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 2 January 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 13-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Kim is herein maintained.
All other rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 2 January 2026.
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 1-7, 9, 13-17 and 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 1, 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 (Fig. 7 #252) and an anode catalyst layer (Fig. 7 # 256)
a polymer electrolyte membrane extending between and separating the anode catalyst layer and the cathode catalyst layer (Fig. 7 #254);
a 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,(Fig. 7 #s 262)
a second 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,(Fig. 7 #s 268 which is representative of both the anode and cathode catalyst layers – [0022])
wherein the first and/or second blocking layers comprises graphene oxide as a first material oxide, functionalized graphene oxide, thus resistant to the ions and molecules ([0023])
the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer comprises the cathode catalyst layer, the anode catalyst layer, the polymer electrolyte membrane, the first blocking layer, and the second blocking layer. (said phrase does not impart further structural distinction via merely restating already recited structures).
As to claims 2-6,, and 13, Kim discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises graphene oxide as a first material oxide, functionalized graphene oxide, thus resistant to the ions and molecules ([0023] as required by instant claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13) with an ionomer ([0028] polymer as required by instant claim 6). It is noted the radical scavenger, specifically ceria nanoparticles is an optional inclusion thus not required to be taught by the prior art to be anticipatory.
As to claim 7, Kim discloses one-ten layers which falls within the instantly claimed range ([0025]).
As to claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the first and/or second blocking layer cover an entirety of a first interface between the cathode catalyst layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane and/or the anode catalysts layer and the polymer electrolyte membrane, respectively (See Fig. 7).
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 layer, the first blocking layer 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. 7 #262, 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 claims 15 and16)
a second blocking layer, the second blocking layer 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. 7 #268, 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 claims 15 and16)
the first and/or second blocking layers include graphene oxide flakes and an ionomer binder ([0023]) with an ionomer ([0028] polymer).
As to claim 17, Kim further disclose a method of forming a blocking material layer in a polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer, the method comprising:
applying a blocking material mixture onto a cathode catalyst layer of the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzers, the blocking material mixture including graphene oxide (GO) flakes, monolayers, or multilayers and an ionomer binder ([0026] and [0027]; and
applying a polymer electrolyte membrane onto the blocking material mixture to form a blocking material layer (necessary in forming the PEM of Kim, i.e. a polymer electrolyte member is inherently applied to a blocking material due to the structure of the assembly), the blocking material layer configured to resist unwanted diffusion of ions or molecules through the polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer. ([0022]).
As to claim 20, Kim discloses using both graphene oxide flake and single layer graphene oxide flake ([0052]).
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Frost et al (US 2015/0180073 A1).
As to claim 8, Kim discloses a suitable thickness of the catalyst layer ([0031]) and “single or few layer graphene films” ([0028]) of the barrier layer but fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the barrier layers.
Frost discloses suitable thicknesses of barrier layers made of graphene is 1 nm to 5 micrometer ([0024]).
Thus, the prior art Kim discloses the cumulative limitations of instant claim 1 except for the specific thickness of graphene barrier layers as instantly claimed. The prior art Frost also shows the specific range thickness as claimed is known in the prior art for use as a graphene barrier layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thickness of 1nm to 5 micrometers as taught by Frost for the specific thickness of the barrier layer in Kim because it is recognized for its intended use as proper thicknesses of graphene based barrier layers to achieve the predictable result of providing proper thickness barrier layer to prevent the diffusion ions or molecules. See MPEP 2144.04 and 2143 A.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Price et al (US 2020/0099061 A1).
As to claims 10 and 11, Kim discloses each of the blocking layers comprises the barrier layer comprises graphene oxide as a first material oxide, functionalized graphene oxide,thus resistant to the ions and molecules ([0023]) with an ionomer ([0028] polymer).
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 Kim in order to 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]).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
As to claims 12, Kim discloses defects within the thickness of the graphene layer ([0032]-[0035]), but fails to disclose their explicit size. However, Kim discloses the sizes to be capable of providing a diffusion path ([0035]) and the thickness of the catalyst layers being on the nanometer range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a nanopore size for the defect size on the size of the ions being transported ([0035]) thus providing the nanopores within the range claimed.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suchsland et al (US 2015/0354072 A1)
As to claims 18, Kim fails to explicitly disclose the use of blade coating for the first applying step.
Suchsland discloses using blade coating for applying a barrier ink material ([0123]).
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 blade coating method as taught by Suchsland in the method of Kim because blade coating barrier layers (i.e. the claimed blocking layer) is a recognized method of applying those constituent layers in an electrochemical device. Such a modification amount to using a known method with a known device to yield the predictable result of applying layers in electrochemical devices. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 D.
As to claim 19, Kim fails to explicitly disclose the use of hot pressing for the second applying step in applying the polymer electrolyte membrane.
Suchsland discloses using hot pressing a polymer electrolyte material ([0133]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used hot pressing method in applying the polymer memrbane as taught by Suchsland in the method of Kim because hot pressing the membrane, catalyst, and barrier layers improved the adhesion of the layers together thus improving the performance and durability of the MEA assembly (Suchsland [0133]), and is a recognized method of applying those constituent layers in an electrochemical device. Such a modification amount to using a known method with a known device to yield the predictable result of applying layers in electrochemical devices. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 D.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kim discloses a fuel cell membrane assembly and not a “polymer electrolyte water electrolyzer”, this argument is not persuasive because the recitation is a part of the preamble if the instant claim which is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 II as reciting the intended use of the structure as claimed. Kim discloses an identical structure as that instant claimed thus deemed to satisfy the limitations. No part of the instant claims are drawn towards specific aspects of a water electrolyzer outside of the intended use recited in the preamble. The amended limitation “the polymer water…” at the end of the claim has been addressed above and merely restates the previously recited structure. Conventionally, Suchsland, cited above, discloses PEM fuel cells and PEM electrolyzers are structurally the same just operate in a different manner ([0010]).
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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