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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 41-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 28, 30, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: The indicated claims include the language “when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein” at least once and in some case multiple times within the claim. For example, in claim 30, the limitation is used six times. The strength test is not described within the claim, and, therefore is not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, such description in the claims would not affect the patentability of the claimed invention. The Examiner recommends deleting all limitations “when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein” in the indicated claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 recites in line 2 “absolute ratio of the elastic strength of the at least one porous layer in the first axial direction of the porous layer the elastic strength of the at least one porous layer in the second axial direction of the porous layer is from about 0.45 to 2.20 and/or” in lines 2-5 and “absolute ratio of elastic strength of the at least one porous layer in the first axial direction and the second axial direction is from about 0.45 to about 2.20”. Both limitations appear to have the same subject matter. The Examiner recommends deleting the duplicated limitation.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: The indicated claim recites “the swelling ratio of the composite membrane in the first direction of the composite membrane” in lines 1-3 and 4-6, “the swelling ratio of the composite membrane in the second direction of the composite membrane” in lines 8-9. The second recitation “of the composite membrane” in each limitation is redundant and should be deleted to improve the readability of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: The indicated claims include the language “when measured in the swelling test described herein” or “when measured according to the swelling test described herein” at least once and in some case multiple times within the claim. For example, in claim 31, the limitation is used four times. The swelling test is not described within the claim, and, therefore is not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, such description in the claim would not affect the patentability of the claimed invention. The Examiner recommends deleting all limitations “when measured in the swelling test described herein” or “when measured according to the swelling test described herein” in the indicated claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites in line 4 “selected from: from about”. The Examiner recommends amending the limitation to “selected from about”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: The indicated claim includes the language “in the thickness measurement test described herein” four times. The thickness measurement test is not described within the claim, and, therefore is not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, such description in the claim would not affect the patentability of the claimed invention. The Examiner recommends deleting all limitations “in the thickness measurement test described herein” in the indicated claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 recites
“wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface; and
wherein the ion exchange material forms a layer on at least one of the first surface or the second surface of the at least one porous layer;
or wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface; and wherein an ion exchange material forms a layer on both the first surface and the second surface of the at least one porous layer”. The Examiner recommends omitting the underlined semicolons to improve the readability of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the follow informalities: Claim 39 recites “independently selected from: from about 450 MPa to about 2300 MPa at about 50% relative humidity”, which should be amended to “independently selected from about 450 MPa to about 2300 MPa at about 50% relative humidity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 40 recites “a swelling at about 100% RH and 100 ° C when measured according to the swelling test described herein described herein from about 5% to about 150 % in a third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane.” The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read “swelling from about 5% to 150% in the third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane at about 100% relative humidity and 100 ° C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 28-40 are 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 28 recites in line 4 “the absolute ratio of the modulus of elasticity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “an absolute ratio”. Claims 29-40 depend on claim 28 and are therefore also indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites in line 9 “the tensile strength test”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a tensile strength test”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites in line 2 “the absolute ratio of the elastic strength”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “an absolute ratio”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 30-40 recite “A composite electrolyte membrane” in line 1. All claims depend on claim 28 which recites “A composite electrolyte membrane”; therefore, it is unclear how many composite electrolyte membranes are claimed and the claims are all indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations as “The composite electrolyte membrane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites in lines 11-16 “the total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein, and/or wherein the total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein. For both recitations of “the total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m and/or wherein a total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites in lines 14-19 “the total porous layer elastic strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein, and/or wherein the total porous layer elastic strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m when measured according to the tensile strength test described herein”. For both recitations of “the total porous layer elastic strength”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a total porous layer elastic strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m and/or wherein a total porous layer elastic strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the first direction" in lines 1-2. Further, Claim 31 recites “the first direction “ in line 2. Further, Claim 31 recites “the swelling test” in line 3. Further, Claim 31 recites in lines 8-9 “the swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second direction”. Further, Claim 31 recites “the second direction “ in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations as follows:
Lines 1-2: “a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in a first direction";
Line 3: “a swelling test”;
Lines 8-9: “a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in a second direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites “wherein a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is equal or less than about 6 % , or about 7 %, at about 100 % relative humidity at 100 0C, wherein the swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is about 7 %, or about 5 %, or about 2 % at 100 % relative humidity at about 100 0C”. Since the claim recites less than about 6%, about 7%, about 7%, about 5%, and about 2%, the scope of what is claimed is not clear, making the claim indefinite. The Examiner will interpret the claim as any value less than 7% meets the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites “the total area of the composite electrolyte membrane” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a total area of the composite electrolyte membrane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “the total volume” in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a total volume”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “a total content of microporous polymer structure” in lines 2-3 and “a total microporous polymer content” in line 5. It is unclear if both limitations reference the same “content” or if different contents are claimed; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a total microporous polymer content” in line 5 as “the total content of microporous polymer structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “the composite electrolyte membrane has a thickness” in line 7 and in line 10. It is unclear if both limitations reference the same composite electrolyte “thickness” or if different thicknesses are claimed; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the thicknesses reference the same thickness and line 10 as “the composite electrolyte membrane thickness is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “the at least one porous layer has a thickness of” in lines 12 and 14-15. It is unclear if both limitations reference the same porous layer “thickness” or if different thicknesses are claimed; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the thicknesses reference the same thickness and lines 14-15 as “the at least one porous layer thickness is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “the thickness measurement test” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a thickness measurement test”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 recites “an ion exchange material” in line 4 and 8. Claim 36 depends on claim 28, which also recites “an ion exchange material”. Therefore, it is unclear if a second ion exchange material is claimed, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted both limitations as “the ion exchange material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 recites in lines 2-4 “a modulus of elasticity in the first axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane and a modulus of elasticity in the second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane”. Claim 39 depend on claim 28, which recites essentially the same limitation in lines 6-8. Therefore, it is unclear if additional moduli are claimed or if the same moduli are recited. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the modulus of elasticity in the first axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane and the modulus of elasticity in the second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane”.
Claim 40 recites “the swelling test” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpretated the limitation as “a swelling test”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites “a third axial direction” in line 2 and again in line 6. It is unclear if the second reference to “a third axial direction” is the same as the first recitation, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation in line 6 as “the third axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31-38 and 40 recite the phrase “optionally” at least once. The phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Specifically,
Claim 31, both “optionally” is used for multiple claim limitations. It is unclear what is required for the claimed invention, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 31 such any of the following limitations meet the requirements of the claim:
wherein a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in a first direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is up to about 6 % at about 100 % relative humidity at 100 0C,
wherein the swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the first direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is about 5.2 % at 100 % relative humidity at about 100 0C,
wherein a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is equal or less than about 7 % at about 100 % relative humidity at 100 0C.
Clarification is required.
Claim 32 requires wherein the microporous polymer structure of the at least one porous layer comprises a fluorinated polymer and recites optionally materials for the fluorinated polymer, which makes it unclear if the recited materials are required, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 32 such that any fluorinated polymer meets the claim requirements.
Clarification is required.
Claim 33 requires wherein the fluorinated polymer is perfluorinated expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and recites optionally the content of the microporous polymer structure, which makes it unclear if the recited content is required, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 33 such that any perfluorinated expanded polytetrafluoroethylene meets the claim requirements.
Clarification is required.
Claim 34 requires wherein the microporous polymer structure of the at least one porous layer comprises a hydrocarbon polymer and recites optionally materials that are the hydrocarbon polymer, which makes it unclear if one of the recited materials are required, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 34 such that any hydrocarbon polymer meets the claim requirements.
Clarification is required.
Claim 35, both “optionally” and “and/or” is used for multiple claim limitations, making it unclear what is required for the claim, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered that if any of the following limitations are met, the requirements of the claim are met:
the composite electrolyte membrane has a total content of microporous polymer structure from about 15 vol % to about 70 vol % based on a total volume of the composite electrolyte membrane and/or the composite electrolyte membrane has the total content of microporous polymer structure of about 42 vol % based on the total volume of the composite electrolyte membrane; and/or
the composite electrolyte membrane has a thickness from about 10 µm to about 115 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C, and/or the composite electrolyte membrane thickness is about 40 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C; and/or
the at least one porous layer has a thickness from about 0.1 µm to about 230 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C, and/or wherein the at least one porous layer thickness is about 85 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C.
Clarification is required.
Claim 36 requires wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface and wherein the ion exchange material forms a layer on at least one of the first surface or the second surface of the at least one porous layer;
or wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface and wherein an ion exchange material forms a layer on both the first surface and the second surface of the at least one porous layer. Further, the claim optionally requires the ion exchange materials as described in the two options above are same or different, making it unclear what is required for the claim, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered any limitations beyond the first recitation of “optionally” to not be required limitations.
Clarification is required.
Claim 37 requires wherein the ion exchange material comprises at least one ionomer and recites optional limitations requiring the number of ionomers, a proton conducting polymer, and the materials of the proton conducting polymer, making it unclear what is required for the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered any limitations meet the requirements of the claim.
Clarification is required.
Claim 38 requires the at least one ionomer has a density not lower than about 1.9 g/cc at 0% relative humidity at 25°C;
and/or the at least one ionomer has a total equivalent weight (EW) from about 500 g/eq to about 2000 g/eq. Further, the claim optionally requires specific equivalent weights, making it unclear what is required for the claim, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered any limitations meet the requirements of the claim.
Clarification is required.
Claim 40 recites wherein the composite electrolyte membrane preferentially swells in a third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane,
optionally wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has a swelling from about 5% to 150% in the third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane at about 100% relative humidity and 100 ° C. It is unclear if either limitations meets the requirements for the claim or if the first limitation is required; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered either limitation to meet the requirements of the claim.
Clarification 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.
Claim(s) 28-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. [US20140370404A1, as provided on the IDS dated 6/6/2024 as EP2800194, as provided on the ISR and WO, and as provided on the IDS dated 11/6/2025], hereinafter Kato.
Regarding Claim 28, Kato discloses a composite electrolyte membrane, the composite electrolyte membrane comprising:
a) at least one porous layer comprising a microporous polymer structure [0045 and throughout]; and
b) an ion exchange material at least partially embedded within the microporous polymer structure and rendering the microporous polymer structure occlusive [0196 and throughout];
wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has a modulus of elasticity in a first axial direction and a modulus of elasticity in a second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane of at least about 450 MPa [0214-0218 and throughout, Kato discloses 1 to 1000MPa [0217], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Kato does not explicitly disclose the relative humidity as claimed; however, Kato recites the standard used for measuring the modulus of elasticity and the claimed relative humidity range is considered a normal indoor range of relative humidity. Thus, in consideration of these factors and the overlap in the claimed MOE range with the prior art, the prior art applies.]
wherein the at least one porous layer has an elastic strength in the first axial direction and an elastic strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer of at least about 30 N/m [0256 and throughout; Kato discloses a high breaking strength of greater than 300 kgf/cm2. The claimed units are N/m, which generally indicates stiffness and not strength. Further, the claimed strength in N/m would be expected to change with thickness of the porous elastic layer; thus, the claimed strength can be increased by merely increasing the thickness. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the elastic modulus of the membrane is related to the elastic strength of the layers. Since Kato discloses the claimed structure with an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range and a high strength, it would be expected that the elastic strength of the porous layer meets the claimed elastic strength. Further, Kato discloses the claimed structure, and when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.];
wherein an absolute ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the composite electrolyte membrane in the first axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane and the modulus of elasticity of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is from about 0.45 to about 2.20 (See claim objection and 112(b) rejections above) [0214 and throughout, Table 1 provides the MD and TD elastic modules for the reinforcing material, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. It would be expected that the composite electrolyte membrane would have the same or merely close ratios as the reinforcing material. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, it would be expected that since Kato discloses the claimed structure and an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range, the mechanical properties related to the absolute ratio of the modulus of elasticity in the first and second axial directions would overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies.].
Regarding Claim 29, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane of claim 28, wherein:
an absolute ratio of the elastic strength of the at least one porous layer in the first axial direction of the porous layer and the elastic strength of the at least one porous layer in the second axial direction of the porous layer is from about 0.45 to about 2.20 [0214 and throughout, Table 1 provides the MD and TD elastic modules for the reinforcing material, which reads on the at least one porous layer, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, it would be expected that since Kato discloses the claimed structure and an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range, the mechanical properties related to the absolute ratio of the modulus of elasticity in the first and second axial directions would overlap the claimed range. When the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies.] and/or
the absolute ratio of modulus of elasticity of the composite electrolyte membrane in the first axial direction and the second axial direction is from about 0.45 to about 2.10 (see claim objection and 112(b) rejections above) [0214 and throughout, Table 1 provides the MD and TD elastic modules for the reinforcing material, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. It would be expected that the composite electrolyte membrane would have the same or merely close ratios as the reinforcing material. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, it would be expected that since Kato discloses the claimed structure and an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range, the mechanical properties related to the absolute ratio of the modulus of elasticity in the first and second axial directions would overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies.].
Regarding Claim 30, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein:
1) the composite electrolyte membrane has an ultimate tensile strength in the first axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane of at least about 55 MPa and/or wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has an ultimate tensile strength in the second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane of at least about 60 MPa [0256 and throughout; Kato discloses a high breaking strength of greater than 300 kgf/cm2. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the elastic modulus of the membrane is related to the ultimate tensile strength in each direction. Since Kato discloses the claimed structure with an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range and a high strength, it would be expected that the ultimate tensile strength in the first and/or second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane meets the claimed elastic strengths. Further, Kato discloses the claimed structure, and when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.]; and/or
2) a total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m and/or wherein a total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 800 N/m [Kato 256 and throughout; Kato discloses a high breaking strength of greater than 300 kgf/cm2. The claimed units are N/m, which generally indicates stiffness and not strength. Further, the claimed strength in N/m would be expected to change with thickness of the porous layer; thus, the claimed strength can be increased by merely increasing the thickness. Since Kato discloses the claimed structure with an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range and a high strength, it would be expected that the strength of the porous layer meets the claimed total porous layer ultimate web tensile strength in the first and second axial directions. Further, Kato discloses the claimed structure, and when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.]; and/or
3) a total porous layer elastic strength in the first axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m and/or wherein a total porous layer elastic strength in the second axial direction of the porous layer is of at least about 30 N/m (see 112b rejections) [Kato 256 and throughout; Kato discloses a high breaking strength of greater than 300 kgf/cm2. The claimed units are N/m, which generally indicates stiffness and not strength. Further, the claimed strength in N/m would be expected to change with thickness of the porous layer; thus, the claimed strength can be increased by merely increasing the thickness or number of layers. Since Kato discloses the claimed structure with an elastic modulus overlapping the claimed range and a high strength, it would be expected that the elastic strength of the porous layer meets the claimed elastic strength. Further, Kato discloses the claimed structure, and when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.].
Regarding Claim 31, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28,
wherein a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in a first direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is up to about 6 % at about 100 % relative humidity at 100 0C, and/or
wherein the swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the first direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is about 5.2 % at 100 % relative humidity at about 100 0C, and/or
wherein a swelling ratio of the composite electrolyte membrane in the second direction of the composite electrolyte membrane is equal or less than about 7 % at about 100 % relative humidity at 100 0C (see claim objections and 112b rejections) [Kato 0124-0126, 0161 Kato discloses the claimed structure of claim 28 and further discloses methods for controlling the swelling. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same swelling properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.].
Regarding Claim 32, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the microporous polymer structure of the at least one porous layer comprises a fluorinated polymer [Kato 0195 and throughout],
optionally wherein at least one of: the fluorinated polymer is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [Kato 0195] and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) [Kato 0195] (see 112b rejections).
Regarding Claim 33, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 32, wherein the fluorinated polymer is perfluorinated expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) [Kato 0195] (see 112b rejections).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the microporous polymer structure of the at least one porous layer comprises a hydrocarbon polymer [Kato 0228-0254 and throughout],
optionally wherein the hydrocarbon polymer comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, or mixtures thereof (see 112b rejections) [Kato 0228-0254 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 35, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein (see claim objections and 112b rejections):
the composite electrolyte membrane has a thickness from about 10 µm to about 115 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C, and/or the composite electrolyte membrane thickness is about 40 µm when measured at 50 % relative humidity at 25°C [Kato 0224, Table 1, Kato discloses 0.1 um to 50 um, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Table 1 provides examples anticipating the claimed range.]
Regarding Claim 36, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface and
wherein the ion exchange material forms a layer on at least one of the first surface or the second surface of the at least one porous layer [Kato 0265, 0330-0332, example 1 and others, Kato discloses impregnating the ion exchange material on a first surface and a second surface, which meets the claim limitation.];
or wherein the at least one porous layer has a first surface and a second surface and wherein an ion exchange material forms a layer on both the first surface and the second surface of the at least one porous layer Kato 0265, 0330-0332, example 1 and others, Kato discloses impregnating the ion exchange material on a first surface and a second surface, which meets the claim limitation.];
optionally wherein the ion exchange material of the layer of ion exchange material formed on the first surface of the at least one porous layer is different from the ion exchange material of the layer of ion exchange material formed on the second surface of the at least one porous layer; or wherein the ion exchange material of the layer of ion exchange material formed on the first surface of the at least one porous layer is the same as the ion exchange material of the layer of ion exchange material formed on the second surface of the at least one porous layer [Kato 0265, Kato discloses using ion exchange materials of different EWs and function groups can improve performance. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Kato is, therefore, the ion exchange material can be the same or different, which meets both limitations.](see claim objections and 112b rejections).
Regarding Claim 37, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the ion exchange material comprises at least one ionomer[Kato 0064-0065, 0105-0123 and throughout],
optionally wherein at least one of: the ion exchange material comprises at least two ionomers the at least one ionomer comprises a proton conducting polymer [Kato 0064-0065, 0105-0123 and throughout],
optionally wherein one of:
the proton conducting polymer comprises hydrocarbon ionomer [Kato 0064-0065, 0105-0123 and throughout];
the proton conducting polymer comprises perfluorinated ionomer [Kato 0064-0065, 0105-0123 and throughout];
the proton conducting polymer comprises perfluorosulfonic acid (see 112b rejection) [Kato 0064-0065, 0105-0123 and throughout] .
Regarding Claim 38, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 37, wherein:
the at least one ionomer has a total equivalent weight (EW) from about 500 g/eq to about 2000 g/eq [Kato 0129, Kato discloses 300 to 1300 g/eq, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.],
optionally wherein the ion exchange material has an equivalent weight of about 900 g/eq [Kato 0129, Kato discloses 300 to 1300 g/eq, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.] (see 112b rejections).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has the modulus of elasticity in the first axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane and the modulus of elasticity in the second axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane independently selected from about 450 MPa to about 2300 MPa at about 50 % relative humidity (see claim objections and 112b rejections) [Kato 0214, The skilled artisan would expect the MOE of the composite membrane to be similar to or the same as the MOE of the porous layer. Kato does not explicitly disclose the relative humidity as claimed; however, Kato recites the standard used for measuring the modulus of elasticity and the claimed relative humidity range is considered a normal indoor range of relative humidity. Therefore, Kato’s MOE of 1000 MPa or lower either overlaps and obviates or would be considered merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or is “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same mechanical properties. Thus, the prior art applies.].
Regarding Claim 40, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28, wherein the composite electrolyte membrane preferentially swells in a third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane,
optionally (and/or) wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has a swelling from about 5% to 150% in the third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane at about 100% relative humidity and 100 ° C (see claim objections and 112b rejections) [Kato 0124-0126, 0161 Kato discloses the claimed structure of claim 28 and further discloses methods for controlling the swelling. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kato’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same swelling properties. Thus, the prior art applies to the claim limitation.].
Alternative rejection of claim 31:
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 28 in further view of Lloyd et al. [WO201301299A1, as provided on the IDS dated 6/6/2024], hereinafter Lloyd.
Regarding claim 31, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane of 28 as provided in claims 28 and 31 above. Lloyd discloses a composite electrolyte membrane with a microporous ePTFE layer and an ion exchange material at least partially embedded within the microporous structure [Lloyd pgs. 5-6 and throughout], which is considered analogous to the structure of claim 28. Lloyd discloses swelling less than 6% as required by claim 31 [Lloyd pgs. 19-20 and throughout, Fig. 1]. Further Lloyd demonstrates that the amount of swelling is related to membrane thickness (membranes tested were 1.515 mil to 7.745 mil or 38.5 µm to 194 µm). Per Fig. 1, the thinner membrane swelled 2% and the thicker membrane swelled 5.35, both of which anticipate the claimed range of 6%. Lloyd’s test was conducted at 50% RH. Given that Lloyd discloses the same structure as the claimed structure of claim 28 and the overlap of Lloyd’s range with the claimed range, it would be expected by the skilled artisan that Lloyd’s range at 100% relative humidity at 100 ° C would either overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Lloyd’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same swelling properties. Thus, the prior art applies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Lloyd’s teaching to Kato’s composite electrolyte layer with the predictable result of a composite electrolyte membrane with resistance to swelling of the composite electrolyte membrane [Lloyd pg. 19, Kato 0124-0126, 0161].
Alternative rejection of claims 31 and 40:
Claim(s) 31 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 28 in further view of Kim et al. [US20210242481A1, as provided on the IDS dated 11/6/2025], hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 31, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane of 28 as provided in claims 28 and 31 above. Kim discloses a composite electrolyte membrane with a microporous ePTFE layer and an ion exchange material at least partially embedded within the microporous structure [Kim 0066-0068 and throughout], which is considered analogous to the structure of claim 28. Kim discloses swelling less than 6% as required by claim 31 [Kim 0020, 0147 Kim discloses less than 2%, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 6% in the first direction and 7% or less in the second direction (see 112b rejection). Kim’s test was not conducted at 100 % relative humidity and 100 ° C as required by the claim, however, given that Kim discloses the same structure as the claimed structure of claim 28 and the overlap of Kim’s range with the claimed range, it would be expected by the skilled artisan that Kim’s range at 100% relative humidity at 100 ° C would either overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kim’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same swelling properties. Thus, the prior art applies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kim’s teaching to Kato’s composite electrolyte layer with the predictable result of a composite electrolyte membrane with resistance to swelling of the composite electrolyte membrane [Kim 0020 and throughout, Kato 0124-0126, 0161].
Regarding Claim 40, modified Kato discloses the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 28 as provided in claims 28 and 40 above. Kim discloses wherein the composite electrolyte membrane preferentially swells in a third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane [Kim 0147, thickness swell ratio of examples 1 and 2 is greater than the MD length and TD length swelling ratios],
optionally (and/or) (see claim objections and 112b rejections) wherein the composite electrolyte membrane has a swelling from about 5% to 150% in the third axial direction of the composite electrolyte membrane at about 100% relative humidity and 100 ° C [Kim 0147, Kim discloses example 1 is 6% and example 2 is 24%. (see claim objections and 112b rejections) Kim’s test was not conducted at 100 % relative humidity and 100 ° C as required by the claim, however, given that Kim discloses the same structure as the claimed structure of claim 28 and the overlap of Kim’s range with the claimed range, it would be expected by the skilled artisan that Kim’s range at 100% relative humidity at 100 ° C would either overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are assumed to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect that Kim’s composite electrolyte membrane with the same structure as the claimed structure would have the same swelling properties. Thus, the prior art applies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kim’s teaching to Kato’s composite electrolyte layer with the predictable result of a composite electrolyte membrane with resistance to swelling of the composite electrolyte membrane [Kim 0020 and throughout, Kato 0124-0126, 0161].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazacos et al [US20080292964A1], Kazacos discloses a perfluorinated composite electrolyte membrane 50 µm thick with minimal swelling, 1032 g/eq EW, 37 MPa tensile strength [Kazacos 0020 and throughout], which is relevant to at least claims 28 (elastic strength), 31 (swelling ratio), 32 (fluorinated polymer, PTFE), 35 (thickness), 37/38 (total equivalent weight of ionomer) and 40 (swelling).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724