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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheysen, et. al. (CN101401235A), in view of Hailong, Tian, et. al., Energy capture from thermolytic solutions and simulated sunlight coupled with hydrogen peroxide production and wastewater remediation, Water Research, Volume 170, 1 March 2020, 115318 (1-13 within the attached PDF).
Regarding Claim 1, Gheysen teaches a fuel cell (“[p.1]. A well-known use of electrochemical cells is in the form of a stack for a fuel cell (a battery that converts fuel and oxidant into electrical energy). In such a battery, a reactant or a reducing fluid such as hydrogen or methanol is supplied to the anode, and an oxidant such as oxygen or air is supplied to the cathode. The reducing fluid electrochemically reacts on the surface of the anode to produce hydrogen ions and electrons. The electrons are conducted to an external load circuit and then returned to the cathode, while hydrogen ions are transferred through the electrolyte to the cathode where they react with the oxidant and electrons to produce water and release thermal energy. Fuel cells are typically formed by stacking or assembling of membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs), each of which includes a PEM, an anode electrode, and a cathode electrode, and other optional components.”) comprising: an anode (see prior) at which hydrogen ions and electrons are generated as a result of oxidation reaction of hydrogen gas supplied to the anode; a cathode (see prior quotation at p.1) at which water is generated as a result of reduction reaction of oxygen gas supplied to the cathode (“an oxidant such as oxygen or air is supplied to the cathode”); and a polymer electrolyte membrane (“[p.1] ion exchange polymer in the membrane” ; see also the “electrolyte” of the PEM discussed prior) disposed between the anode and the cathode, the polymer electrolyte membrane comprising an electrolyte composition (see above), wherein the polymer electrolyte membrane is configured to transfer the hydrogen ions generated at the anode to the cathode (“hydrogen ions are transferred through the electrolyte to the cathode”). Gheysen at p.1-2.
Gheysen teaches “[p.1.] The long-term stability of PEM is very important for fuel cells. For example, the life expectancy of a fixed fuel cell application is 40,000 hours of operation. The typical membranes found in the art will degrade over time by decomposition and subsequent dissolution of the ion exchange polymer in the membrane, thereby compromising membrane life and performance. Although not wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that such degradation is the result of (at least in part) the ion exchange polymer of the membrane and/or the reaction of the electrode with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) radicals, which are free radicals. It is produced in the operation of fuel cells. Fluoropolymer membranes are generally considered to be more stable in fuel cell operation than non-fluorinated hydrocarbon membranes, but even perfluorinated ion exchange polymers degrade in use. Degradation of perfluorinated ion exchange polymers is also believed to be the result of the reaction of the polymer with hydrogen peroxide.” This necessitates “[p.2] a component capable of acting as a hydrogen peroxide scavenger which prevents the chemical chemistry of PEM and hydrogen peroxide by decomposing hydrogen peroxide into 2H2O and O2 reaction.” As applied in Gheysen, this consists of a metal oxide, a stabilizer, and at least one catalyst. Id. These together teach “wherein the electrolyte composition comprises: an ion conductor; and a radical scavenger,” in the form of the fluoropolymer membrane and the hydrogen peroxide radical scavenger. Id. However, this radical scavenger requires ruthenium and osmium catalysts.
Gheysen is silent as to “comprises at least one organic cyclic compound selected from a group comprising substituted or unsubstituted nicotinic acid, substituted or unsubstituted nicotinamide, substituted or unsubstituted ibuprofen, and substituted or unsubstituted biotin.”
Hailong teaches a hybrid fuel cell (“hybrid cell”) in which hydrogen ions and electrons are generated at the anode, and wherein water is generated as result of oxygen gas supplied to the cathode, wherein the membrane is configured to transfer the hydrogen ions generated at the anode to the cathode. Hailong at p.1-2, Fig. 1. The cell of Hailong provides the benefit of both breaking down pollutants, producing peroxide as well as capturing the radicals within an oxidation reaction, wherein “[p.4] Simultaneously, several radicals, such as ·OH and ·O2−, were produced and further oxidized the pollutants.” These pollutants include ibuprofen. Id at [p.5]. More generally, Hailong teaches that ibuprofen, when utilized within a fuel cell, may act as a radical scavenger because of the reaction which takes place during degradation. Id. Hailong indicates that this is an “Energy-Environment win-win.” Id. at [p.1].
PNG
media_image1.png
326
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Hailong.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the radical scavenger of Gheysen, such that it comprises ibuprofen (which is not specified as substituted or unsubstituted, meaning it meets “substituted or unsubstituted ibuprofen) as in Hailong, because Hailong teaches a benefit to radical removal, ibuprofen consumption, and increases in peroxide and thereby energy production, creating a win-win for energy production and pollutant removal.
Claim 1 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Hailong teaches the radical scavenger comprises substituted or unsubstituted ibuprofen. Hailong at [p.5].
Claim 3 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Gheysen teaches its ion conductor (“[p.1] Fluoropolymer [ion-exchange] membranes are generally considered to be more stable in fuel cell operation than non-fluorinated hydrocarbon membranes”) has at least one ion exchange group comprising a sulfonic acid fluoride group (“[p.2] Typical perfluorosulfonic acid ion exchange membranes commonly used in the art will degrade over time by decomposition and subsequent dissolution of the fluoropolymer, thereby compromising membrane life and performance. However, the present invention provides a film with long-term stability that targets durability of up to about 8000 hours in automotive fuel cell applications and up to about 40,000 hours in fixed fuel cell applications). Gheysen at [p.1-2].
Claim 6 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 6. Claim 6 is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Gheysen teaches its ion conductor (“Fluoropolymer [ion-exchange] membranes are generally considered to be more stable in fuel cell operation than non-fluorinated hydrocarbon membranes” ; see also “typical perfluorosulfonic acid exchange membranes”) is a fluorine-based ion conductor. Gheysen at [p.2].
Claim 7 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Gheysen teaches “The fuel cell MEA typically also includes a porous electrically conductive sheet material that is in electrical contact with each electrode and allows reactants to diffuse to the electrode and is referred to as a gas diffusion layer, a gas diffusion matrix, or a gas diffusion back material” Gheysen at [p.1]. This is a support, indicating Gheysen implicitly teaches “the polymer electrolyte membrane further comprises a porous support having a plurality of pores, and the pores are filled with the electrolyte composition,” because Gheysen also teaches “[p.6] The gas diffusion backing material comprises a porous electrically conductive sheet material in the form of a carbonaceous paper, fabric or composite structure that can optionally be treated to exhibit hydrophilic or hydrophobic behavior and to coat a gas diffusion layer on one or both surfaces. Typically, a particle layer and a binder (e.g., a fluoropolymer such as PTFE) are included. Where the catalytically active component is applied directly to the gas diffusion backing, suitable application methods such as spraying, dip coating or coating may be used. The catalytically active component can also be incorporated into a "carbon ink" (carbon black and electrolyte) used to pretreat the surface of the GDB, which is in contact with the surface of the membrane electrode. The catalytically active component can also be added to the PTFE dispersion, which is often applied to GDB to impart GDB hydrophobicity.
Where the catalytically active component is applied to the surface of the PEM by adding it to the anode or cathode electrocatalyst electrode layer of the membrane electrode assembly, the catalytically active component constitutes from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight of the total weight of the electrode, More preferably, it constitutes from about 1% by weight to about 8% by weight based on the total weight of the electrode. Such an electrode layer may be applied directly to the ion exchange membrane or, alternatively, to a gas diffusion backing, thereby forming a catalyst coated membrane (CCM) or a gas diffusion electrode (GDE), respectively. A variety of techniques for manufacturing CCM are known. Typical methods of applying an electrode layer to a gas diffusion backing or film include spraying, painting, sheet substrate coating and screen, decal, pad printing or flexographic printing,” which together indicates the material of the coating layer would infiltrate the pores of the porous support. Id
Claim 8 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheysen, in view of Hailong, further in view of Cho, et. al. (WO 2018147662 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Gheysen and Hailong are silent as to the radical scavenger (i.e., the organic cyclic compound)’s parts by mass relative to the ion conductor.
Cho teaches lead sealant film provided between a plurality of electrode leads, comprising a second layer 82 of the multilayer film, wherein the layer comprises a phenolic antioxidant, which “may be used as a radical scavenger,” and a secondary antioxidant comprising a phosphite type antioxidant. Cho at [p.6.]. Cho teaches that “The antioxidant may include a phenolic antioxidant and may include 0.1 to 0.4 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the second compound contained in the second layer 82. If the amount of the antioxidant is more than 0.4 parts by weight, the adhesive strength may be lowered.” Id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the polymer electrolyte membrane of Gheysen, wherein the organic cyclic compound is included in the polymer electrolyte membrane in an amount of 0.1 to 0.4 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the ion conductor, because Cho teaches this range improves adhesive strength within the layer when utilizing a phenolic radical scavenger, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 5 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong, further in view of Cho.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheysen, in view of Hailong, further in view of Lee, et. al. (KR20150135116A).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is obvious over modified Gheysen.
Gheysen teaches a porous support, and a polymer electrolyte membrane, but is silent as to the apparent (here, the Office notes the word apparent in context functions here as the equivalent of “about” or “approximate”) volume of the porous support to a total volume of the polymer electrolyte membrane is 5 to 90%.
Lee teaches a composite electrolyte membrane, wherein the porous support provides a benefit to high chemical stability because it “occupies 5 to 80% of the total volume of the composite electrolyte membrane.” Lee at p.8. Lee further described chemical stability is improved compared to the pure membrane.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the polymer electrolyte membrane of Gheysen to comprise a ratio of an apparent volume of the porous support to a total volume of the polymer electrolyte membrane is 5 to 80%, because Lee teaches a benefit to chemical stability, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 10 is obvious over Gheysen, in view of Hailong, further in view of Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments / Remarks Filed in an Amendment filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the newly amended terms relating to a fuel cell. Specifically, the previous rejection relied upon the combination of Umeda with Ito, which while they recited different electrochemical structures both pertained to a polymer electrolyte membrane. The new terms “A fuel cell comprising: an anode at which hydrogen ions and electrons are generated as a result of oxidation reaction of hydrogen gas supplied to the anode; a cathode at which water is generated as a result of reduction reaction of oxygen gas supplied to the cathode . . . . disposed between the anode and the cathode, the polymer electrolyte membrane . . . wherein the polymer electrolyte membrane is configured to transfer the hydrogen ions generated at the anode to the cathode,” now recite within the preamble a fuel cell, rendering the reliance upon Ito no longer proper.
In view of these amended limitations, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Gheysen, et. al. (CN101401235A), and Hailong, et. al., Energy capture from thermolytic solutions and simulated sunlight coupled with hydrogen peroxide production and wastewater remediation, Water Research, Volume 170, 1 March 2020, 115318 (1-13 within the attached PDF).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights