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
The amendment filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1-10 are pending examination.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "either the first conductive agent and the second conductive agent" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites that a catalytic layer of the cathode includes a first conductive agent. There is no second conductive agent recited in claim 1 or any other claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "either the first adhesive and the second adhesive" in lines 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites that a catalytic layer of the cathode includes a first adhesive. There is no second adhesive recited in claim 1 or any other claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites the cathode has a material comprising a catalyst, a conductive agent and an adhesive. Claim 1 already recites these limitation as per the amendment filed on 4/9/2026
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1249361A of Li et al, published in 2000 in view of US 2022/0328856 of Radhakrishnan et al.
As to claims 1 and 8, Li teaches of a device for generating oxygen (Li, p. 1 lines 2-3), comprising:
a container having an inlet and an outlet (Li, p. 1 lines 28-35, p. 3 line 34 thru p. 4 line 17 and Fig. 1) ;
a cathode accommodated in the container and being in contact with an environmental oxygen in an atmospheric environment as well as being disposed at the inlet (Li, p. 1 lines 28-35, p. 2 lines 4-12, p. 3 line 34 thru p. 4 line 17 and Fig. 1);
an anode accommodated in the container and disposed at a position opposite to the cathode (Li, p. 1 lines 28-35 and Fig. 1);
an electrolyte accommodated in the container and immersing therein the cathode and the anode (Li, p. 2 line 37 thru p. 3 line 13 and Fig. 1);
a moisture removal unit disposed at the outlet having an outlet position (Li, p. 3 lines 25-31, p. 4 lines 12-14 and Fig. 1); and
a gas permeable element disposed at the outlet, wherein the gas permeable element is disposed at a position closer to the outlet position than the moisture removal unit (Li, p. 3 lines 25-31, p. 4 lines 14-17 and Fig. 1).
Li also teaches that the cathode comprising a catalytic layer including a (first) conductive agent, a first adhesive and a catalytic material (Li, p. 2 lines 8-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 1 and described in Li, the air cathode (1) is in contact with an atmospheric environment (i.e. air) comprising oxygen such that oxygen is used as a raw material. The anode (2) reforms oxygen within the electrochemical cell such that out of the entire housing there is an outlet (10) through which the oxygen forms. Before the outlet, there are components 8 (porous gas-liquid separation plate) and 9 (hydrophobic gas-liquid separation film, thus disclosing the general structures of a moisture removal unit (i.e. 8) and a gas permeable element (i.e. 9) of the claim limitations.
Li does not teach that the catalytic layer includes first and second catalytic particles of different average size.
Radhakrishnan teaches that electrolytic systems that utilize membrane electrode assemblies (Radhakrishnan, Abstract).
Radhakrishnan teaches that the membrane electrode assembly includes gas diffusion layers and catalytic layers to form gas diffusion electrodes that allow for high electrical conductivity and effective water and gas management (Radhakrishnan, [0067] – [0070]).
Radhakrishnan teaches that such catalytic layers include comprising an adhesive component, a first conductive agent, a first catalytic particle and a second catalytic particle of different average size, the overall structure allowing for increased electrical conductivity and improved catalytic efficiency (Radhakrishnan, [0076] – [0090]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as per Radhakrishnan so as to include catalytic particles of different average size in order to improve the catalytic efficiency/reactivity within the electrolytic cell.
As to claim 2, Li in view of Radhakrishnan teach to the system of claim 1.
Li teaches a power supply connected to the cathode and anode (Li, p. 2 lines 34-36, p. 4 lines 28-32, p. 5 lines 10-15 (also see bottom of p. 3 to top p. 4 for reactions of the foreign patent)).
As to claim 3, Li in view of Radhakrishnan teach to the system of claim 1.
Li teaches the gas permeable element (i.e. 9 of Li) consisting of PTFE (Li, p. 4 lines 14-15) and the moisture removal unit (i.e. 8 of Li) consisting of a metal material or plastic (Li, p. 4 lines 12-14).
As to claim 9, Li in view of Radhakrishnan teach to the system of claim 1.
Li teaches the cathode comprises a catalyst consisting of cobalt oxide or manganese oxide; a conductive agent consisting of activated carbon; and an adhesive consisting of PTFE (Li, p. 2 lines 8-12).
Li does not specifically teach the conductive agent is carbon black, acetylene black or carbon nanofibers, however, this would be obvious in view of Li.
Li teaches that within the air cathode the waterproof membrane comprises PTFE and acetylene black (Li, p. 2 lines 4-7). The acetylene black is used as a conductive agent which the same as how the activated carbon within the cathode catalyst composition is utilized (Li, p. 2 lines 8-9).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as per Li to substitute the activated carbon with the acetylene black in providing a predictable result for the cathode catalytic composition by the utilization of a carbon composition to improve conductivity of the composition at hand.
Alternatively, Radhakrishnan teaches catalytic support materials which increase electrical conductivity within a catalytic layer (thus being a conductive agent) include carbon black and carbon nanofibers (Radhakrishnan, [0079]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as per Radhakrishnan so as to substitute for the desired conductive agent within the catalytic layer in order to obtain the desired and predictable result of increasing the electrical conductivity within the overall electrode and specifically catalytic layer.
As to claim 10, Li in view of Radhakrishnan teach to the system of claim 1.
Li teaches the anode is selected from the group consisting of nickel (Li, p. 2 lines 12-13).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Radhakrishnan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of CN102274695A of Lv, published 2011 (machine translation provided).
As to claims 4-7, Li in view of Radhakrishnan teach to the system of claim 3.
Li teaches the moisture removal unit is made of a material from the group consisting of a first metal or a plastic.
Li does not teach the composition of the metal or plastic.
Lv teaches of membrane compositions for air purification and liquid separation (Lv, p. 1 lines 3-7).
Lv teaches that such materials include plastics of PTFE as they have excellent acid and alkali resistance (Lv, p. 1 lines 9-10).
Lv teaches that the composition of the membrane has a thickness of between 0.05 to 1 mm (50-1000 µm), a porosity of 30 to 80 % and a pore diameter of 0.1 to 10 microns (Lv, p. 2 lines 6-9), (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Lv additionally teaches that such membrane compositions can include more than one coating (Lv, p. 5 lines 11-21) to improve the hydrophobicity of the membrane.
As Li teaches a multi-component system (Li, Fig. 1), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as per Lv so as to substitute the type of hydrophobic plastic used in producing a predictable result in facilitating gas/liquid separation with a composition with excellent corrosion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are only towards the new limitations, and thus met as per the new rejection (and art) which is necessitated as per Applicant’s amendment.
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 BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights