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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3 June 2026 fails 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 the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, no copy of the CN Office Action was provided, and no translations of the NPL or CN patent document were provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 17 June 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 27 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110791774 A to Guo et al. (Guo) in view of US 2020/0099061 A1 to Price (Price).
As to claims 1, 27, 28, 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 mixture of ruthenium oxide and iridium oxide 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).
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 that a mixed metal ruthenium iridium oxide, thus rendering obvious IrRuO2, is a known equivalent to a mixture of RuO2 and IrO2, and thus obvious to substitute and or combine the IrRuO2 for/with the RuO2 and IrO2 (MPEP 2144.06).
As to claim 2, the combination of Guo and Price 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, the combination of Guo and Price 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, the combination of Guo and Price 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, the combination of Guo and Price 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).
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2015/013776 A1 to Martens et al. (Martens).
As to claims 6, 7 and 10, the combination of Guo and Price teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Guo fails to further teach that the apparatus comprises a second gas feed configured to supply an inert gas, air or oxygen to the cathode. However, Martens also discusses the electrolysis of water and teaches that the cathode side should be closed to accumulate hydrogen and opened with an inlet and outlet to purge with inert gas to transport and collect the produced hydrogen (Claims 29 and 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the apparatus of Guo with an openable and closeable inlet, thus a capped inlet, and an openable and closeable outlet, in order to allow for the apparatus itself for accumulate hydrogen and allow for on demand purging for collection and transport as taught by Martens.
The apparatus of the combination is thus formed with the same materials, membrane, anode and cathode, and further comprises a cathode side inlet and a cathode side outlet and is thus configured so as to perform the functional language of “to deliver water and hydrogen produced at the cathode” (MPEP 2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue that the Examiner has failed to reject 28 and as those limitations were incorporated into claim 1, the claims are now not taught by the prior art. However, the Examiner did reject claim 28 in view of Price at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Office Action of 27 March 2026. The Examiner thus maintains that Price teaches the amended limitations, as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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