MEMBRANE, MEMBRANE ELECTRODE UNIT, AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
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 Amendment
In response to communication filed on 1/21/2026:
Claims 1, 4, 8-15, and 18 have been amended; claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 have been canceled. Claim 19 has been added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a), 112(b), and 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “As taught in Applicant's Specification, at paragraph [0100], for example, Claim 1's membrane has numerous advantages, such as "[allowing] high-temperature fuel cells to operate in a temperature range below 1000 C. ... phosphoric acid is no longer discharged, which in turn allows the use of metallic bipolar plate."
As neither the use of BA or BAF, nor its attendant benefits, are disclosed or suggested in any of Kerres, Atanasov and Bulbul, Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 is allowable over Kerres, Atanasov and Bulbul, individually or in any combination. “
The Examiner respectfully traverses. While the prior art of record does not disclose the use of BA or BAF, the present claims are product claims; not method claims. Therefore, the use of BA or BAF in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Kerres, Atanasov and Bulbul) does not change the end product.
The Examiner has introduced new grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: please amend “bispenol-A” to “bisphenol-A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend “regent” to “reagent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerres et al. (DE 10-2011-015212).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Kerres et al. disclose a membrane comprising crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (Abstract; claim 1 discloses phosphonated and partial or perfluorinated polymer membranes. Claim 5 discloses that the polymer to be phosphonated is poly-2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorostyrene.). However, they do not disclose the crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene being formed using a crosslinking reagent derived from bisphenol-A (BA) or bisphenol-AF (BAF) or wherein the crosslinking reagent further comprises a quaternary phosphonium salt.
However, the use of BA or BAF in addition to the quaternary phosphonium salt in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Kerres) does not change the end product.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kerres et al. disclose the membrane according to claim 1, wherein a nucleophile is used as a crosslinking reagent wherein the nucleophile comprises a functional group, being one or more of: phosphonic acid and sulfonic acid (Abstract; paragraph 0001 discloses the phosphonated poly-2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorostyrene is done via nucleophilic substitution. Paragraphs 0020-0021 disclose the nucleophile is a phosphonic acid group.).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 17, Kerres et al. disclose a membrane electrode assembly comprising the crosslinked phosphonated membrane of claim 1, being provided in a fuel cell at a temperature of 0°C to 380°C and further 20-280°C (Claim 17 discloses use of the membrane can be used in fuel cells at a temperature of -30-200°C.).
Claims 1-7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103as being unpatentable over Atanasov et al. (J. Power Sources, 343, (2017), 364-372).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, 17, and 19, Atanasov et al. disclose a membrane comprising crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (Abstract discloses a polyelectrolyte membrane based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS) and their performances in a fuel cell. Page 368, left column discloses the fuel cell operating temperature can be 30-120°C.)
However, they do not disclose the crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene being formed using a crosslinking reagent derived from bisphenol-A (BA) or bisphenol-AF (BAF) or wherein the crosslinking reagent further comprises a quaternary phosphonium salt.
However, the use of BA or BAF in addition to the quaternary phosphonium salt in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Atanasov) does not change the end product.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Atanasov et al. disclose the membrane according to claim 1, wherein a nucleophile is used as a crosslinking reagent wherein the nucleophile comprises a functional group, being one or more of: phosphonic acid and sulfonic acid (Section 3.1 and Scheme 1 disclose nucleophilic substitution with a phosphonic acid group.).
Claims 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bülbül et al. (J. Membrane Science, 570-571 (2019), 194-203).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 19, Bülbül et al. disclose a membrane comprising crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (Abstract discloses synthesis and preparation of ionically cross-linked acid-base blend membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) and poly(benzimidazole) for vanadium redox flow battery application (VRFB).). However, they do not disclose the crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene being formed using a crosslinking reagent derived from bisphenol-A (BA) or bisphenol-AF (BAF) or wherein the crosslinking reagent further comprises a quaternary phosphonium salt.
However, the use of BA or BAF in addition to the quaternary phosphonium salt in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Bülbül) does not change the end product.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bülbül et al. disclose the membrane according to claim 1, wherein a nucleophile is used as a crosslinking reagent wherein the nucleophile comprises a functional group, being one or more of: phosphonic acid and sulfonic acid (Section 2.3 discloses for understanding the impact of the polymer blend ratio on the cross-linking and stability, PWN and F6PBI were mixed in four different weight ratios: PWN/F6PBI = 9/1, 7/3, 5/5 and 1/9 wherein PWN stands for the highly phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) and F6PBI stands for poly(benzimidazole).)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasov et al. (J. Power Sources, 343, (2017), 364-372) and further in view of Stokes et al. (US 2015/0329692 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Atanasov et al. teach the membrane according to claim 1. However, they do not that the membrane is fabric-reinforced or fiber-reinforced in an electrochemical cell at a temperature of 0 to 380°C.
Stokes et al. teach a membrane (Abstract discloses a functionalized microporous, mesoporous, or nanoporous membrane, material, textile, composite, laminate, or the like.) comprising pentafluorostyrene (Claim 1 discloses the membrane can have a functional polymer attached to the surface or attached to an internal fibrillar structure of the membrane. Further, claim 7 discloses the polymer can comprise perfluorostyrene.) that is fabric-reinforced or fiber-reinforced in an electrochemical cell at a temperature of 0 to 380°C (Paragraph 0039 discloses the membrane can be used in an electrochemical cell operating at 45°C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atanasov with Stokes in order to prevent clogged pores and improve diffusion behavior.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bülbül et al. (J. Membrane Science, 570-571 (2019), 194-203) and further in view of Stokes et al. (US 2015/0329692 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bülbül et al. teach the membrane according to claim 1. However, they do not that the membrane is fabric-reinforced or fiber-reinforced in an electrochemical cell at a temperature of 0 to 380°C.
