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 .
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cave et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0240023) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0055657).
Regarding claim 7, Cave discloses an electrolysis cell (paragraph 17), comprising:
a proton-conducting electrolyte membrane (311; figure 3; paragraph 183);
an anode catalyst layer (307) laminated on one face of the electrolyte membrane
(311); and
a cathode catalyst layer (305) laminated on another face of the electrolyte
membrane (311; paragraphs 180; 183; 192);
wherein at least one of the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer includes, in an in-plane direction of the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer, a portion with a high density of catalyst and a portion with a lower density of the catalyst than the portion with a high density (paragraphs 234-236, 257, 292 - the cathode catalyst layer has a pore size distribution that includes pores having sizes of 1nm to 100nm and pores having sizes of at least 1 micron. The porous structures could be formed by one or more of: pores within carbon supporting materials, stacking pores between stacked spherical carbon nanoparticles and secondary stacking pores between carbon spheres. The catalysts can also be in the form of nanoparticles raging in size – paragraphs 216-221. The catalyst layer may contain a blend of these particles with different distributions throughout the layer (figure 6). The distribution of the catalyst throughout the layer spreads out the water distribution and thus, the reaction is distributed in a larger volume). Cave further teaches that the catalyst layer is characterized by its mass loading and density (paragraph 226)
Cave fails to explicitly teach wherein a proportion of an area of the portion with a high density with respect to an area of the at least one of the anode catalyst layer, or the cathode catalyst layer, is 5%~80%.
Li discloses oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysts (100) comprising a discontinuous catalyst nanolayer (104) on all surfaces of a support (102) and amorphous continuous porous layers (108; paragraphs 46, 55). Figures 1A-1B and 3 show regions with a higher density of catalyst in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability (paragraphs 3, 117).
It is noted that the electrolyzer of Cave also produces oxygen at the anode (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a portion of at least the anode catalyst layer with a higher density of catalyst in the cell of Cave, as taught by Li, in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to conduct routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Cave discloses that the density of the catalyst in the portion with a high density of the catalyst is higher than that in the portion with a lower density of the catalyst by 1.1 times or more (paragraphs 234-236 – the density of the cathode catalyst layer can be adjusted as desired). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to conduct routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 9, the catalyst of the anode catalyst layer of Cave contains iridium oxide (paragraphs 196, 204).
Regarding claim 10, the catalyst of the cathode catalyst layer of Cave contains platinum-on-carbon and an ionomer (paragraphs 81; 217; 240-242; 256).
Regarding claim 11, Cave discloses an electrolysis cell (paragraph 17), comprising:
a proton-conducting electrolyte membrane (311; figure 3; paragraph 183);
an anode catalyst layer (307) laminated on one face of the electrolyte membrane
(311); and
a cathode catalyst layer (305) laminated on another face of the electrolyte
membrane (311; paragraphs 180; 183; 192);
wherein the anode catalyst layer includes, in an in-plane direction of the anode catalyst layer, a portion with a high density of catalyst and a portion with a lower density of the catalyst than the portion with a high density (paragraphs 234-236, 271, 292 - the catalyst layer has a pore size distribution that includes pores having sizes of 1nm to 100nm and pores having sizes of at least 1 micron. The porous structures could be formed by one or more of: pores within carbon supporting materials, stacking pores between stacked spherical carbon nanoparticles and secondary stacking pores between carbon spheres. The catalysts can further be in the form of nanoparticles raging in size – paragraphs 216-221. The catalyst layer may contain a blend of these particles with different distributions throughout the layer (figure 6). The distribution of the catalyst throughout the layer spreads out the water distribution and thus, the reaction is distributed in a larger volume).
Cave fails to explicitly teach wherein a proportion of an area of the portion with a high density with respect to an area of the anode catalyst layer is 5%~80%.
Li discloses oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysts (100) comprising a discontinuous catalyst nanolayer (104) on all surfaces of a support (102) and amorphous continuous porous layers (108; paragraphs 46, 55). Figures 1A-1B and 3 show regions with a higher density of catalyst in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability (paragraphs 3, 117).
It is noted that the electrolyzer of Cave also produces oxygen at the anode (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a portion of at least the anode catalyst layer with a higher density of catalyst in the cell of Cave, as taught by Li, in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to conduct routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 12, Cave discloses a plurality of catalyst areas (630) circular in shape (figure 6). Li discloses oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysts (100) comprising a discontinuous catalyst nanolayer (104) on all surfaces of a support (102) and amorphous continuous porous layers (108; paragraphs 46, 55). Figures 1A-1B and 3 show regions with a higher density of catalyst in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability (paragraphs 3, 117). The electrolyzer of Cave also produces oxygen at the anode (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a portion of at least the anode catalyst layer with a higher density of catalyst in the cell of Cave, as taught by Li, in order to improve the production of oxygen at the anode as well as the OER stability.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to conduct routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine workable or optimal catalyst content that would improve oxygen production while maintaining OER stability. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art is considered to be US 2020/0240023 to Cave and US 2018/0309135 to Shimai, as previously presented.
The closest prior art made of record fails to teach forming concave portions on a surface of a backing sheet that are recessed into the holes, by suctioning the backing sheet through the holes. The suction power in Shimai does not produce a concave portion but is merely used for adsorption and to facilitate the setting of the electrolyte film (paragraphs 44, 92).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach wherein a proportion of an area of the portion with a high density with respect to an area of the at least one of the anode catalyst layer, or the cathode catalyst layer, is 5%~80%, as amended. Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Li et al.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794