DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 11-20 being withdrawn after consideration.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, species (a-i), claims 1-10 and 12 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Accordingly, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1,
Line 4, it is suggested to amend “the metal catalyst layer” to “the nanoscale metal catalyst layer”.
Claim 2,
Line 2, it is suggested to amend “thickness in a range from 100 nm to 100 microns thick” to “thickness in a range from 100 nm to 100 microns”.
Claim 6,
Line 2, it is suggested to amend “the nanoscale metal catalyst” to “the nanoscale metal catalyst layer”.
Claim 12,
Line 2, it is suggested to amend “one or gas inlets” to “one or more gas inlets”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudaibergenov et al. “Flow-Through Catalytic Reactors Based on Metal Nanoparticles Immobilized within Porous Polymeric Gels and Surfaces/Hollows of Polymeric Membranes” (Kudaibergenov).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, Kudaibergenov discloses flow-through catalytic reactors based on metal nanoparticles immobilized within porous polymeric gels and in the surfaces or hollows of polymeric membranes (Kudaibergenov, Title).
Kudaibergenov further discloses the catalytic reactor (i.e., the catalyst system) having metal nanoparticles (i.e., nanoscale metal catalyst) immobilized (i.e., disposed on) in the surfaces or hollows of polymeric membranes (i.e., a porous polymeric base) (Kudaibergenov, Abstract).
Given that the specification of the present invention (Specification, [0042]; Figures 1-3) distinguishes between two structural configurations of catalyst systems: (1) a monolithic catalyst system, where a catalyst system comprises a single unit; and (2) a catalyst system comprising a plurality of component catalyst systems, such as encased catalyst system, and further given that the flow-through catalytic reactor (i.e., the catalyst system) of Kudaibergenov corresponds to the structural configuration (1) rather than configuration (2), thus the flow-through catalytic reactor (i.e., the catalyst system) of Kudaibergenov would be necessarily and inherently monolithic.
Kudaibergenov further discloses the thickness of the polymeric membranes (i.e., the porous polymeric base) being 1.3 µm, which falls within the claimed range (Kudaibergenov, page 14, last paragraph).
Kudaibergenov further discloses the pore size of polymeric membranes (i.e., the porous polymeric base) being tunable, such as from 14.2-15.8 nm, which falls within the claimed range (Kudaibergenov, page 8, last second paragraph; page 10, first full paragraph).
Kudaibergenov further discloses the surface of the hollow polymeric membranes (i.e., the porous polymeric base) having adsorption of polyelectrolyte – metal nanoparticles via layer-by-layer deposition technique (i.e., a nanoscale electrolyte layer disposed on the nanoscale metal catalyst layer) (Kudaibergenov, page 12, last paragraph to page 13, first paragraph; Figure 15).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Kudaibergenov further discloses the hollow polymeric membranes (i.e., the porous polymeric base) comprising poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF), polypropylene (PP), polysulfon (PS), polyethersulfone (PES) (Kudaibergenov, page 8, 4. Flow-Through Catalytic Reactors Designed by Modification of the Surface and Hollow of Polymeric Membranes with Metal Nanoparticles, second full paragraph; page 9, first full paragraph; page 9, last paragraph to page 10, first full paragraph; page 10, last paragraph; page 12, last paragraph to page 13, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 6-7, as applied to claim 1, Kudaibergenov further discloses the metal layer comprising a transition metal, e.g., silver (Kudaibergenov, page 9, first full paragraph).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US 2013/0252132 A1) (Mei) in view of Su et al. “Nanoscale membrane electrolyte array for solid oxide fuel cells” (Su).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 10, Mei discloses a noble metal catalyst layer, a membrane electrode assembly, and method for producing noble metal catalyst layer for electrochemical cells, e.g., fuel cells (Mei, Title; [0002]-[0003]; [0087]).
Mei further discloses a catalyst system (Mei, Fig. 1), which comprises a noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., a metal catalyst layer) (Mei, Fig. 1 – “10”) with a substrate (i.e., a base) (Mei, Fig. 1 – “14”) formed on one surface of the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer), and an electrolyte membrane (i.e., an electrolyte layer) (Mei, Fig. 1 – “15”) formed on the other surface of the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) (Mei, [0012]; Fig. 1). Given that the specification of the present invention (Specification, [0042]; Figures 1-3) distinguishes between two structural configurations of catalyst systems: (1) a monolithic catalyst system, where a catalyst system comprises a single unit; and (2) a catalyst system comprising a plurality of component catalyst systems, such as encased catalyst system, and further given that the catalyst system (Mei, Fig. 1) corresponds to the structural configuration (1) rather than configuration (2), thus the catalyst system of Mei would be necessarily and inherently monolithic.
Mei further discloses the substrate (i.e., the base) being a porous substrate, e.g., a “Teflon” (i.e., PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), polymeric base) sheet (Mei, [0012]; [0063]; [0111]; [0129]; Fig. 1).
Mei further discloses the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) comprising a first noble metal layer having pore diameters in nanoscale, e.g., 5 to 80 nm (i.e., nanoscale), and a second noble metal layer having an average thickness in nanoscale e.g., 3 to 20 nm (i.e., nanoscale) (Mei, Abstract; [0019]; [0020]; Fig. 1).
Mei further discloses the noble metal element as a catalyst material to be used for the noble metal catalyst layer being platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, iridium, praseodymium, or gold (i.e., a transition metal) (Mei, [0032]).
Given that Mei discloses noble metals that overlap the presently claimed transition metals, including platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, and iridium, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use the platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, or iridium, which is both disclosed by Mei and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Mei does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte layer being a nanoscale electrolyte layer, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Su teaches nanoscale membrane electrolyte array for solid oxide fuel cells (Su, Title and Abstract).
As Su expressly teaches, a high surface area density nanoscale electrolyte membrane array is presented to increase the total power output from a nano thin film micro-solid oxide fuel cell (μ-SOFC) (Su, page 77, 1. Introduction, third paragraph).
Su and Mei are analogous art as they are both drawn to electrolyte for fuel cells.
In light of the motivation of using nanoscale electrolyte membrane disclosed by Su as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the catalyst system of Mei to use the nanoscale electrolyte membrane, in order to increase the total power output from the fuel cell in Mei, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Mei further discloses achieving a high total performance according to durability, power generation performance, and robustness which are required for an electrochemical cell such as a fuel cell by adjusting the thickness of the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) (Mei, [0027]; [0029]; [0057]; [0072]).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of the thickness of the entire noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, given that the thickness of the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) is recognized in Mei as a variable affecting a total performance according to durability, power generation performance, and robustness which are required for an electrochemical cell such as a fuel cell and may therefore be treated as a result-effective variable for routine optimization within the claimed range, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the thickness of the noble metal catalyst layer (i.e., the metal catalyst layer) of Mei, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve a high total performance according to durability, power generation performance, and robustness which are required for a fuel cell, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Su further teaches the nanoscale membrane electrolyte having a thickness of 70 nm, which falls within the claimed range (Su, Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudaibergenov et al. “Flow-Through Catalytic Reactors Based on Metal Nanoparticles Immobilized within Porous Polymeric Gels and Surfaces/Hollows of Polymeric Membranes” (Kudaibergenov) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brushett et al. “Analysis of Pt/C electrode performance in a flowing-electrolyte alkaline fuel cell” (Brushett).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Kudaibergenov does not explicitly disclose the nanoscale electrolyte layer comprises an aqueous solution of a salt of an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Brushett teaches analysis of Pt/C electrode performance in a flowing-electrolyte alkaline fuel cell (Brushett, Title and Abstract).
Brushett further teaches the aqueous alkaline electrolytes comprising potassium carbonate (K2CO3) (i.e., an aqueous solution of a salt of an alkali metal) (i.e., (Brushett, page 2562, “2.3. Fuel cell assembly and testing”, second paragraph).
As Brushett expressly teaches, under alkaline conditions, the kinetics of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) on the cathode are enhanced leading to improved fuel cell energetic efficiency and reduced need for high loadings of precious metal catalysts, i.e., platinum (Pt) (Brushett, page 2559, 1. Introduction).
Brushett further expressly teaches varying the alkaline electrolyte compositions, e.g., the carbonate (e.g., K2CO3) concentrations and carbonate species having impact on the fuel cell performance and lifetime (Brushett, page 2568, right column, last paragraph to page 2569, left column, first full paragraph).
Brushett is analogous art as it is drawn to electrolyte membrane for fuel cells.
In light of the motivation of using the aqueous alkaline electrolytes disclosed by Brushett as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aqueous alkaline electrolytes in the catalytic reactors of Kudaibergenov, in order to improve the fuel cell energetic efficiency and performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudaibergenov et al. “Flow-Through Catalytic Reactors Based on Metal Nanoparticles Immobilized within Porous Polymeric Gels and Surfaces/Hollows of Polymeric Membranes” (Kudaibergenov) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee “A novel, low-cost multifunctional layer for low-temperature polymer electrolyte fuel cells” (Lee).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Kudaibergenov does not explicitly disclose the system comprises one or gas inlets configured to expose the porous polymer to a gas comprising one or more reactants, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Lee teaches multifunctional layer for low-temperature polymer electrolyte fuel cells (Lee, Title).
Lee further teaches the fuel cell having a hydrogen inlet (i.e., gas inlet) (on the left hand side) (Lee, page 2, image above “The principles of operation of PEFCs”), where hydrogen is fed into the inlet during the operation of the fuel cell, and the hydrogen molecules (i.e., a gas comprising one or more reactants) are ionized at the catalyst-gas-membrane (e.g., polymer membrane) interface to form two H+ ions (Lee, page 2, “The principles of operation of PEFCs”, first paragraph; page 3, first full paragraph).
Lee and Kudaibergenov are analogous art as they are both drawn to using polymer membranes for fuel cells.
In light of the motivation of having the gas inlet disclosed by Lee as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the catalyst system of Kudaibergenov to have one or more gas inlets configured to expose the polymeric membranes (i.e., the porous polymeric base; porous polymer) to a gas comprising one or more reactants (e.g., hydrogen), in order to provide continuous supply of the gas for operation of a fuel cell, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIALAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/J.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732