Stokes et al. teach a membrane (Abstract discloses a functionalized microporous, mesoporous, or nanoporous membrane, material, textile, composite, laminate, or the like.) comprising pentafluorostyrene (Claim 1 discloses the membrane can have a functional polymer attached to the surface or attached to an internal fibrillar structure of the membrane. Further, claim 7 discloses the polymer can comprise perfluorostyrene.) that is fabric-reinforced or fiber-reinforced in an electrochemical cell at a temperature of 0 to 380°C (Paragraph 0039 discloses the membrane can be used in an electrochemical cell operating at 45°C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bülbül with Stokes in order to prevent clogged pores and improve diffusion behavior.
Claims 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes et al. (US 2015/0329692 A1) and further in view of Atanasov et al. (J. Power Sources, 343, (2017), 364-372).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Stokes et al. teach a nonwoven material comprising polypentafluorostyrene (Abstract discloses a functionalized microporous, mesoporous, or nanoporous membrane, material, textile, composite, laminate, or the like.) comprising pentafluorostyrene (Claim 1 discloses the membrane can have a functional polymer attached to the surface or attached to an internal fibrillar structure of the membrane. Further, claim 7 discloses the polymer can comprise perfluorostyrene.).
However, they do not teach wherein the pentafluorostyrene is a phosphonated pentafluorostyrene.
Atanasov et al. disclose a polyelectrolyte membrane based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS) and their performances in a fuel cell (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Atanasov in order to increase power density.
However, Atanasov do not disclose the crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene being formed using a crosslinking reagent derived from bisphenol-A (BA) or bisphenol-AF (BAF).
However, the use of BA or BAF in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Atanasov) does not change the end product.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the combination of Stokes and Atanasov et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 9. Further, Atanasov et al. teach wherein the phenyl ring (PWN) is phosphonated (Section 3.1 and Scheme 1 disclose nucleophilic substitution with a phosphonic acid group. The substitution occurs on the phenyl ring.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Atanasov in order to increase power density.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stokes and Atanasov et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 9. Further, Atanasov et al. teach wherein the phosphonation is between 1 to 100% (Abstract discloses 17-66%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Atanasov in order to increase power density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Atanasov in order to increase power density.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of Stokes and Atanasov et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 13. Atanasov et al. further discloses the material is provided in a membrane at a temperature between 260-380°C (Section 2.5 and Table 1 disclose the membranes were subjected to differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetry tests. Table 1 discloses the glass transition temperatures range from 200 to greater than 350 °C. Further, the TGA analysis was conducted a temperature past 500°C showing the membrane has a decomposition temperature range of 355-388°C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Atanasov in order to provide a membrane for a fuel cell that is capable of being used at a temperature of less than 355°C due to its high decomposition temperature.
Claims 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes et al. (US 2015/0329692 A1) and further in view of Bülbül et al. (J. Membrane Science, 570-571 (2019), 194-203).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Stokes et al. teach a nonwoven material comprising polypentafluorostyrene (Abstract discloses a functionalized microporous, mesoporous, or nanoporous membrane, material, textile, composite, laminate, or the like.) comprising pentafluorostyrene (Claim 1 discloses the membrane can have a functional polymer attached to the surface or attached to an internal fibrillar structure of the membrane. Further, claim 7 discloses the polymer can comprise perfluorostyrene.).
However, they do not teach wherein the pentafluorostyrene is a phosphonated pentafluorostyrene.
Bülbül et al. teach a membrane comprising crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (Abstract discloses synthesis and preparation of ionically cross-linked acid-base blend membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) and poly(benzimidazole) for vanadium redox flow battery application (VRFB).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Bülbül in order to increase ion-exchange capacity, conductivity, and coulombic efficiency.
However, Bülbül do not disclose the crosslinked phosphonated pentafluorostyrene being formed using a crosslinking reagent derived from bisphenol-A (BA) or bisphenol-AF (BAF).
However, the use of BA or BAF in forming the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene material is clearly a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In the present case, the fact that BA or BAF is not directly added in the prior art of record to form the phosphonated pentafluorostyrene (as shown in Bülbül) does not change the end product.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the combination of Stokes and Bülbül et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 9. Further, Bülbül et al. teach wherein the phenyl ring (PWN) is phosphonated (Section 2.1 and Figure 1 disclose nucleophilic substitution with a phosphonic acid group. The substitution occurs on the phenyl ring.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Bülbül in order to increase ion-exchange capacity, conductivity, and coulombic efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stokes and Bülbül et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 9. Further, Bülbül et al. teach wherein the phosphonation is between 1 to 100% (Section 2.2 discloses 74%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Bülbül in order to increase ion-exchange capacity, conductivity, and coulombic efficiency.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination of Stokes and Bülbül et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 9. Further, Bülbül et al. teach wherein the material further comprises an additional polymer, a lower molecular weight compound, or a mixture comprising a functional group derived from one or more: sulfonic acid and phosphonic acid (Section 2.1 and Figure 1 disclose nucleophilic substitution with a phosphonic acid group. The substitution occurs on the phenyl ring.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Bülbül in order to increase power density.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of Stokes and Bülbül et al. teach the nonwoven material of claim 13. Bülbül et al. further discloses the material is provided in a membrane at a temperature between 260-380°C (Section 4.5 and Fig. 5 disclose the membranes were subjected to thermogravimetry tests. Further, the TGA analysis was conducted at a temperature range of 30-600°C showing the membranes have a decomposition temperature around 400°C.).
While Bülbül does not specifically teach at a temperature between 260-380°C, this is merely an example of routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 IIA: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stokes with Bülbül in order to provide a membrane for a fuel cell that is capable of being used at a temperature of less than 400°C due to its high decomposition temperature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 6th, 2026