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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on June 17th, 2026. Claims 1-2, 6-10, and 14-24 are pending in the current Office action. Claims 1, 9, and 15 were amended by Applicant. Claims 17-24 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The rejections of claims 1-2, 6-10, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejections are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are considered patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended in independent form incorporating all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), but would patentably distinguished over the prior art of record if amended to address the ground(s) of rejection and amended in independent form incorporating all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Due to the indefinite language, no determination on the patentability of claim 21 over the prior art could be made as currently drafted.
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.
Claims 17 and 21 are 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 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the catalyst layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, claim 9, from which claim 17 depends, does not recite “a catalyst layer”. It is therefore unclear to what this limitation refers.
Claim 17 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 17 to depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation “an absolute value of a difference in the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer (S2) contained in each layer constituting the layer (Sb) is from 0.1 to 0.3 milliequivalents/gram dry resin”. It is not clear, in light of the specification, how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. Specifically, it is unclear whether:
a) the limitation is intended to require each layer of the layer (Sb) to have a difference in ion exchange capacity from the layer (Sa) from 0.1 to 0.3 meq/gram dry resin;
b) the limitation is intended to require each layer of the layer (Sb) to have a difference in ion exchange capacity from each other layer of the layer (Sb) from 0.1 to 0.3 meq/gram dry resin; or
c) some other interpretation.
While the specification recites this description in para. 64 of the specification, it uses the same language as the claim, and therefore does not clarify the meaning of this limitation.
Claim 21 is therefore indefinite.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (WO 2018/070444 A1) in view of Kusano (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0029585 A1) and Price (WO 2018/115821 A1).
Citations to Yamaki refer to US Pat. Pub. 2019/0218675 A1 as the official English translation on file with the Office.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaki teaches an ion exchange membrane (abstract) comprising, in order:
an inorganic particle layer comprising inorganic particles and a binder (“a first hydrophilic layer 12” para. 57 and Fig. 1, “As the hydrophilic layer, an inorganic particle layer containing inorganic particles may be mentioned” para. 108, and “The hydrophilic layer may contain a binder” para. 112, see also paras. 105-115),
a layer (Sa) (“a first layer 10a” para. 58 and Fig. 1) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane (see below) comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)")” para. 48 and “In a case where the ion-exchange membrane is made to be a multi-layer, polymers (S) to form the respective layers may be the same or different” para. 63), and
a layer (Sb) (“a second layer 10b” para. 58 and Fig. 1) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane (see below) comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)")” para. 48 and “In a case where the ion-exchange membrane is made to be a multi-layer, polymers (S) to form the respective layers may be the same or different” para. 63), wherein:
the ion exchange membrane further comprises a reinforcing fabric (“a reinforcing material 16” para. 57 and Fig. 1) comprising reinforcing yarns (“a reinforcing fabric made of reinforcing threads and sacrificial threads (hereinafter simply referred to also as "reinforcing fabric (A)")” para. 118, see also paras. 218-219),
the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups (“ion-exchange membrane which contains a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)") and which does not contain a polymer having carboxylic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (C)")” para. 48),
the ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is 1.1 milliequivalents/gram dry resin, a value within the claimed range (“fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) (ion-exchange capacity after hydrolysis: 1.1 meq/g dry resin,” para. 195, “Fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) was molded by a melt extrusion method, to obtain film 1” para. 203, and “Transfer substrate 1/film 1/reinforcing fabric 1/film 2/transfer substrate 1 were superimposed one on another in this order, … to obtain a diaphragm precursor” para. 222), and
the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer is 1.1 milliequivalents/gram dry resin, a value within the claimed range (“fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) (ion-exchange capacity after hydrolysis: 1.1 meq/g dry resin,” para. 195, “Fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) was molded by a melt extrusion method, to obtain film 2” para. 205, and “Transfer substrate 1/film 1/reinforcing fabric 1/film 2/transfer substrate 1 were superimposed one on another in this order, … to obtain a diaphragm precursor” para. 222).
Regarding the limitations “disposed on an anode side of the cation exchange membrane” and “disposed on a cathode side of the cation exchange membrane”, as currently drafted, these recitations are drawn to an intended use of the ion exchange membrane. Specifically, because the claim does not recite an anode or cathode, these limitations are drawn to the orientation of the membrane were it to be used in an electrolyzer. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to an intended use is an apparatus capable of performing the recited use (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the membrane comprises an inorganic particle layer on both sides of the membrane (para. 57 and Fig. 1), and the first and second ion fluorinated polymers are both sulfonated polymers (paras. 195, 205, 222). Therefore, it is considered that either side of the membrane is capable of serving as the “anode” or “cathode” side of the cation exchange membrane if it were used in an electrolyzer. Therefore, the cation exchange membrane of Yamaki is considered to read on the limitations “disposed on an anode side of the cation exchange membrane” and “disposed on a cathode side of the cation exchange membrane”.
Yamaki does not teach an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer.
However, Kusano teaches that it is advantageous for an ion exchange membrane comprising reinforcing fibers disposed therein to have different ion exchange capacities on each side of the reinforcing material (“When a reinforcing material is to be embedded in the layer (β1) 14, from such a viewpoint that the electrolysis voltage can easily be reduced, the ion exchange capacity of the portion of the layer (β1) 14 on the anode side of the reinforcing material is preferably equal to or higher than the ion exchange capacity of the portion on the cathode side of the reinforcing material. The difference between them is, for example, preferably at least 0.1 meq/g dry resin.” para. 69 and Fig. 1). Specifically, Kusano teaches that the side with the thinner polymer layer should have a greater ion exchange capacity (“the thickness of the portion on the anode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 10 to 60 µm, more preferably from 10 to 50 µm” para. 72 and “the thickness on the cathode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 45 to 140 µm, more preferably from 60 to 100 µm” para. 73).
Furthermore, Yamaki teaches that the ion exchange capacities of the first and second fluorinated polymers need not be the same (para. 63).
As Yamaki and Kusano each teach ion exchange membranes comprising multiple layers with a reinforcing material disposed therebetween, Yamaki and Kusano are 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 ion exchange membrane of Yamaki such that an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer forming the thicker layer of the fluorinated polymer (i.e., the layer 10a) is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer forming the thinner layer of the fluorinated polymer (i.e., the layer 10b), as taught by Kusano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kusano teaches using a fluorinated polymer with a lower ion exchange capacity on the thicker side of a membrane comprising an embedded reinforcing material reduces the electrolysis voltage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Yamaki teaches the ion exchange capacities of the layers need not be the same. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Yamaki does not teach the ion exchange membrane comprises a catalyst layer on the layer (Sb).
However, Price teaches catalysts (“A cathode catalyst layer” and “An anode catalyst layer” p. 27 lines 1-16) can be added on each side of a multilayered ion exchange membrane (“CCM 1 was prepared using three individual membrane components” Id.) to provide the predictable benefit of catalyzing the oxidation (p. 15 lines 14-25) and reduction reactions (p. 13 lines 19-32).
As Price teaches an ion exchange membrane comprising multiple layers with a reinforcing material disposed therebetween (see e.g., p. 10 lines 1-5), Price 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 ion exchange membrane of Yamaki, by adding a catalyst layer to each side of the ion exchange membrane (i.e., such that one of the catalyst layers is on the layer (Sb)), as taught by Price. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of catalyzing the reduction and oxidation reactions at the membrane, as taught by Price. 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 6, Yamaki further teaches the first fluorinated polymer comprises:
a unit based on a fluorinated olefin (“monomer (1)” paras. 79 and 84); and
a unit comprising a sulfonic acid type functional group and a fluorine atom (“monomer (2)”) paras. 79 and 85-94).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaki further teaches the fluorinated olefin is selected from the group consisting of tetrafluoroethylene and chlorotrifluoroethylene (“Monomer (1) may be CF2=CF2, CF2=CFCl, CF2=CFCF3, etc., and from the viewpoint of chemical durability of the diaphragm, CF2=CF2 is preferred” para. 84).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamaki teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above.
Yamaki further teaches the unit comprising a sulfonic acid type functional group and a fluorine atom is a unit according to formula (1) (paras. 86-94 teach the monomers have the structure of formula (1) except that M = F, paras. 99-100 show that after polymerization M is converted to an alkali metal ion, see also para. 113).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Kusano and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US Pat. No. 4323434).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Yamaki does not teach the layer (Sa) comprises a convexo-concave structure on a surface of the layer (Sa) closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb).
However, Yoshida teaches that forming a convexo-concave structure on the surfaces of cation exchange membranes (“the roughened surface may quantitatively be defined as a surface having a concavo-convex structure” col. 3 lines 5-25, see also abstract) improves the release of gas bubbles from said surfaces (“whereby gas adsorption on the membrane surface can be made very small.” Id.), thereby lowering the voltage required for electrolysis (“Its specific effect is to lower the electrolysis voltage remarkably without decrease in current efficiency.” col. 2 lines 17-28).
