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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/6/25 and 2/25/26 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but, as indicated in the strikethroughs, all of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 27-30 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.
As to claim 1, the term “substantially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term substantially renders indefinite the membrane resistance.
As to claims 2 and 3, the term “substantially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term substantially renders indefinite the conditions.
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.
Claims 1-5, 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110791774 A to Guo et al. (Guo).
As to claims 1, 29 and 30, Guo teaches a proton exchange membrane style electrolyzer comprising a polybenzimidazole membrane mixed with phosphoric or sulfuric acid, thus a membrane the same as in the present disclosure and capable of exhibiting an acid independent membrane resistance of substantially 0.05 ohm-cm2 (as evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure); an anode comprising a ruthenium and iridium catalyst on a first side of the membrane; and a cathode comprising platinum on a second side of the membrane (Paragraphs 0043 and 0044; Figure 1; MPEP 2112).
As to claim 2, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “remains conductive in substantially dry conditions” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 3, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to operate in substantially dry conditions” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 4, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises a cathode side gas outlet (Figure 1) and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “configured to produce at least one anhydrous product gas stream” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises an anode side inlet, a first feed, and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to supply anhydrous gas to the anode” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 27, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Guo further teaches that the ruthenium can be provided as ruthenium oxide (Paragraph 0044).
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0099061 A1 to Price (Price).
As to claim 28, Guo teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Guo teaches that the anode catalyst can comprise iridium oxide and ruthenium oxide (Paragraph 0044); however, fails to specifically teach a mixed ruthenium iridium oxide. However, Price also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that in addition to a mixture of iridium and ruthenium oxides a mixed metal ruthenium iridium oxide is effective for the anode catalyst (Abstract; Paragraph 0101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the anode catalyst of Guo with a mixed metal ruthenium iridium oxide as a known equivalent as taught by Price (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 1-7, 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246373 A1 to Ludlow et al. (Ludlow) in view of US 2004/0142215 A1 to Barbir et al. (Barbir).
As to claims 1 and 30, Ludlow teaches a proton exchange membrane style electrolyzer comprising a polybenzimidazole membrane doped with phosphoric acid, thus a membrane the same as in the present disclosure and capable of exhibiting an acid independent membrane resistance of substantially 0.05 ohm-cm2 (as evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure); an anode on a first side of the membrane; and a cathode on a second side of the membrane (Paragraphs 0015-0017; Figure 1; MPEP 2112).
However, Ludlow is silent as to the specific materials for the anode and cathode. However, Barbir also discusses electrochemical hydrogen pumping and teaches that an effective anode catalyst is, for example, a combination of ruthenium and iridium, and an effective cathode catalyst is, for example, platinum (Abstract; Paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a combination of ruthenium and iridium for the anode catalyst and platinum for the cathode catalyst in the apparatus of Ludlow with the expectation of effectively forming the cell as taught by Barbir.
As to claim 2, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “remains conductive in substantially dry conditions” (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, Barbir specifically teaches that the membrane operates in a dry environments (Paragraph 0015).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to operate in substantially dry conditions” (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, Barbir specifically teaches that the membrane operates in a dry environments (Paragraph 0015).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises a cathode side gas outlet (at 180) (Paragraph 0019; Figure 1) and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “configured to produce at least one anhydrous product gas stream” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises an anode side inlet, first feed (at 170) (Paragraph 0021; Figure 1), and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to supply anhydrous gas to the anode” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises a cathode side inlet, a second gas feed (at 80) specifically configured to supply air or oxygen to the cathode (Paragraph 0026; Figure 1).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Ludlow further teaches that the cathode outlet comprises a valve (160), thus a capped outlet (Paragraph 0019).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ludlow and Barbir teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus is formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises a cathode side inlet, a second gas feed (at 80), and a cathode side outlet (at 180) (Paragraphs 0019 and 0026; Figure 1), and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to deliver water and hydrogen produced at the cathode” (MPEP 2114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights