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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the areal weight’s units are stated to be in mg/cm2. However, an areal weight’s units would be in N/cm2 since the newton is the SI unit for weight. So “areal weight” conflates weight with mass. Thus this is objected to.
IUPAC and IUPAP call this metric “surface density” making it the official term. See IUPAC, Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, § 2.2 (2007). The Examiner suggests amending “areal weight” to “surface density.” “Areal Density” or “area density” are acceptable too even though they are not official since they are common terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
14 & 18. The areal weight’s units are stated to be in mg/cm2 . However, an areal weight’s units would be in N/cm2 since the newton is the SI unit for weight. So “areal weight” conflates weight with mass. Thus this is indefinite.
IUPAC and IUPAP call this metric “surface density” making it the official term. See IUPAC, Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, § 2.2 (2007). The Examiner suggests amending “areal weight” to “surface density.” “Areal Density” or “area density” are acceptable too even though they are not official since they are common terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 11, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al., W.O. Int’l Pub. No. 2019/160985 A1 [hereinafter Bashyam].
The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes.
11. A fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly with supported metal oxide; Bashyam title, abstract) comprising:
a support material comprising a ceramic material and iridium oxide (second composition comprising iridium oxide supported on a cerium oxide support; Bashyam abstract, p. 6 ll. 12-17),
wherein a weight fraction of iridium oxide, based on metallic iridium, with respect to the total weight of the support material, is at most 50 wt% (10-90 wt%; Bashyam p. 6 l. 29 – p. 7 l. 2), and
the support material has a weight loss of less than 3 wt%, based on the weight fraction of the iridium oxide on exposure of the support material to a 3.3 vol% hydrogen stream in argon at a temperature of 80°C for 12 hours (Applicant’s specification describes how the reduction stability of the iridium oxide is achieved by thermal conditioning at more than 400°C, since Bashyam teaches heat-treatment at 400-800°C Bashyam’s iridium oxide would also have the claimed reduction stability; Bashyam p. 7 ll. 17-30, App. Spec. [0017]).
13. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11, wherein the iridium oxide is present in a mixture or alloy with other metal oxides, and/or the weight fraction of iridium oxide, based on metallic iridium, with respect to the total weight of the support material, is at most 35 wt%, or at most 25 wt% (10-90 wt%). Bashyam p. 6 l. 29 – p. 7 l. 2.
19. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 12, wherein the polymeric binder is selected from fluorinated polymers and is polytetrafluorethylene (Nafion; Bashyam p. 10 ll. 9-19), and/or the anode and/or the barrier layer are free from carbon and carbon-containing compounds (carbides or electrically conductive metal oxides may be used instead of carbon; Bashyam p. 8 ll. 18-23).
20. A fuel cell comprising the fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11 (fuel cells comprising the improved electrode). Bashyam p. 1 ll. 3-6.
Claims 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam as applied to claim 11 previously, and further in view of Takeguchi et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0017594 A1 [hereinafter Takeguchi].
12. The following references teach the claim.
I. Bashyam
The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11, wherein the support material is present in an anode of the fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly and the anode further comprises at least one ionomer and a hydrogen oxidation catalyst, the hydrogen oxidation catalyst comprising … platinum and/or a platinum alloy which are disposed on [a] support material, and/or the support material is present in a barrier layer disposed between an anode and a gas diffusion layer of the fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly, the barrier layer further comprising at least one polymeric binder (anode comprises an anode catalyst layer comprising a first catalyst composition comprising a noble metal such as platinum and an ionomer; Bashyam abstract, p. 6 ll. 9-16, p. 7 ll. 17-30, p. 9 ll. 1-7).
II. Particles on the Same Support Material - Takeguchi
Bashyam is silent on the platinum or platinum alloy being particles which are disposed on the same support material.
However, Bashyam teaches that carbon and titanium oxide are suitable support materials for the first catalyst such as platinum. Bashyam p. 8 ll. 18-23. Furthermore, Bashyam’s platinum must have some form.
Takeguchi teaches that a platinum alloy catalyst may be in particulate form supported on carbon, titanium oxide, or ceria making them all suitable substitutes. Takeguchi [0041]-[0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s platinum or platinum alloy to be particles on the same support to yield the predictable result of having a suitable form for a catalyst.
It also would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the aforementioned prior art’s cerium oxide support with Takeguchi’s titanium oxide support and place all catalysts on the titanium oxide support to yield the predictable result of having a suitable support material.
15. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11 wherein the ceramic material is a metal oxide and the metal is selected from the group consisting of titanium, niobium, tantalum, tungsten, silicon, zirconium, hafnium, tin and mixtures or alloys thereof (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 12 rejection).
16. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 12, where- in the hydrogen oxidation catalyst comprises particles (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 12 rejection) of a platinum alloy, and one or more alloy metals are selected from the group consisting of ruthenium, rhodium, nickel, copper and iridium (Pt-ruthenium alloy). Bashyam p. 7 ll. 17-30.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam in view of Takeguchi as applied to claim 12 previously, and further in view of Terazono et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0162725 A1 [hereinafter Terazono].
14. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 12 wherein the areal weight of iridium oxide, based on metallic iridium, in the barrier layer and/or the anode is at most 0.05 mgir/cm2 or less than 0.03 mgir/cm2. Bashyam is silent on this.
However, Bashyam must have some areal density.
Terazono teaches that an areal density of 0.01-0.09 mg/cm2 of iridium oxide is a suitable areal density which improves power generation performance in low to high humidity, prevents deterioration even when fuel becomes deficient, and balances cost. Terazono [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s areal density to be Terazono’s 0.01-0.09 mg/cm2 of iridium oxide to improve power generation performance in low to high humidity, prevent deterioration even when fuel becomes deficient, and/or balance cost.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam as applied to claim 11 previously, and further in view of Terazono.
17. The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11 wherein a weight ratio of iridium oxide in the support material to platinum in the anode, each based on metallic iridium and on metallic platinum, respectively, is less than or equal to 2:1. Bashyam is silent on this.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Terazono teaches that the iridium oxide areal density is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the power generation performance and cost. Terazono [0037]. Terazono also teaches that the platinum or platinum alloy mass% is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the sufficiently carry out a reaction with hydrogen, effective reaction area, and cost. Terazono [0025]-[0026]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the weights of both iridium oxide and platinum (alloy) would also achieve these recognized results since weight is included in both the areal density and platinum (alloy) mass%, hence making the ratio of the two weights a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely experimented with the variable and determined the optimum or workable range to be inclusive of the claimed range/value(s).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam as applied to claim 11 previously, and further in view of Hirai et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0380732 A1 [hereinafter Hirai].
18. The following references teach the claim.
I. Bashyam
The fuel cell membrane-electrode assembly as claimed in claim 11, wherein an areal weight of platinum in the anode is at most 0.1 mgPt/cm2 (0.01-0.8 mg Pt/cm2). Bashyam p. 9 ll. 1-7.
II. Core-Shell - Hirai
Bashyam is silent on the support material has a core-shell structure.
However, the support material must have some structure.
Hirai teaches a core-shell structure is a suitable structure for a support. Hirai [0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s support to have a core-shell structure to yield the predictable result of having a suitable structure for a support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s latest filed arguments have been fully considered and are addressed below.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that other references use areal weight. Remarks p. 4.
The Examiner respectfully submits that these references are merely repeating an incorrect term that confounds weight and mass. IUPAC and IUPAP use “surface density” making it the official term to use. See IUPAC, Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, § 2.2 (2007). Area density is a common term making it acceptable – and technically accurate too.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Bashyam teaches a loading, which Applicant interprets as mass per unit area. Remarks pp. 5-6.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Bashyam’s “loading” is measured in terms of “wt%” which is the same unit of the claim and not mass per unit area. See Bashyam p. 6 ll. 29-30. It is apparent that although the term “loading” can refer to mass per unit area in other references, in the Bashyam reference it refers to the same metric as what is claimed in claim 11, that is wt%.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Bashyam’s example #1 exceeds the claimed 50 wt%. Remarks pp. 6-7.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Bashyam’s teachings are not limited to just one example and that Bashyam’s 10-90 wt% encompasses and therefore teaches the claimed invention.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Takeguchi does not teach “disposing platinum particles on a support material that already comprises iridium oxide and a ceramic material.” Remarks pp. 7-8.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Bashyam was cited for teaching both the iridium oxide and ceramic material. Takugchi is taught for disposing platinum particles on Bashyam’s cerium oxide.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Terazono supports iridium oxide on carbon and not on a ceramic material as claimed. Remarks p. 8.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Bashyam already teaches this and Terazono was cited for another teaching.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Hirai doesn’t address the weight fraction of iridium oxide in the support material. Remarks p. 8.
The Examiner respectfully submits Hirai was not cited for this teaching, rather Hirai was cited for the core-shell structure.
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 Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571)270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (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.
/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights