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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1 and 5-19 are pending with claims 17-19 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 5-16 are pending examination.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The 112 rejections to the various claims as set forth in the action dated 1/16/2026 are withdrawn due amendment/cancelation of the claims.
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 8-10 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.
Claims 8-10 state that the plate (anode, cathode or bipolar plate) comprise a pocket flow field having no machined pattern for directing fluid flow. It is not clear how the pocket flow field is not a pattern for directing flow. In fact, as per the specification, the pocket flow path is exactly a flow path, thus being a pattern for fluid flow.
It seems that Applicant desires to claim a pocket flow path that does not comprise a serpentine pattern or other pattern variation. It is not clear how this can be claimed in light of the specification as Applicant has stated in [0028] of the printed publication that the pocket flow field is a type of pattern.
[0028] “The flow field (either pocket or another specific pattern) and/or the outlet may be machined on the anode's plate.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrondo et al, “Degradation of anion exchange membranes used for hydrogen generation by ultrapure water electrolysis” RSC Advances, 2014, 4, 9875-9879 in view of US 12,030,981 of Kohl et al.
As to claim 1, Parrondo teaches of a water electrolyzer (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph) comprising:
an anode comprising a quantity of anode catalyst (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph);
a cathode comprising a quantity of cathode catalyst (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph); and
an anion exchange membrane interposed between said anode and said cathode (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph);
wherein the water electrolyzer utilizes purified water with no electrolyte (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph); and
wherein water is only introduced into the system in the anode chamber, thus the cathode is a “dry cathode” (Parrondo, p. 9876, right column, 2nd full paragraph and SI p. 8, 2nd paragraph).
As stated within Parrondo, ultrapure DI water was electrolyzed in an electrolysis apparatus that includes an anode, cathode and anion exchange membrane between the electrodes. The anode and cathode each have a quantity of catalyst to facilitates oxygen and hydrogen generation.
Parrondo does not teach the specific claimed composition of the anion exchange membrane.
Kohl teaches of an anion-exchange membrane for use in fuel cells and electrolyzer (Kohl, col 4 lines 4-8 and col 17 lines 5-14).
Kohl teaches that short-comings of typical anion-exchange membranes, including those utilize sulfones include stability in the alkaline solutions such that development of a multiblock copolymer comprising one or more norbornene-based hydrophilic block and one or more Norborne-based or alkene-based hydrophobic block exhibit the desired improved chemical stability and physical characteristics of the anion-exchange membrane (Kohl, col 2 lines 23-43, col 9 lines 46-54).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo as per Kohl so as to utilize the desired anion-exchange membrane within the electrolyzer system in order to improve the membrane stability and provide the desired physical characteristics of the membrane within the system.
As to claim 5, Parrondo in view of Kohl teaches to the system of claim 1.
Parrondo additionally teaches the anode catalyst comprises a metal comprising lead, thus comprising a metal that is other than Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Re, Os, Ir, Pt and Au (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph).
Claims 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrondo in view of Kohl as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 2015/0349368 of Arges et al.
As an alternative to claim 5, even if Parrondo does not specifically teach the entirety of the anode catalyst composition comprises a metal other than Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Re, Os, Ir, Pt and Au, this would be obvious in view of Arges.
Arges teaches of anion exchange membrane devices including electrolyzers (Arges, Abstract).
Arges additionally teaches that known anode compositions include lead ruthenate pyrochlore (same as what is in Parrondo) as well as non-platinum based metals including copper, cobalt and nickel compositions (Table 1, oxygen electrode).
Therefore it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo as per Arges to substitute the anode composition for one comprising copper, cobalt or nickel in producing a predictable result in forming an anode for oxygen generation within the system.
As to claim 6, Parrondo in view of Kohl teaches to the system of claim 1.
Parrondo does not specifically teach the thickness of the membrane.
Arges teaches of anion exchange membrane devices including electrolyzers (Arges, Abstract).
Arges additionally teaches that membrane thicknesses are in the range of between 10 to 200 microns in order to provide sufficient thicknesses for the apparatus at hand (Arges, [0043] – [0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo as per Arges so as to utilize the desired membrane thickness in forming the electrolyzer structure.
As to claims 7 and 11-12, Parrondo teaches to the system of claim 1.
Parrondo does not teach a porous transport layer or a gas diffusion layer within the system.
Arges teaches of anion exchange membrane devices including electrolyzers (Arges, Abstract).
Arges additionally teaches that on the cathode and anode side of the membrane to utilize backing layers (i.e. a porous transport layer and a gas diffusion layer) that are chemically stable while permitting the flow of gases or liquids or gas water in and out of the cell, the backing layers comprising stainless steel (Arges, [0041] – [0042] and [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo as per Arges so as to utilize the desired porous layers to facilitate gas and/or liquid flow within the cell.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrondo in view of Kohl as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 2015/0349368 of Arges et al and US 2019/0085471 of Masel et al.
As to claims 8-9, Parrondo does not teach that the anode or cathode comprise stainless steel with a pocket flow field.
Arges teaches of anion exchange membrane devices including electrolyzers (Arges, Abstract).
Arges teach additionally teaches that the anode and cathode comprise stainless steel backing layers, thus comprising stainless steel an electrically conductive, corrosion resistant composition substrate (Arges, [0041] – [0042]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo in view of Kohl as per Arges so as to utilize the desired anode/cathode substrate in order to provide a substrate of sufficient corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity.
As modified, Parrondo in view of Kohl and Arges do not teach a pocket flow field in the electrodes.
Masel teaches of water electrolyzers utilizing an anion-exchange membrane (Masel, Abstract).
Masel additionally teaches that the anode and cathode comprise porous substrates that that have a flow channel (i.e. pocket flow field) to facilitate flow to and from the catalyst surface of the electrodes (Masel, [0056] and Fig. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo in view of Kohl and Arges as per Masel so as to utilize a pocket flow field in the electrode constructions in order to facilitate flow to and from the catalyst surfaces of the electrodes within the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrondo in view of Kohl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0349368 of Arges in view of US 2006/0068266 of Hanlon.
As to claim 10, Parrondo in view of Kohl teaches to the system of claim 1.
Parrondo in view of Kohl do not teach a bipolar plate.
Arges teaches of anion exchange membrane devices including electrolyzers (Arges, Abstract).
Arges additionally teaches that on both sides of the membrane, the system includes flow field plates to deliver the desired water and gas species to the catalyst. Arges additionally teaches that flow field plates can be used as bipolar plates in cell stack systems (Arges, [0028], [0032], [0062] and Fig. 1) as a different configuration of the membrane assembly system in producing the desired products by the apparatus at hand.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo in view of Kohl as per Arges so as to utilize flow field plates within the system in order to further facilitate transport of desired components to and from the catalyst layers on the membrane as well as bipolar plates within a multicell configuration to also facilitate transport of desired components to and from the catalyst layers on the membrane.
Parrondo in view of Kohl and Arges do not teach the flow plates comprise stainless steel.
Hanlon teaches of bipolar plates as flow field plates in electrolyzers (Hanlon, [0001]).
Hanlon additionally teaches that the flow field plates comprise stainless steel such that they also have pocket flow paths therein to facilitate fluid movement within the system (Hanlon, [0009], [0028] and Figs. 4 and 5).
As Hanlon teaches a chemical etching process, this is not a machining process of forming the flow path and thus discloses the claimed invention (Hanlon, [0020], [0030] and [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo in view of Arges as per Hanlon so as to utilize the desired composition of the flow field plates in providing a plate to facilitate fluid movement within the system.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrondo in view of Kohl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0183054 of Legzdins.
As to claims 13 and 15-16, Parrondo in view of Kohl teaches to the system of claim 1.
Parrondo teaches the metal catalyst composition is applied to the electrode by mixing the metal with a binder (the ionomer of the membrane composition) an applying it to the electrode (Parrondo, SI, p. 7).
Parrondo does not teach a solvent and an additive.
Legzdins teaches of electrolyzers including solid polymer electrolyzers (Legzdins, [0001]) such that the electrolyzer generate oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis (Legzdins, [0042] and [0053
Legzdins teaches that the catalyst compositions can be applied to the surface of the electrode by using multiple components including the metal composition, ionomer as a binder and an additive including PTFE to control the wetting characteristic of the catalyst layer. It is noted that the application of the catalyst layer includes a solvent to form the suspension for application (Legzdins, [0060], [0063], [0080]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo as per Legzdins so as to utilize the desired catalyst ink composition to allow for binding of the catalyst to the membrane and control of the wettability of the catalyst layer within the system.
As to claim 14, Parrondo in view of Kohl and Legzdins teaches to the system of claim 13.
Parrondo and Legzdins teach the binder (ionomer) is the same as that of the membrane (Parrondo, p. 9878, Materials and methods, 3rd paragraph; and Legzdins, [0060]).
Parrondo and Legzdins do not teach the specifics of the ionomer/binder composition.
Kohl teaches of an anion-exchange membrane for use in fuel cells and electrolyzer (Kohl, col 4 lines 4-8 and col 17 lines 5-14).
Kohl teaches that short-comings of typical anion-exchange membranes, including those utilize sulfones include stability in the alkaline solutions such that development of a multiblock copolymer comprising one or more norbornene-based hydrophilic block and one or more Norborne-based or alkene-based hydrophobic block exhibit the desired improved chemical stability and physical characteristics of the anion-exchange membrane (Kohl, col 2 lines 23-43, col 9 lines 46-54).
Kohl additionally teaches that the ionomers used to make the electrodes should be compatible with the catalyst and electrode fabrication and need for ion conductive adhesion layer between the electrode and membrane (Kohl, col 31 lines 19-57).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parrondo in view of Legzdins as per Kohl so as to utilize the desired anion-exchange membrane within the electrolyzer system in order to improve the membrane stability and provide the desired adhesion of the electrodes to the membrane within the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments to claim 1 are all towards the new claim limitation, thus are moot in relation to the new art utilized.
Applicant’s additional argument to claim 10 in relation to Hanlon and the pocket flow channel, this limitation is not persuasive. For one, there is an issue of the pocket flow channel not being a pattern flow channel. By Applicant’s own disclosure, the pocket flow channel is a type of pattern (see printed publication [0028]).
Additional arguments include that the chemically etched flow channel of Hanlon is a machined channel. This is incorrect. Hanlon uses a chemical etch process and specifically states that a machining process can alternatively be used, thus disclosing the distinction thereof (see Hanlon [0020] or [0030]).
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 BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights