p. 19 lines 1-3 and p. 40 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 19, modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the metal is present in a discontinuous fashion on a surface of the hydrogen isotope selective layer (“2-D material selected from graphene, hBN, MoS2 and WS2 which has been decorated with a discontinuous film formed from one or more transition metals selected from groups 8 to 10 of the periodic table,” p. 9 lines 15-25, emphasis added, see also p. 17 lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the crystalline material comprises graphene (“A single piece of graphene or hBN is preferred.” p. 19 lines 8-17), said graphene serving as part of an electrode (see below).
Regarding the limitation “said graphene serving as part of the electrode”, Sala teaches that a graphene layer in contact with a current collector/electrode serves as part of the electrode “the porous electronic conducting cathode is produced using carbonaceous compounds, such as graphene,” (para. 20). Therefore, as the structure of Xia (and modified Xia) comprises current collectors/electrodes (“Pt electrode” Fig. 2) on both sides of the membrane, the graphene layer in modified Xia will necessarily serve a part of the electrode. I.e., regardless of which side of the membrane the hydrogen isotope selective layer is added to, it will be in electrical communication with the Pt electrodes/current collectors.
Regarding claim 23, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Xia does not explicitly teach the hydrogen ion conductive layer contacts the feed chamber.
However, Lozada further teaches the hydrogen isotope selective layer is arranged on the side of the membrane contacting the product chamber (e.g., Fig. 10a), i.e., such that the hydrogen ion conductive layer contacts the feed chamber.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying the membrane of Xia to comprise the hydrogen isotope selective layer as taught by Lozada, to do so such that the hydrogen ion conductive layer is in contact with the feed chamber. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this way because Lozada teaches the membrane in this arrangement. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 24, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the hydrogen isotope selective layer and the hydrogen ion conductive layer are adjacent (“an ionomer coating provided on at least one side of the 2D material” p. 12 lines 20-26).
Regarding claim 25, for the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 25 has been interpreted as depending from claim 18.
Modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Modified Xia further teaches, via Lozada, the metal is in the form of nano-sized dots (“Pt nanoparticles were deposited onto them by evaporating a discontinuous layer of Pt (nominally, 2 nm)” § 2.3., emphasis added).
Regarding claim 26, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Xia further teaches the sample is a gas sample (“H2 balanced with He was supplied to the anode of hydrogen pump and pure He gas fed to the cathode to sweep the permeated gas controlled by mass flow controllers (MFC).” § 2.2.).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Lozada, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Elangovan (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0032140 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above.
Modified Xia does not teach the perovskite type ceramic has the composition as follows:
A1-x-αPxB1-yQyO3-δ in which:
A is a bivalent cation,
P is an A-site dopant,
B is a tetravalent cation,
Q is a B-site dopant,
α represents the A-site non-stoichiometry (deficiency), and
δ is an oxygen deficiency.
Xia instead teaches the perovskite type ceramic has the composition: A1B1-yQyO3-δ i.e., Xia does not teach an A-site dopant.
However, Elangovan teaches perovskite-type ceramic membranes for use as a hydrogen ion conducting layer in an electrochemical cell (para. 3) that provide superior resistance to degradation by carbon dioxide (para. 10), the perovskite-type ceramics having the composition as follows:
A1-x-αPxB1-yQyO3-δ (“perovskite of the general composition A1-x-αPxB1-yQyO3-δ …” para. 26) in which:
A is a bivalent cation (“A is a bivalent cation” id.),
P is an A-site dopant (“P is an A-site dopant” id.),
B is a tetravalent cation (“B is a tetravalent cation” id.),
Q is a B-site dopant (“Q is a B-site dopant” id.),
α represents the A-site non-stoichiometry (deficiency) (“α represents the A-site non-stoichiometry (deficiency)” id.), and
δ is an oxygen deficiency (“δ is an oxygen deficiency” id.).
As Elangovan teaches a ceramic membrane for use as a hydrogen ion conducting layer in an electrochemical cell, Elangovan is 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 membrane of Xia, such that the perovskite-type ceramic of the hydrogen ion conductive layer has the composition A1-x-αPxB1-yQyO3-δ i.e., by adding an A-site dopant, as taught by Elangovan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of stabilizing the ceramic to reaction with carbon dioxide, as taught by Elangovan. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., adding an A-site dopant to the perovskite of Xia) to yield predictable results (improving the stability of the perovskite) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the perovskite of Elangovan in place of the perovskite of Xia) to achieve predictable results (forming a hydrogen ion transfer membrane) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., the perovskites of Elangovan as a hydrogen ion conductor in a separation membrane) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Xia further teaches A is Ca (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α” abstract). Modified Xia further teaches, via Elangovan, P is a cation (“P is an A-site dopant, which may be a cation such as Pr, Sm, Er or other cations belonging to the lanthanide series.” para. 26).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Xia further teaches, via Elangovan, P belongs to the lanthanide series (claim 9) and is Pr, Sm, or Er (claim 10) (“P is an A-site dopant, which may be a cation such as Pr, Sm, Er or other cations belonging to the lanthanide series.” para. 26).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above.
Xia further teaches B is an element in Group IV of the periodic table (claim 11), wherein B is Zr, (claim 12) (“CaZr0.9In0.1O3−α” abstract).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Xia teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above.
Modified Xia does not teach Q is an element in group III of the periodic table or an element in the lanthanide series of the periodic table (claim 13), wherein Q is Sc, Y, Eu, Nd, Gd, or Yb (claim 14).
However, Elangovan further teaches Q is an element in Group III of the periodic table or an element in the lanthanide series of the periodic table (claim 13), wherein Q is Sc, Y, Eu, Nd, Gd, or Yb (claim 14) (“Q is a B-site dopant which may be either an element in Group III of the period table (e.g. Sc, Y) or another element (other than B) in the lanthanide series of the periodic table (e.g. Eu, Nd, Gd, Yb)” para. 26).
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 perovskite of Xia such that Q is an element in the lanthanide series of the period table (claim 13), wherein Q is Sc, Y, Eu, Nd, Gd, or Yb (claim 14), as taught by Elangovan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of stabilizing the ceramic to reaction with carbon dioxide, as taught by Elangovan. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using Sc, Y, Eu, Nd, Gd, or Yb in place of In as Q in the perovskite of Xia) to achieve predictable results (forming a hydrogen ion transfer membrane) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., the perovskites of Elangovan as a hydrogen ion conductor in a separation membrane) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed 12/22/2025, regarding the rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6-8, filed 12/22/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sala or modified Sala have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Sala or modified Sala have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8-10, filed 12/22/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over modified Xia have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that Xia teaches the use of a gas comprising water, and that Xia therefore does not teach the limitation “the sample being free of water” as recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that because the system of Xia includes a hygrometer, Xia implicitly teaches the sample comprises water.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not the sample of Xia, implicitly or otherwise, comprises water.
While Applicant correctly points out that the system of Xia comprises a hygrometer, Examiner does not agree that this implies the feed of Xia comprises water. Indeed, Applicant’s interpretation is directly contradicted by Xia’s explicit teaching of “Dry H2” as the sample feed. Rather than Applicant’s asserted use, Examiner considers Xia’s hygrometer is used to ensure that the feed is, in fact, dry, and to detect any water formed on the product side membrane due to decomposition of the ceramic hydrogen ion conductive layer. Evidence for this usage may be found in Xia reference #5 i.e., Kakuta et al. (“Electrochemical Properties of Hydrogen Concentration Cell with Ceramic Protonic Conductor” Fusion Technology, 39 (2001) 1083-1087 see § IV.C.).
As Applicant’s argument is contradicted by the explicit teachings of Xia, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 9 a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a motivation to modify the system of Xia such that the hydrogen ion conductive layer contacts the feed chamber as recited in amended claim 23. Specifically, Applicant argues that absent a motivation in the prior art, a finding of obviousness is inappropriate.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds of obviousness requires an explicit motivation in the prior art.
As detailed in MPEP § 2143, a motivation in the prior art is one of, but not the only, grounds on which a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be established.
In the instant case, Lozada teaches a separation membrane comprising a hydrogen isotope selective layer and a hydrogen ion conductive layer may be suitably arranged such that the hydrogen ion conductive layer contacts the feed chamber. It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to use this arrangement when adding the hydrogen isotope selective layer to the membrane of Xia (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, there are only two possible sides to which the hydrogen isotope selective layer may be added to the membrane of Xia i.e., the hydrogen isotope selective layer may be added to either the feed or the product side, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found each of these arrangements to be obvious (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
While, as noted by Applicant, a prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by demonstrating an unexpected benefit relative to the prior art (see MPEP § 716.02), Applicant has not argued or provided evidence for any such unexpected benefit.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that, absent inappropriate hindsight bias, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Xia with those of Lozada. Specifically, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the hydrogen isotope selective layer of Lozada, comprising graphene/hBN/MoS/WS2 with a discontinuous layer of Pt (a metal selected from groups 8 to 10 of the periodic table) disposed thereon, with the separation membrane of Xia.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Xia based on the teachings of Lozada absent inappropriate hindsight bias.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, Lozada explicitly teaches the use of their hydrogen isotope selective layer i.e., a layer of a 2-D material comprising graphene, hBN, MoS or WS2 and having a discontinuous layer of Pt nanoparticles disposed thereon, provides the benefits of allowing the membrane to be made thinner and lighter relative to separation membranes not having such a hydrogen isotope selective layer. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have had an explicit motivation to combine the teachings of Xia and Lozada i.e., to form a thinner and lighter separation membrane for use in the apparatus of Xia. As a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have had an explicit motivation to combine the teachings of Xia and Lozada, it cannot reasonably be considered that the conclusion of obviousness based on this combination depends on improper hindsight bias.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues on p. 10 that modifying Xia in view of the teachings of Lozada would materially alter the operation of the system of Xia, and would therefore not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not modifying the system of Xia based on the teachings of Lozada would alter the principle by which Xia operates.
Examiner acknowledges that a proposed modification to a prior art system cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness if said modification would alter said prior art system’s principle of operation (MPEP § 21436.01(VI)).
In the instant case both Xia and Lozada teach systems for separating isotopes of hydrogen by electrochemically oxidizing hydrogen gas to form hydrogen ions, passing the produced hydrogen ions through a hydrogen ion permeable membrane, and electrochemically reducing said hydrogen ions on the opposite side of the hydrogen ion permeable membrane. I.e., Xia and Lozada have identical principles of operation.
It is therefore unclear how modifying Xia based on the teachings of Lozada could reasonably be considered to alter the principle by which Xia operates.
Absent additional explanation for why Applicant believe the proposed modification would alter the principle by which Xia operates, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #5
Applicant argues on p. 10 that the rejection of claims 18 and 19 over Xia in view of Lozada relies on “drawing together various, isolated portions of the references”.
Examiner’s Response #5
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejections and responses to arguments, the rejections of claims 18 and 19 result from the combination of one embodiment of Xia with one embodiment from Lozada. I.e., Lozada teaches a hydrogen isotope selective layer comprising a 2-D material with a discontinuous layer of Pt nanoparticles disposed thereon. Lozada further teaches that graphene, hBN, MoS, and WS2 are each suitable as the 2-D material in the isotope selective layer. It is therefore unclear what specific “isolated portions of the references” Applicant believes are have been used as the basis for the rejections.
Absent additional explanation for why Applicant believes the rejections rely on “drawing together various, isolated portions of the references”, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawamura and Yamanishi (“Tritium recovery from blanket sweep gas via ceramic proton conductor membrane” Fusion Engineering and Design 86 (2011) 2160–2163) teaches a system comparable to that of Xia, but explicitly teaches a sample comprising a first and second hydrogen isotope (“H2-D2 system” § 3.1.), wherein the sample is free of water “Usually, water vapor (or heavy water vapor) is introduced to the hydrogen pump to prevent the deterioration of proton conductor. However, it was not used in these experiments.” Id.) and is capable of being substituted mutandis mutatis for Xia in the above rejections.
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