As Yoshida teaches an ion exchange membrane for use in electrolysis, Yoshida 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 both exterior surfaces of the membrane of Yamaki i.e., the surface of the layer (Sa) closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb) and the surface of the layer (Sb) closer to the catalyst layer than the layer (Sa) in modified Yamaki , such that they comprise convexo-concave structures, as taught by Yoshida. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of lowering the electrolysis voltage by improving gas desorption, as taught by Yoshida. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 9, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (WO 2018/070444 A1) in view of Kusano (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0029585 A1).
Citations to Yamaki refer to US Pat. Pub. 2019/0218675 A1 as the official English translation on file with the Office.
Regarding claim 9, Yamaki teaches an ion exchange membrane comprising, in order:
an inorganic particle layer comprising inorganic particles and a binder (“a first hydrophilic layer 12” para. 57 and Fig. 1, “As the hydrophilic layer, an inorganic particle layer containing inorganic particles may be mentioned” para. 108, and “The hydrophilic layer may contain a binder” para. 112, and see paras. 105-115),
a layer (Sa) (“a first layer 10a” para. 58 and Fig. 1) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane (see below) comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)")” para. 48 and “In a case where the ion-exchange membrane is made to be a multi-layer, polymers (S) to form the respective layers may be the same or different” para. 63), and
a layer (Sb) (“a second layer 10b” para. 58 and Fig. 1) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane (see below) comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)")” para. 48 and “In a case where the ion-exchange membrane is made to be a multi-layer, polymers (S) to form the respective layers may be the same or different” para. 63), wherein:
the ion exchange membrane further comprises a reinforcing fabric (“a reinforcing material 16” para. 57 and Fig. 1) comprising reinforcing yarns (“a reinforcing fabric made of reinforcing threads and sacrificial threads (hereinafter simply referred to also as "reinforcing fabric (A)")” para. 118, see also paras. 218-219),
the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups (“ion-exchange membrane which contains a polymer having sulfonic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (S)") and which does not contain a polymer having carboxylic acid functional groups (hereinafter simply referred to also as "polymer (C)")” para. 48),
the ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is 1.1 milliequivalents/gram dry resin, a value within the claimed range (“fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) (ion-exchange capacity after hydrolysis: 1.1 meq/g dry resin,” para. 195, “Fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) was molded by a melt extrusion method, to obtain film 1” para. 203, and “Transfer substrate 1/film 1/reinforcing fabric 1/film 2/transfer substrate 1 were superimposed one on another in this order, … to obtain a diaphragm precursor” para. 222), and
the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer is 1.1 milliequivalents/gram dry resin, a value within the claimed range (“fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) (ion-exchange capacity after hydrolysis: 1.1 meq/g dry resin,” para. 195, “Fluorinated polymer (FS'-1) was molded by a melt extrusion method, to obtain film 2” para. 205, and “Transfer substrate 1/film 1/reinforcing fabric 1/film 2/transfer substrate 1 were superimposed one on another in this order, … to obtain a diaphragm precursor” para. 222).
Regarding the limitations “disposed on an anode side of the cation exchange membrane” and “disposed on a cathode side of the cation exchange membrane”, as currently drafted, these recitations are drawn to an intended use of the ion exchange membrane. Specifically, because the claim does not recite an anode or cathode, these limitations are drawn to the orientation of the membrane when it is used in an electrolyzer. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to an intended use is an apparatus capable of performing the recited use (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the membrane comprises an inorganic particle layer on both sides of the membrane (para. 57 and Fig. 1), and the first and second ion fluorinated polymers are both sulfonated polymers (paras. 195, 205, 222). Therefore, it is considered that either side of the membrane is capable of serving as the “anode” or “cathode” side of the cation exchange membrane when used in an electrolyzer. Therefore, the cation exchange membrane of Yamaki is considered to read on the limitations “disposed on an anode side of the cation exchange membrane” and “disposed on a cathode side of the cation exchange membrane”.
Yamaki does not teach an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer.
However, Kusano teaches that it is advantageous for an ion exchange membrane comprising reinforcing fibers disposed therein to have different ion exchange capacities on each side of the reinforcing material (“When a reinforcing material is to be embedded in the layer (β1) 14, from such a viewpoint that the electrolysis voltage can easily be reduced, the ion exchange capacity of the portion of the layer (β1) 14 on the anode side of the reinforcing material is preferably equal to or higher than the ion exchange capacity of the portion on the cathode side of the reinforcing material. The difference between them is, for example, preferably at least 0.1 meq/g dry resin.” para. 69 and Fig. 1). Specifically, Kusano teaches that the side with the thinner polymer layer should have a greater ion exchange capacity (“the thickness of the portion on the anode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 10 to 60 µm, more preferably from 10 to 50 µm” para. 72 and “the thickness on the cathode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 45 to 140 µm, more preferably from 60 to 100 µm” para. 73).
Furthermore, Yamaki teaches that the ion exchange capacities of the first and second fluorinated polymers need not be the same (para. 63).
As Yamaki and Kusano each teach ion exchange membranes comprising multiple layers with a reinforcing material disposed therebetween, Yamaki and Kusano are 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 ion exchange membrane of Yamaki such that an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer forming the thicker layer of the fluorinated polymer (i.e., the layer 10a) is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer forming the thinner layer of the fluorinated polymer (i.e., the layer 10b), as taught by Kusano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kusano teaches using a fluorinated polymer with a lower ion exchange capacity on the thicker side of a membrane comprising an embedded reinforcing material reduces the electrolysis voltage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success making this modification because Yamaki teaches the ion exchange capacities of the layers need not be the same. 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 19, Yamaki further teaches the layer (Sb) is a monolayer (see Fig. 1).
Modified Yamaki, via Kusano, further teaches an absolute difference between the ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer and the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer is at least 0.1 milliequivalents/gram dry resin (“The difference between them is, for example, preferably at least 0.1 meq/g dry resin.” para. 69), a range overlapping the claimed range. A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 22, modified Yamaki renders the limitations of claim 9 obvious, as described above.
Yamaki further teaches the ion-exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is from 0.9 to 2.5 milliequivalents/gram dry resin (“The ion-exchange capacity of polymer (S) is preferably from 0.9 to 2.5 meq/g dry resin” para. 68), a range overlapping the claimed range, and the ion-exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer is from 0.9 to 2.5 milliequivalents/gram dry resin (Id.), a range overlapping the claimed range. A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Kusano as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US Pat. No. 4323434).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamaki teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Modified Yamaki does not teach the layer (Sa) comprises a convexo-concave structure on a surface of the layer (Sa) closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb).
However, Yoshida teaches that forming a convexo-concave structure on the surfaces of membranes (“the roughened surface may quantitatively be defined as a surface having a concavo-convex structure” col. 3 lines 5-25) improves the release of gas bubbles from said surfaces (“whereby gas adsorption on the membrane surface can be made very small.” Id.), thereby lowering the voltage required for electrolysis (“Its specific effect is to lower the electrolysis voltage remarkably without decrease in current efficiency.” col. 2 lines 17-28).
As Yoshida teaches an ion exchange membrane for use in electrolysis, Yoshida 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 both exterior surfaces of the membrane of Yamaki i.e., the surfaces of the layers (Sa) and (Sb) closer to an inorganic particle layer than the other polymer layer, such that they comprise convexo-concave structures, as taught by Yoshida. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of lowering the electrolysis voltage by improving gas desorption, as taught by Yoshida. 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 Yamaki teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Modified Yamaki does not teach the layer (Sa) has, on a surface thereof closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb), a convexoconcave structure defined by a plurality of convex portions, and an average distance between vertexes of the convex portions is from 20 to 500 µm.
However, Yoshida teaches that forming a convexo-concave structure on the surfaces of membranes (“the roughened surface may quantitatively be defined as a surface having a concavo-convex structure” col. 3 lines 5-25), wherein an average distance between vertexes of the convex portions is from 4 to 33.3 µm (“at least 30 concavo-convex portions per 1 mm … usually not more than 250 [concavo-convex portions per 1 mm]” col. 3 lines 5-25), a range overlapping the claimed range, improves the release of gas bubbles from said surfaces (“whereby gas adsorption on the membrane surface can be made very small.” Id.), thereby lowering the voltage required for electrolysis (“Its specific effect is to lower the electrolysis voltage remarkably without decrease in current efficiency.” col. 2 lines 17-28).
As Yoshida teaches an ion exchange membrane for use in electrolysis, Yoshida 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 both exterior surfaces of the membrane of Yamaki i.e., the surfaces of the layers (Sa) and (Sb) closer to an inorganic particle layer than the other polymer layer, such that they comprise convexo-concave structures, wherein an average distance between vertexes of the convex portions is from 4 to 33.3 µm, as taught by Yoshida. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of lowering the electrolysis voltage by improving gas desorption, as taught by Yoshida. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Kusano as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Price (WO 2018/115821 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Yamaki renders obvious the limitations of claim 9, as described above. The above rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Modified Yamaki teaches the ion exchange membrane according to claim 9.
Modified Yamaki does not teach a step of adding a catalyst layer to the ion exchange membrane according to claim 9, wherein adding the catalyst layer comprises forming the catalyst layer on the layer (Sb).
However, Price teaches catalysts (“A cathode catalyst layer” and “An anode catalyst layer” p. 27 lines 1-16) can be added on each side of a multilayered ion exchange membrane (“CCM 1 was prepared using three individual membrane components” Id.) by forming the catalyst layers on each of the membrane layers (p. 14 lines 21-29 and p. 16 lines 5-14) to provide the predictable benefit of catalyzing the oxidation (p. 15 lines 14-25) and reduction reactions (p. 13 lines 19-32).
As Price teaches an ion exchange membrane comprising multiple layers with a reinforcing material disposed therebetween (see e.g., p. 10 lines 1-5), Price 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 method used to form the ion exchange membrane of Yamaki, by adding a step of adding a catalyst layer to the ion exchange membrane, wherein adding the catalyst layer comprises forming the catalyst layer on the layers (Sa) and (Sb), as taught by Price. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of forming a membrane capable of catalyzing the reduction and oxidation reactions at the membrane, as taught by Price. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Kusano as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Saito (US Pat. No. 5716504).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamaki renders the limitations of claim 9 obvious, as described above.
Yamaki does not explicitly teach the layer (Sb) is formed from multiple layers, and does not teach an absolute value of a difference between the ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer and the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer contained in the layer positioned most toward the layer (Sa) side among the layers constituting the layer (Sb) is from 0.1 to 0.5 milliequivalents/gram dry resin.
However, Saito teaches a fluorinated ion exchange membrane for electrolysis (abstract), comprising a layer (Sa) (“a first layer” abstract and col. 2 line 63 – col. 3 line 15) comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“made of a three component polymer of the following monomers (A), (B) and (C) … (A) CF2=CF(OCF2CFCF3)mO(CF2)SO3M” Id.),
and a layer (Sb) comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“the second layer is made of a two component copolymer of monomers (A) and (B) which are the same as in the above mentioned three component copolymer for the first layer” col. 3 line 60 – col. 4 line 15), wherein the layer (Sb) is formed from multiple layers (“laminating a third layer made of the same kind fluorine-containing two component copolymer as for the second layer, on the anode side of the second layer” col. 4 lines 31-43), and the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer contained in the layer positioned most toward the layer (Sa) side among the layers constituting the layer (Sb) is from 0.1 to 0.4 milliequivalents/gram dry resin (“the ion exchange capacity of the second layer is adjusted to be larger than the first layer preferably by from 0.1 to 0.4 meq/g dry resin.” col. 4 lines 16-30), a range within the claimed range, which provides the predictable benefit of (further) lowering the resistance of the membrane (“it is possible to further improve the performance, particularly to lower the resistance, by laminating a third layer …” col. 4 lines 31-43).
As Saito teaches an ion exchange membrane comprising a plurality of layers comprising sulfonated fluoropolymers for use in an electrolytic cell, Saito 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 layer (Sb) of Yamaki, such that it is formed from multiple layers and an absolute value of a difference between the ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer and the ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer contained in the layer positioned most toward the layer (Sa) side among the layers constituting the layer (Sb) is from 0.1 to 0.4 milliequivalents/gram dry resin, a range within the claimed range, as taught by Saito. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the benefit of lowering the resistance of the membrane, as taught by Saito.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Kusano as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hirano (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0142367 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Yamaki renders the limitations of claim 9 obvious, as described above.
Modified Yamaki does not teach the layer (Sa) has, on a surface thereof closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb), a convexo-concave structure defined by a plurality of convex portions, and a minimum distance from a vertex of the convex portion to a lowest position of the convex portion is at least 2 µm.
However, Hirano teaches an ion exchange membrane for use in an electrolyzer (abstract), comprising a convexo-concave structure defined by a plurality of convex portions on a surface thereof (see e.g., Fig. 1), wherein a minimum distance from a vertex of the convex portion to a lowest position of the convex portion is at least 20 µm (“a height of 20 μm or more in cross-sectional view are formed on at least one surface of the membrane body” abstract), a value within the claimed range, which provides the benefit of inhibiting the accumulation of impurities in the ion exchange membrane (para. 120).
As Hirano teaches an ion exchange membrane comprising a plurality of fluoropolymers for use in an electrolyzer, Hirano 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 ion exchange membrane of Yamaki, by adding convexo-concave structures defined by a plurality of convex portions, wherein a minimum distance from a vertex of the convex portion to a lowest position of the convex portion is at least 20 µm, a range within the claimed range, to the layer (Sa) on a surface thereof closer to the inorganic particle layer than the layer (Sb), as taught by Hirano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of inhibiting the accumulation of impurities in the ion exchange membrane, as taught by Hirano. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Furthermore, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, alone or in combination does not reasonably disclose or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 15, with a particular emphasis on the combined limitations “a layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “a layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups,”, “an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer” and “the ion exchange membrane with a catalyst layer is disposed in the electrolyzer so as to separate the anode and the cathode”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Yamaki (WO 2018/070444 A1), Kusano (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0029585 A1), Price (WO 2018/115821 A1), Saito (US Pat. No. 5716504 A1) and Shimohira (US Pat. No. 5264100).
Yamaki in view of Kusano and Price is considered to render the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
However, as noted by applicant, Kusano teaches that the fluorinated polymer having the lower ion exchange capacity should be facing the cathode, rather than the anode (see Remarks p. 10-11, filed 06/17/2026). Kusano therefore cannot reasonably be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to arrange the membrane such that the side with the lower ion exchange capacity faces the anode, as required by the cumulative limitations of claim 15.
Saito teaches a fluorinated ion exchange membrane for electrolysis (abstract), wherein a layer (Sa) (“a second layer” abstract and col. 4 lines 16-30) is disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane (“a first layer facing a cathode” col. 2 line 63 – col. 3 line 14) and a layer (Sb) is disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane (Id.). However, as with Kusano, Saito teaches the fluorinated polymer having the lower ion exchange capacity should be facing the cathode (“the ion exchange capacity of the second layer is adjusted to be larger than the first layer” col. 4 lines 16-30).
Shimohira teaches a fluorinated ion exchange membrane for electrolysis (abstract), comprising a layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane (“the membrane was disposed so that the film D side faced the anode side.” col. 8 lines 5-19) and comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“resin C made of CF2=CF2/CF2=CFOCF2CF(CF3)OCF2CF2SO2F copolymer and having an ion exchange capacity of 1.10 meq/g dry resin” col. 7 lines 39-49 and “film D having a thickness of 20 µm were formed from resin C” col. 7 lines 50-56), and
a layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane and comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups (“resins B and C were blended in a weight ratio of 1:1 to obtain resin D” col. 7 lines 39-49 and “film B having a thickness of 15 um was formed from resin D,” col. 7 lines 50-56), wherein
an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer (“resin C … having an ion exchange capacity of 1.10 meq/g dry resin” col. 7 lines 39-49) is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer (“resin B … having an ion exchange capacity of 1.44 meq/g dry resin” and “resins B and C were blended in a weight ratio of 1:1 to obtain resin D” Id.).
However, the second fluorinated polymer of Shimohira i.e., resin D, comprises carboxylic acid groups introduced from resin B (“a CF2=CF2/CF2=CFOCF2CF2CF2COCH3 copolymer” col. 7 lines 39-49), which is expressly prohibited by the claim.
While Shimohira teaches that the side of the ion exchange membrane facing the anode has a lower ion exchange capacity, as required by the claim, Shimohira does not provide any particular motivation or rationale to arrange the membrane in this manner. Rather, Shimohira attributes enhanced activity to the relative thickness of the layers on either side of a reinforcing fabric (col. 2 lines 8-24).
Furthermore, because the teaching of Shimohira is drawn to layers comprising different amounts of sulfonate and carboxylate ion exchange groups in addition to different ion exchange capacities, it is not clear that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Yamaki, which comprises only sulfonate ion exchange groups in each layer, based on the teachings of Shimohira.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 15 are patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. Therefore, if claim 15 were amended in independent form including all limitations of the base claim, claim 15 would be allowable.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 depends from claim 15, and therefore incorporates the patentably distinct subject matter of claim 15. Claim 16 would therefore be allowable if amended in independent form incorporating all of the limitations of the base and intervening claims for at least the same reasons enumerated for claim 15, above.
Regarding claim 17, when interpreted as depending from claim 1, the cumulative limitations of claim 17 are not reasonably taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record, with a particular emphasis on the limitations “a layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “a layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups,”, “an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer” and “the respective layers of the layer (Sb) are disposed so that the ion exchange capacity becomes higher from the inorganic particle layer towards the catalyst layer”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Yamaki (WO 2018/070444 A1), Kusano (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0029585 A1), Price (WO 2018/115821 A1), Saito (US Pat. No. 5716504 A1) and Shimohira (US Pat. No. 5264100).
Yamaki in view of Kusano and Price is considered to render the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Yamaki further teaches the membrane may comprise a plurality of layers (“The ion-exchange membrane may be a single layer or may be a multilayer.” para. 63). Furthermore, Saito suggests using three layers comprising sulfonic acid (see rejection of Claim 20, above). It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Yamaki, such that the layer (Sb) is formed from multiple layers.
However, Yamaki does not suggest the layers (Sb) should have a higher ion exchange capacity when disposed closer to the catalyst layer i.e., as the layers are disposed further away from the interface between the layers (Sa) and (Sb).
As noted by Applicant, Kusano teaches the ion exchange capacity should increase toward the anode side (see Remarks p. 10-11, filed 06/17/2026) which, as defined in claim 1, is the side of the membrane on which the “inorganic particle layer” is formed. I.e., Kusano suggests that the ion exchange capacity layers (Sb) should have a higher ion exchange capacity when closer to the interface between the layers (Sa) and (Sb), which is opposite to the limitation “the respective layers of the layer (Sb) are disposed so that the ion exchange capacity becomes higher from the inorganic particle layer towards the catalyst layer”.
Similarly, because Saito teaches the ion exchange capacity should increase toward the anode side (col. 4 lines 16-30), Saito teaches the orientation opposite to that required by the limitation “the respective layers of the layer (Sb) are disposed so that the ion exchange capacity becomes higher from the inorganic particle layer towards the catalyst layer”.
While Shimohira suggests the ion exchange capacity should increase toward the cathode side, as described above, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated by the teachings of Shimohira to modify the system of Yamaki, for the same reasons enumerated for claim 15, above, mutandis mutatis.
Therefore, it is considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 17 are patentably distinguished over the prior art of record when claim 17 is interpreted as depending from claim 1 i.e., such that a catalyst layer is disposed on an opposite side of the membrane from the inorganic particle layer. Therefore, if claim 17 were amended in independent form and to cure the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) e.g., by including all the limitations of claim 1, claim 17 would be allowable.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 18, with a particular emphasis on the combined limitations “a layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “a layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups,”, “an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer” and “the layer (Sa) has a thickness of 5 to 40 µm, and the layer (Sb) has a thickness of 50 to 500 µm”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Yamaki (WO 2018/070444 A1), Kusano (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0029585 A1), Saito (US Pat. No. 5716504 A1) and Shimohira (US Pat. No. 5264100).
Yamaki in view of Kusano is considered to render the limitations of claim 9 obvious, as described above.
However, Kusano teaches that the thinner layer, rather than the thicker layer, should have the greater ion exchange capacity (“the ion exchange capacity of the portion of the layer ((β1) 14 on the anode side of the reinforcing material is preferably equal to or higher than the ion exchange capacity of the portion on the cathode side of the reinforcing material” para. 69, “the thickness of the portion on the anode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 10 to 60 µm, more preferably from 10 to 50 µm” para. 72 and “the thickness on the cathode side of the reinforcing material in the layer ((β1) 14 is preferably from 45 to 140 µm, more preferably from 60 to 100 µm” para. 73). Kusano therefore cannot reasonably be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to modify the membrane of Yamaki such that the thinner layer has a lower ion exchange capacity than the thicker layer, as required by the cumulative limitations of claim 18.
Similarly, Saito teaches a membrane layer having a thickness from 5 to 50 µm (“the third layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 50 μm” col. 4 lines 31-43), but this layer has the greatest ion-exchange capacity of the polymers used, and therefore cannot be considered to teach a thinner layer having a lower ion exchange capacity than a thicker layer, as required by the cumulative limitations of claim 18.
Shimohira teaches the membrane layer having the greater ion exchange capacity has a thickness of 15 µm, which is not within the range claimed for the layer (Sb).
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 18 are patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. Therefore, if claim 18 were amended in independent form including all limitations of the base claim, claim 18 would be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9-13, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have therefore been withdrawn in part.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 10 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the ion exchange membrane of Yamaki in view of Price to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant argues that because Yamaki and Price are drawn to cation exchange membranes intended to be used for water electrolysis, whereas the instant cation exchange membrane is intended to be used for hydrogenation of aromatic compounds, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have considered modifying Yamaki to include catalyst layers on either side of the membrane based on the teachings of Price.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teachings of Price as relevant to the teachings of Yamaki.
The test to determine whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teachings of a particular prior art reference to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether or not said prior art reference is analogous art (MPEP § 2141.01(a)). A prior art reference is considered analogous art if it is either (1) in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
In the instant case, the claims in question are drawn to a cation exchange membrane intended to be used in an electrolyzer. Yamaki and Price each teach cation exchange membranes intended to be used in an electrolyzer. Therefore, Yamaki and Price are clearly in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. As Yamaki and Price are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Yamaki and Price are analogous art to the instant invention. As Yamaki and Price are analogous art to the instant invention, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered their teachings to arrive at the invention as claimed. I.e., that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include catalyst layers in the system of Yamaki, based on the advantages such layers provide as taught by Price.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 10 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the ion exchange membrane of Yamaki to include catalyst layers based on the teachings of Price, because Price does not provide any reason to include catalyst layers on the ion exchange membrane of Yamaki.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of the claims, Price teaches that catalysts provide the art-recognized benefit of catalyzing desirable reactions when deposited on ion-exchange membranes used in electrocatalysis.
As Applicant’s assertion is factually incorrect, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 10-11 that, because Kusano teaches the layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the membrane should have a greater ion exchange capacity than the layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the membrane, Kusano cannot render obvious the cumulative limitations “a layer (Sa) disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane and comprising a first fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, “a layer (Sb) disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane comprising a second fluorinated polymer comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups”, and “an ion exchange capacity of the first fluorinated polymer is lower than an ion exchange capacity of the second fluorinated polymer”. Therefore, Yamaki in view of Kusano cannot render the limitations of claims 1 and 9 obvious.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner agrees in part. As described in the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter, above, Examiner agrees that Kusano cannot reasonably render obvious a structure wherein the side of an ion exchange membrane facing an anode has a lower ion exchange capacity than the side of the ion exchange membrane facing a cathode.
However, as currently drafted, the terms “disposed on an anode side of the ion exchange membrane” and “disposed on a cathode side of the ion exchange membrane” in claims 1 and 9 are drawn to the intended use of the membrane, and do not require any particular structural features not present in Yamaki as modified by Kusano (or Kusano and Price).
Specifically, because the ion exchange membrane of Yamaki (or Yamaki as modified by Price) comprises a symmetrical structure i.e., a first inorganic particle layer, a first layer of fluorinated polymer, a reinforcing material, a second layer of fluorinated polymer, and a second inorganic particle layer, regardless of whether the first or second layer of fluorinated polymer has a greater ion exchange capacity, the structure of the ion exchange membrane will read on the limitations as drafted.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not fully persuasive.
However, it is noted that directly claiming an anode and cathode, such that the terms “an anode side” and “a cathode side” are no longer an intended use (as in claim 15), or adding an additional structural requirement for the layer referred to as (Sa) or (Sb) (as in claims 17 and 18) may cure this deficiency.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues on p. 11 that a modifying Yamaki based on the teachings of Kusano would not read on the limitation “the ion exchange membrane is free of fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups” as recited in claims 1 and 9. Specifically, Applicant argues that because Kusano teaches a third layer comprising fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups, modifying Yamaki based on the teachings of Kusano would result in a layer comprising fluorine-containing polymers having carboxylic acid groups.
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that combining the teachings of Yamaki with Kusano would result in the inclusion of fluorine-containing polymers in the resultant combination, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, Kusano teaches that, in a system comprising two layers comprising fluorinated polymers comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups, wherein neither of said layers comprises carboxylic acid groups, it is beneficial that said layers have different ion exchange capacities. Therefore, because Yamaki teaches two layers comprising fluorinated polymers comprising sulfonic acid type functional groups, wherein said fluorinated polymers may have different ion exchange capacities, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yamaki based on the teachings of Kusano such that the layers do, in fact, have different ion exchange capacities.
While Examiner acknowledges that Kusano further teaches additional layers comprising carboxylic acid functional groups, Yamaki does not teach the inclusion of such functional groups. Therefore Yamaki, as modified by Kusano, need not include such functional groups.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights