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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2023 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 3/6/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/30/2025 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-17 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210288380 A1) and Grader et al (US 20230313391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a redox ion exchange membrane (separator), comprising an electrically-conductive material and redox-active materials [Abstract; paragraph 0002-0010, 0014-0017, 0024-0025; claim 1]. It is known in the art that the redox-active material or active material is a material that has the ability to undergo reversible oxidation-reduction, under different conditions as taught by Grader [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claims 6-10, Kim teaches that the electrically conductive material is not particularly limited as long as it has electrical conductivity without causing chemical changes in the battery, and for example, graphite; carbon blacks such as Denka black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black; electrically conductive fibers such as carbon fibers and metal fibers; metal powders such as carbon fluoride, aluminum, and nickel powder; electrically conductive whiskers such as zinc oxide and potassium titanate; electrically conductive metal oxides such as titanium oxide [paragraph 0040]. It is known that carbon fiber is porous and titanium and zinc oxides are transitional metal oxides.
9. Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210288380 A1) and Grader et al (US 20230313391 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Van Der Boom et al (US 20150303390 A1).
Regarding claims 2-5, Kim remains silent that the redox-active materials comprise inorganic nanostructures. However, Van Der Boom teaches that the redox-active materials can comprise inorganic nanoparticles [paragraph 0130, 0156]. Inorganic nanostructures can be oxides of the material composing said electrically-conductive material [Van Der Boom: (0156); Kim: (0040)]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
10. Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bong et al (KR 101769754 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Bong discloses an electrolysis cell (200) for producing hydrogen gas from water comprising a membrane electrode assembly (100) including a cathode, an anode and a membrane (106) positioned between the cathode and the anode, wherein the membrane (106) has a first surface coated with a first electrochemical reaction layer (104) in which an oxidation reaction occurs and a second surface coated with a second electrochemical reaction layer (108) in which a reduction reaction occurs, wherein the second surface is opposed to the first surface, wherein the oxidation reaction and the reduction reaction occur simultaneously, wherein the water is decomposed into hydrogen ions (H+, proton) when the water is supplied to the first electrochemical reaction layer (104), wherein the hydrogen ions move to a second electrochemical catalyst (116) of the second electrochemical reaction layer (108) through the membrane (106), and wherein the hydrogen ions moved to the second electrochemical catalyst (116) are reacted with electrons to generate the hydrogen gas [Fig. 1-2; paragraphs 0003-0016, 0019].
Regarding claims 12-13, Bong teaches that the water is decomposed into the hydrogen ions when the water is supplied to the first electrochemical reaction layer ( 104 ), a portion of the water supplied to the first electrochemical reaction layer ( 104) moves to the second electrochemical reaction layer (108), and the portion of the water flows out of the electrolysis cell (200) with the hydrogen gas [Fig. 1-2; paragraphs 0010-0016, 0019].
Regarding claim 14, Bong teaches that for manufacturing the electrolysis cell, each of ionomers is mixed to coat IrRuO2 on the anode and PtC on the cathode [paragraphs 0100, 0101].
11. Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocherginsky (US 20160226089 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kocherginsky discloses a redox membrane based flow fuel cell, comprising two current-collecting electrodes (2, 3); and a membrane (1) positioned between the two current-collecting electrodes (2, 3), wherein the membrane (1) has a first surface and a second surface opposed to the first surface, and wherein the membrane is made of electroconductive polymers being redox active [Fig. 1; paragraphs [0002, 0014, 0020-0029].
Regarding claim 16, Kocherginsky teaches that the two current-collecting electrodes (2, 3) and the membrane (1) are in contact with aqueous solutions, a reducing agent is dissolved in an aqueous solution on one side, and simultaneously an oxidant is dissolved in a solution on another side of the membrane (1) [Fig. 1; paragraphs [0014, 0023-0025].
Regarding claim 17, Kocherginsky teaches that the two current-collecting electrodes (2, 3) are Ag/AgCl electrodes [Fig. 1; paragraphs [0014, 0023].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Milton I Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723