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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, reverse electrochemical bias species in the reply filed on 15 August 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
All claims find support in U.S. Provisional application no. 63/313,594. Therefore, all claims are examined with an effective filing date of 24 February 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamura (JP 10-087853).
Yamamura teaches (see English abstract and machine translation at third and sixth paragraphs on the second page and at third paragraph on the fourth page) a bipolar membrane that include an anion exchange material layer, a cation exchange material layer, and a catalyst layer disposed at the interface junction between the two exchange material layers, wherein the catalyst was a catalyst for water dissociation, and wherein the catalyst may be a “composite” including two or more types of oxide catalysts. The interface junction comprised a solitary layer.
Regarding claim 2, by using two different metal oxides, the composite catalyst of Yamamura included two different constituents where the difference is in chemical structure.
Regarding claim 3, by using two different metal oxides, the composite catalyst of Yamamura included two different constituents where the difference is in chemical composition.
Regarding claim 4, by using two different metal oxides, the composite catalyst of Yamamura included two different constituents where the difference is in chemical structure.
Regarding claim 5, by using two different metal oxides, the composite catalyst of Yamamura included two different constituents where the difference is in chemical composition. Note that Yamamura teaches (see paragraph spanning second and third pages of machine translation) that the particles of the metal oxides were nanoparticles (0.02-0.5 μm).
Regarding claim 16, the catalyst material taught by Yamamura included TiO2 or ZrO2 or group IVA oxides (e.g. silicon oxide, tin oxide).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yamamura teaches (see “Embodiment of the Invention” paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation) providing a bipolar membrane according to the disclosure in combination with an anode and a cathode and applying a current density. This structure is an electrochemical device.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufa et al (“Bipolar Membrane and Interface Materials for Electrochemical Energy Systems”).
Tufa et al teach (see abstract, sections 2 and 5.1) a bipolar membrane having a first member (AEM) comprising an anion exchange material, a second member (CEM) comprising a cation exchange material, wherein the first and second members together formed an interface junction and a water dissociation catalyst is disposed within the interface junction. Tufa et al additionally teach “[t]he use of composite water dissociation catalysts could improve film adhesion, ensuring device longevity”. Therefore, Tufa et al clearly contemplated that a composite water dissociation catalyst was to be considered the next generation of advances for bipolar membranes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made a bipolar membrane having a composite water dissociation catalyst at the interface junction according to the suggestion of Tufa et al. See MPEP 2143.I.E. Important to making this rejection is the breadth of the claim language of claim 1 in that any composite water dissociation catalyst, including any possible composite, not just those specific examples disclosed by Applicant in the specification, are included within the claim scope. Clearly the entire genus of composite water dissociation catalysts was contemplated in Tufa et al, and so the entire genus of claim 1 cannot be found to be patentable.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 above, and further in view of Oener et al (US 2020/0370188 A1 and US 11,268,200 B2, citations below refer to PGPub (A1)).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, Yamamura generally teaches that the water dissociation catalyst may include two or more catalytic oxides, but does not teach the particularly claimed combinations of catalysts.
Oener et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]) that known water dissociation catalysts for use at the interface junction of a bipolar membrane included metals, metal oxides, etc.. The entire list of Oener et al are considered to be recognized functional equivalents for performing the water dissociation catalyst effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted any of the other functionally equivalent water dissociation catalysts taught by Oener et al in place of one or more of the water dissociation catalysts taught by Yamamura. See MPEP 2144.06. Note that substitution of functional equivalents known in the prior art does not require an express suggestion for substitution to be considered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamura teaches oxide nanoparticles. At least some of the species taught by Oener et al, e.g. metals (Ir, Pt, Ru), were electrically conductive.
Regarding claim 8, Oener et al teach metallic nanoparticles (e.g. Ir, Pt, Ru) and semiconducting nanoparticles (TiO2, indium tin oxide, antimony doped tin oxide, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamura teaches oxide nanoparticles. At least some of the species taught by Oener et al were metals (e.g. Ir, Pt, Ru).
Regarding claim 11, Oener et al teach antimony doped tin oxide.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamura teaches oxide nanoparticles. Oener et al teach antimony doped tin oxide.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamura, as noted above, teach TiO2 and ZrO2. Thus, claim 16 recites many possible catalyst compositions that are not taught Yamamura. Oener et al teach (see paragraph [0030]) other suitable water dissociation catalysts, including In2O3, indium tin oxide, Sb:SnO2, Sn-2O3, Ir, IrO2, Pt, Ru, RuO2, Pd, Rh, MnO2, NiO, Al2O3, SiO2, ZnO2, Co2O-3, Co:Fe2O3, Fe(OH)3, Pt-Ir (1:1), and Pt-Ru (1:1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al (“Water Adsorption and Dissociation Processes on Small Mn-Doped TiO2 Complexes”).
Yamamura teaches using TiO2 as the catalyst, thus failing to teach cation-doped or anion-doped TiO-2.
Lee et al teach (see abstract) that TiO2 doped with manganese (a cation in the crystal structure) reduced the water dissociation energy when compared to undoped TiO2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the Mn cation-doped TiO2 of Lee et al for the undoped TiO2 of Yamamura because Lee et al teach that the small amount of Mn doping reduced the water dissociation energy for the catalyst.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853).
Yamamura teaches (see paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3 of machine translation and the subsequent paragraph) that the shape and size of the nanoparticles of metal oxide water dissociation catalyst were result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation on the known result effective variables, including nanoparticle shape and size, to optimize the water dissociation properties of the interface junction.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (JP 10-087853) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ge et al (“Beneficial Use of a Coordination Complex As the Junction Catalyst in a Bipolar Membrane”).
Yamamura fail to teach modification of the surface chemistry of the nanoparticles of the water dissociation catalyst.
Ge et al teach (see abstract) providing amine modification on the surface of an inorganic iron water dissociation catalyst located at the interface junction of a bipolar membrane. The amine modification reduced catalyst leakage from the interface junction and exhibited lower water dissociation potential.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied an amine modification on at least some of the nanoparticles of Yamamura as taught by Ge et al to reduce catalyst leakage from the interface junction and to exhibit lower water dissociation potential.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the combination of an oxide (e.g. titanium dioxide) nanoparticle with an electrically conducting nanoparticle (e.g. iridium metal) was suggested by the prior art as referenced above, there is no reasonable teaching or suggestion to use carbon as the electrically conducting nanoparticles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794