DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 17, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 12 are amended, claim 3 is cancelled, and claims 16-18 are new, resulting in claims 1-2 and 4-18 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Minamibayashi (WO 2019/188960)1,2 in view of Bissot (US 4437951).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Minamibayashi teaches a composite electrolyte membrane including a composite layer that is a composite of a mesh fabric and a polymer electrolyte (paragraph [0015]). The polymer electrolyte may be a fluoropolymer electrolyte (paragraphs [0020]-0021]) and has an ionic group (paragraph [0025]). The mesh fabric is a woven fabric made of warp (yarn A) and weft (yarn B) preferably in a plain weave (yarns B extend in a direction orthogonal to yarns A) (paragraph [0058]). The mesh fabric may include a liquid crystal polyester fiber or a polyphenylene sulfide fiber (paragraph [0027]). The liquid crystal polyester may include polyether ether ketones (paragraph [0054]). Minamibayashi does not explicitly teach the mesh fabric materials do not elute into an alkaline aqueous solution, however as Minamibayashi teaches the use of the same fiber materials (see paragraphs [0027], [0054] of Minamibayashi and instant claim 6) and Minamibayashi teaches the use of the mesh fabric in an ion exchange process with alkali metals (Minamibayashi; paragraphs [0089], [0097]), it is reasonable to presume the fiber materials of the mesh fabric of Minamibayashi do not elute into an alkaline aqueous solution.
Minamibayashi further teaches the mesh fabric has a gauze thickness/fiber diameter which is less than 2.0 (paragraph [0067]). The gauze thickness is the height of the intersection of the fibers, which is the thickest part of the woven fabric (paragraph [0068]). The gauze thickness/fiber diameter of less than 2.0 in the mesh fabric means that the fibers are flattened in the lateral direction at the intersection portions of the fibers in the woven fabric (paragraph [0068]). Use of such a mesh fabric can reduce the gauze thickness relative to the fiber diameter, making it possible to reduce the gauze thickness without deteriorating the mechanical properties of the mesh, achieving both high reinforcement performance and excellent membrane characteristics (paragraph [0068]).
The flattening of a fiber cross-section will result in a length in the thickness direction (YACA1 and YACB1) that is shorter than the original fiber (YAA1 and YAB1) and a length in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction (YACA2 and YACB2) that is greater than the original fiber (YAA2 and YAB2). Since the warp (fiber A) and weft (fiber B) are flattened only at the intersection, the aspect ratios YACA2/YACA1 and YACB2/YACB1 at the intersection will necessarily exceed 1 and be greater than the aspect ratios YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YAB1, respectively, at positions between the intersections where the fibers are not flattened. It is noted that the instant specification also describes the aspect ratios YACA2/YACA1 and YACB2/YACB1 as representing how crushed or flat the fibers are at their intersection points (see e.g., the instant specification at paragraphs [0013], [0021]).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gauze thickness of the mesh fabric, and thus the cross-sectional aspect ratios of the yarns at the location of the intersection, to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a gauze thickness that is low enough to provide the necessary membrane performance but not so low the mechanical properties and reinforcing structure of the mesh are deteriorated. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Minamibayashi is silent as to aspect ratios YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YA---B1 being from 1.2-1.9.
Bissot teaches an ion exchange membrane having reinforcement members which have a high aspect ratio and a layer of polymer material which has carboxylic acid functionality (col. 2, lines 16-22). The web of support material is suitably a plain weave woven fabric (col. 9, lines 22-29). To have adequate strength the reinforcement threads should have a denier of 50-600, however threads of such denier having a typical, round cross section give membranes which are less satisfactory because they are too thick, especially at the thread junctions were crossover of the threads thickness the reinforcement to twice the thread thickness (col. 9, lines 50-65). Therefore, in order to use the desired denier, the fibers have a cross-sectional shape which is non-circular and which has an aspect ratio (YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YA---B1) in the range of 2-20 (col. 9, lines 50-65).
Since both Minamibayashi and Bissot teach ion exchange membranes reinforced with a woven fabric with the goal of reducing overall thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the warp and weft fibers of Minamibayashi to have a non-circular cross section with an aspect ratio (YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YA---B1) of 2-20 in order to provide reinforcement members with reduced thickness while maintaining adequate strength.
As to the range recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ordinary artisan would expect that the aspect ratio of Minamibayashi in view of Bissot would provide a thickness and strength suitable for the claimed invention. It is noted that the instant specification discloses a broader range of 0.8-3.5 as suitable for the ratios YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YA---B1, which overlaps with the prior art range. Since the instant specification discloses the prior art values as suitable for the instant invention it is expected that the claimed and prior art inventions will have the same properties.
With respect to claims 2, 4, and 16-18, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gauze thickness of the mesh fabric, and thus the cross-sectional aspect ratios of the yarns at the location of the intersection, to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a gauze thickness that is low enough to provide the necessary membrane performance but not so low the mechanical properties and reinforcing structure of the mesh are deteriorated. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As described in the rejection of claim 1 the aspect ratio (YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YA---B1) of the warp and weft fibers of Minamibayashi in view of Bissot are from 2-20. Therefore optimization of the aspect ratios of the warp and weft fibers and the intersection points (YACA2/YACA1 and YACB2/YA---CB1) would necessarily optimize the ratio of YACA2/YACA1 to YAA2/YAA1 and the ratio of YACB2/YACB1 to YAB2/YAB1.
With respect to claim 8, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Minamibayashi further teaches the ionic group of the polymer electrolyte is preferably sulfonic acid (paragraph [0025]).
With respect to claim 12, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Minamibayashi further teaches hot-pressing the membrane electrode assembly (paragraphs [0108], [0148], [0149]).
With respect to claim 13, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Minamibayashi further teaches examples where the electrolyte polymer membrane has ion exchange capacities of 2.12 meq/g (paragraph [0170]), 2.02 meq/g (paragraph [0174]), and 2.38 meq/g (paragraph [0185]).
With respect to claim 14, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Minamibayashi further teaches the composite electrolyte membrane is suitable for a water electrolysis apparatus (paragraph [0013]).
With respect to claim 15, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Minamibayashi further teaches the composite electrolyte membrane is suitable for redox flow batteries (paragraph [0102]).
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamibayashi (WO 2019/188960)34 in view of in view of Bissot (US 4437951) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaki (WO 2019/088299)2,5,6.
With respect to claim 5, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Minamibayashi in view of Bissot is silent as to the fibers having a denier of 15-50.
Yamaki teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane comprising a fluorinated polymer and a woven fabric (paragraph [0009]). The warp and weft of the woven fabric independently have a denier of from 30 to 100, preferably at least 40 and at most 80, more preferably at most 70, to attain an even lower electrolysis voltage (paragraph [0032]).
The fiber denier range of Yamaki substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 5. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Yamaki, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Minamibayashi in view of Bissot and Yamaki teach electrolyte membranes comprising a fluorinated polymer and a woven fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of the mesh fabric of Minamibayashi in view of Bissot to have deniers of 30-100, preferably 40-80, most preferably 40-70, in order to provide the membrane with a lower electrolysis voltage.
With respect to claim 7, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Minamibayashi in view of Bissot is silent as to the densities of the fibers in the mesh fabric being from 70 to 150 yarns/inch.
Yamaki teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane comprising a fluorinated polymer and a woven fabric (paragraph [0009]). The warp density and the weft density of the woven fabric are preferably at least 20 threads/in, more preferably at least 50 threads/in, and preferably at most 100 threads/in, more preferably at most 90 threads/in, to attain a lower electrolysis voltage and make the polymer electrolyte membrane stronger (paragraph [0034]).
The fiber density range of Yamaki substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Yamaki, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Minamibayashi in view of Bissot and Yamaki teach electrolyte membranes comprising a fluorinated polymer and a woven fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber density of the mesh fabric of Minamibayashi in view of Bissot to have warp and weft densities of 20-100 threads/inch, preferably 50-90 threads/inch, in order to make the membrane stronger and provide the membrane with a lower electrolysis voltage.
With respect to claims 9-11, Minamibayashi in view of Bissot teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Minamibayashi in view of Bissot is silent as to the fluoropolymer electrolyte being as described in claims 9-11.
Yamaki teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane comprising a fluorinated polymer and a woven fabric (paragraph [0009]). Yamaki further teaches the fluorinated polymer has sulfonic acid functional groups to attain a lower electrolysis voltage (paragraph [0046]). The fluorinated polymer preferably comprises units based on a fluoroolefin and units based on a fluorine-containing monomer having a sulfonic acid functional group (paragraph [0048]). The units based on a fluorine-containing monomer having a sulfonic acid functional group are preferably units represented by the formula (1), where L is a (n+1) valent perfluorinated hydrocarbon which may contain an oxygen atom at the end of a hydrocarbon group that has at least 2 carbon atoms, M is a hydrogen atom, an alkali metal or quaternary ammonium, and n is an integer of 1 or 2 (paragraphs [0051]-[0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
72
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since both Minamibayashi in view of Bissot and Yamaki teach electrolyte membranes comprising a fluorinated polymer with sulfonic acid functional groups and a woven fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of the fluoropolymer of Minamibayashi in view of Bissot to be the fluoropolymer disclosed in Yamaki, in order to provide the membrane with a lower electrolysis voltage and because it is known in the art as suitable for use as the electrolyte in a composite electrolyte membrane.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed March 17, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102/103 and 103
The rejections of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Minamibayashi (WO 2019/188960) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed March 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments are all with respect to Minamibayashi not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the aspect ratios YAA2/YAA1 and YAB2/YAB1 are 1.2-1.9. The newly added reference Bissot (US 4437951) is used in combination with Minamibayashi to address the newly added limitations. The Applicant's arguments are therefore moot as they do not address the combination of references used in the rejections of the amended claims presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 English equivalent US 2021/0095386 used as reference
2 Previously presented
3 English equivalent US 2021/0095386 used as reference
4 Previously presented
5 Cited in IDS
6 English equivalent US 2020/0259196 used as reference
Prosecution Insights