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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 10 June 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections of claims 1-11 are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 10 June 2026.
The rejections of claims 14-16 are herein maintained.
The rejections of claims 12-13 is herein withdrawn as applied to the amended claim language below.
New rejections of claims 1-11 are provided herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s arguments towards claims 12-16 that the prior art fails to disclose the specific materials of the blocking layer, this argument is not persuasive due to the multiple used of the phrase “and/or” which does not require both a first and second blocking layer and does not limit both of the layers to require a metal organic framework or layered double hydroxide as claimed. The claims require only one of the layers to possess the specific material and thus merely limits the optionality of the system without explicitly requiring such a structure as claimed.
No further arguments are presented.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2021/0159528 A1).
As to claims 12, Kim discloses a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (Fuel cell title, where the recitation of “Water electrolyzer” is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 II as a recitation limiting the intended use of the structure of the apparatus) comprising:
a cathode catalyst layer (#16) and an anode catalyst layer (#14)
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (#12); and
a first blocking layer and a second blocking layer, the first blocking layer disposed between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane, the second blocking layer disposed between the anode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Fig. 2 #s 52/54 which is representative of both the anode and cathode catalyst layers – [0022] thus providing both a first and second blocking layers between the catalysts layers 56 and the polymer membrane of the cell #12).
Kim discloses the electrodes 50 can be used as anode and/cathode ([0022]) thus only using a singular blocking layer on one electrode and satisfying the “and/or” limitations of a second blocking layer comprising a metal organic framework when a second blocking layer is not present or required by the instant claim language.
As to claims 14-16, Kim discloses a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (Fuel cell title, where the recitation of “Water electrolyzer” is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 II as a recitation limiting the intended use of the structure of the apparatus) comprising:
a cathode catalyst layer (#16) and an anode catalyst layer (#14) wherein the cathode catalyst layer and anode catalyst layer included a catalyst support and catalyst particles supported on the catalyst supports ([0042])
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (#12); and
a first blocking material and/or a second blocking material, the first blocking material encapsulating the cathode catalyst layer and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane, the second blocking layer encapsulating the anode catalyst layer and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane (Fig. 2 #s 52/54 which is representative of both the anode and cathode catalyst layers – [0022] “fully coated” thus reading on fully encapsulates as required by instant claim 15 and individually encapsulated as required by instant claim 16)
the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer comprises the cathode catalyst layer, the anode catalyst layer, the polymer electrolyte membrane, and the first blocking layer and/or the second blocking layer. (redundant to the claimed preamble of the “comprising” language).
Kim discloses the electrodes 50 can be used as anode and/cathode ([0022]) thus only using a singular blocking layer on one electrode and satisfying the “and/or” limitations of a second blocking layer comprising a layered double hydroxide when a second blocking layer is not present or required by the instant claim language.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Azra et al (US 2023/0369612 A1).
As to claims 12, Azra discloses a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (Title “electrolyzer” Fig. 2b) comprising:
a cathode catalyst layer and an anode catalyst layer (#130 and 140 [0025])
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (#110B [0035]); and
a first blocking layer and a second blocking layer, the first blocking layer disposed between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane, the second blocking layer disposed between the anode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Fig. 2B #s 105a and 105B with first and second materials 120 in each layer).
Kim discloses the electrodes can be used as anode and/cathode thus only using a singular blocking layer on one electrode and satisfying the “and/or” limitations of a second blocking layer comprising a metal organic framework when a second blocking layer is not present or required by the instant claim language.
As to claims 14-16, Azra discloses a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (Title “electrolyzer” Fig. 2b) comprising:
a cathode catalyst layer and an anode catalyst layer (#130 and 140 [0025])
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (#110B [0035]); and
a first blocking layer and a second blocking layer, the first blocking layer disposed between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane, the second blocking layer disposed between the anode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Fig. 2B #s 105a and 105B with first and second materials 120 in each layer)
the first blocking layer contains one or more first layers of one or more first materials and the second blocking layer contains one or more second layers of one or more second materials, the one or more first materials and/or the one or more second materials include a layered double hydroxide. ([0061])
where the layers are coated onto the catalyst layers 130/140 with catalyst particles 143/132 thus reading on fully encapsulates as required by instant claim 15 and individually encapsulated as required by instant claim 16.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (Taeeun Kim, Youngho Sihn, In-Ho Yoon, Sang Jun Yoon, Kwangse Lee, Jae Hwan Yang, Soonyong So, and Chan Woo Park, ACS Applied Nano Materials 2021 4 (9), 9104-9112, DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.1c01691).
As to claims 17-19, Kim discloses a method of forming a blocking layer in a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (pg. 9105 experimental section), the method comprising:
applying a first material onto a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate is a catalysts support or catalysts layer of the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (“The certified CVD monolayer hBN on copper foil (hBN/Cu)”); and
applying a second material onto the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate, (pg. 9105 “The hBN/Cu was placed on Nafion 117 so that the hBN faced Nafion 117”)
the first and/or second materials include a blocking material configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through a polymer electrolyte membrane and/or configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Abstract hexagonal boron nitride, thus reading on applying a first and second material in two different steps as required by instant claim 18 and 19).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azra et al (US 2023/0369612 A1) in view of Kim et al (Taeeun Kim, Youngho Sihn, In-Ho Yoon, Sang Jun Yoon, Kwangse Lee, Jae Hwan Yang, Soonyong So, and Chan Woo Park, ACS Applied Nano Materials 2021 4 (9), 9104-9112, DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.1c01691).
As to claims 1, Azra discloses a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer (Title “electrolyzer” Fig. 2b) comprising:
a cathode catalyst layer and an anode catalyst layer (#130 and 140 [0025])
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (#110B [0035]); and
a first blocking layer and a second blocking layer, the first blocking layer disposed between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane, the second blocking layer disposed between the anode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Fig. 2B #s 105a and 105B with first and second materials 120 in each layer).
Azra discloses the first and second materials may be boron nitride ([0046]) but fails to explicitly disclose hexagonal boron nitride.
Kim discloses hexagonal boron nitride for use in barrier layers in polymer electrolyte water electrolysis (Title, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have used hexagonal boron nitride as taught by Kim as the specific type of boron nitride in Azra because it is an effective hydrogen gas barrier of PEM cells (Abstract).
As to claim 3, Azra, as modified by Kim, discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises the hexagonal boron nitride that is specifically resistant to hydrogen crossover as cited above.
As to claim 4 and 5, Azra discloses the material may be graphene oxide ([0046]).
As to claims 6 and 7, Azra further discloses wherein a first number of layers is the same as the second number of the second layers (See Fig. 2B which is representative of each electrode thus the same number of layers) which in the image is 1 layer and with more layer shown in Fig. 2C).
As to claim 8, Azra discloses wherein the thickenss of the blocking layers overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima face obvious ([0028] MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 9, Azra discloses wherein the first blocking layer covers a first entirety of a first interface between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane (See Fig. 2B).
As to claims 10 and 11, Azra discloses wherein the barrier layers comprises blocking material (#s 120) with an ionomer (#110A/C [0035]).
As to claims 17, Azra discloses a method of forming a blocking layer in a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer ([0057), the method comprising:
applying a first material onto a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate is a catalysts support or catalysts layer of the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer ([0058] “the self-supported membrane may be further coated with anode catalyst layer 130 and/or with cathode catalyst layer 140 to form catalyst coated membrane(s) (CCMs)”); and
applying a second material onto the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate, ([0095] and/or formation of layer 130 onto layers 105A for example – [0075])
the first and/or second materials include a blocking material configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through a polymer electrolyte membrane and/or configured to resist diffusion of unwanted ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte membrane. (Fig. 2B #s 105a and 105B with first and second materials 120 in each layer).
Azra discloses the first and second materials may be boron nitride ([0046]) but fails to explicitly disclose hexagonal boron nitride.
Kim discloses hexagonal boron nitride for use in barrier layers in polymer electrolyte water electrolysis (Title, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have used hexagonal boron nitride as taught by Kim as the specific type of boron nitride in Azra because it is an effective hydrogen gas barrier of PEM cells (Abstract).
As to claims 18 and 19, Azra discloses that both first and second materials are deposited onto the polymer electrolyte membrane via explicit description of the electrolytic cell structure of Fig. 2 wherein the first applying step includes applying the first material onto the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate as a first layer (formation of layer 105A), and the second applying step includes applying the second material onto the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer substrate as a second layer (Formation of layer 130).
As to claims 120, Azra discloses wherein first material includes a blocking material (#s 120) with an ionomer (#105A OR 110A/C [0035]) and the second material includes a second mixture of a catalyst and an ionomer ([0075] formation of layer 130)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azra, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Price et al (US 2020/0099061 A1).
As to claim 2, Azra, as modified by Kim, discloses each of the blocking layers comprises a blocking material (#s 120) with an ionomer (#110A/C [0035]).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the use of first and second radical scavengers.
Price discloses including radical scavengers into membrane layers ([0072]) which includes the use in graphene based layers as a barrier for hydrogen crossover ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a radical scavenger in each of the blocking layers as taught by Price in the blocking layers of Azra, as modified by Kim, in order to eliminate peroxide radicals, for example by decomposing the hydrogen peroxide into benign products or by scavenging radicals after their formation, thereby protecting the membrane components from degradation and increasing the lifespan of the device. (Price [0074]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights