DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 14 November 25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wada et al.
Wada et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0090719 A) is directed toward a spongy sintered article of titanium (title).
Regarding Claim 1 , Wada et al. discloses a composition for a porous transport layer (analogous to spongy sintered article useful in fuel cells on water electrolyzers in ¶2), the composition comprising:
(i) a titanium group element (powdered titanium in Ex. 4-6 in Table 1);
(ii) a solvent (water in Ex. 4-6 in Table 1);
(iii) a foaming agent (e.g.: neopentane in Ex. 4- 6 in Table 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wada et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1, where in the titanium group element is titanium (Ex. 4-6 in Table 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Wada et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1, further comprising a dispersant (surfactant such as alkylbenzene sulfonate in Ex. 4-6 in Table 1) and a binder (methylcellulose in Ex. 4-6 in Table 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wada et al.
Wada et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0090719 A) is directed toward a spongy sintered article of titanium (title).
Regarding 6, Wada et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1 and Wada et al. further renders the composition of Claim 6 obvious. The composition of Claim 6 requires the composition comprises 40 to 90 parts by weight of the titanium group element, 2 to 10 parts by weight of the solvent, and 5 to 40 parts by weight of the blowing agent. In Ex. 4-6, Wada et al. explicitly discloses a concentration of 60 wt.% for the titanium powder. Wada et al. discloses the composition is applied to a substrate prior to foaming using a doctor blade (¶22) meaning that the viscosity of the slurry will dictate the thickness of the wet film and the thickness of the final film. Wada et al. evaluated different concentrations of neopentane (blowing agent) and water (solvent) with both of these species expected to modify the viscosity of the slurry as pentane forms insoluble bubbles in the water-based slurry. Moreover, Wada et al. teaches in the Table 1 (by Ex. 4-6) that the increased the concentration of the blowing agent will increase the porosity of the sintered titanium foam.
Given the effect of the concentrations of both the blowing agent and the solvent as taught by Wada et al. on the resultant sintered foam, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the levels of these two additives in the composition, including the levels of the claimed range, as part of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II) – routine optimization
Regarding Claim 8, Wada et al. renders the composition of Claim 6 obvious as explained above; moreover, the composition of Claim 8 can also be derived from Wada et al. The limitations of Claim 8 require a composition of: 0.1 to 3.0 by weight of a dispersant; and 0.1 to 4 parts by weight of a binder with respect to 40 to 90 parts by weight of the titanium group element. In Ex. 4, 5, and 6 of Wada et al., there different composition are disclosed that comprise 60 wt.% titanium powder, 2.0-2.9 wt.% methylcellulose (i.e.: a binder), 0.4-3.0 wt.% neopentane (i.e.: foaming agent), 4.0 wt.% alkylbenzene sulfonate (i.e.: surfactant), and other additives. Given the examples in the prior art (i.e.: Wada et al.), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as the concentrations of the titanium group (i.e.: titanium powder), the dispersant (i.e.: alkyl benzenesulfonate), and the binder (i.e.: methyl cellulose) overlap, approach, or are similar to the concentrations of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
7. Claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazufumi et al.
Wada et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0090719 A) is directed toward a spongy sintered article of titanium (title). Kazufumi et al. (JP2017050185A) is directed toward a gas diffusion layer for membrane electrode assemblies (title).
Regarding Claim 3, Wada et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1, but Wada et al. does not disclose the use of a pyrolytic chemical foaming agent. Kazufumi et al. teaches the composition for forming a conductive porous layer (11) in ¶78 comprising a conductive carbon material, high molecular weight polymer (i.e.: a binder), a dispersant, a dispersion medium (i.e.: solvent) and a foaming agent. Since both Wada et al. and Kazufumi et al. are directed toward conductive porous layers useful for electrochemical process and are formed using a foaming agent, they are deemed analogous art. The conductive carbon material is analogous to the titanium element in the present application as both materials make the porous layer conductive. In ¶83, Kazufumi et al. discloses two preferred organic foaming agents (analogous to pyrolytic foaming agents of the instant application), which are azodicarbonamide (ADCA) and 4,4'-oxybisbenzenesulfonylhydrazide (OBSH). The foaming agents in Kazufumi et al. are defined to have an average particle size of 1 micron to 50 microns in ¶82. The advantage of having a well-defined particle size for the foaming agent ensure more predictable results as the particle size of the foaming agent will dictate the void size in the sintered conductive foam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic foam forming composition of Wada et al. by using the organic foaming agents taught in Kazufumi et al. with the reasonable expectation of controlling the void size of the pores in the prepared titanium foam.
Regarding Claim 4, Wada et al. in view of Kazufumi et al. discloses the composition of Claim 3, wherein the pyrolytic foaming agent comprises 4,4'-oxybisbenzenesulfonylhydrazide (OBSH) as supported by ¶83 as a preferred organic (pyrolytic) foaming agent (Kazufumi et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Wada et al. in view of Kazufumi et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1, but uses a liquid blowing agent, so does not define the average particle size of the granular blowing agent. Kazufumi et al. teaches the composition for forming a conductive porous layer (11) in ¶78 comprising a conductive carbon material, high molecular weight polymer (i.e.: a binder), a dispersant, a dispersion medium (i.e.: solvent) and a foaming agent. Since both Wada et al. and Kazufumi et al. are directed toward conductive porous layers useful for electrochemical process and are formed using a foaming agent, they are deemed analogous art. The conductive carbon material is analogous to the titanium element in the present application as both materials make the porous layer conductive. Kazufumi et al. discloses foaming agent that are defined to have an average particle size of 1 micron to 50 microns in ¶82, meaning the materials are granular. These foaming agents include both organic (e.g.: oxybisbenzenesulfonylhydrazide) and inorganic (e.g.: sodium bicarbonate). The advantage of having a well-defined particle size for the foaming agent ensure more predictable results as the particle size of the foaming agent will dictate the void size in the sintered conductive foam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic foam forming composition of Wada et al. by using the defined particle size foaming agents taught in Kazufumi et al. with the reasonable expectation of controlling the void size of the pores in the prepared titanium foam.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range that overlaps, approaches, or is similar to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gros et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0028710 A1) is directed toward an open all porous material and a method of producing the same (title). Gauthier et al. (“Production of Metallic Foams Having Open Porosity Using a Powder Metallurgy Approach,” Mater. Manufact. Process. 2004, 19(5), 793-811) is directed toward the production of metallic foams (title).
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, 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.
10. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794