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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicants claim amendments received 15 June 2026. Claims 1, 3-13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 are currently pending. Claims 2, 14 and 17-20 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 rejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 4, the claim recites an anode catalyst material. However, claim 1, upon which claim 4 is dependent, already introduces the limitation of an anode catalyst material. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claim 4 intends to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
As to claim 8, 9 and 10, the claims recite an anode ionomer material. However, claim 1, upon which claims 8, 9 and 10 are dependent, already introduces the limitation of an ionomer material. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claims 8, 9 and 10 intend to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0307141 A1 to Hegge et al. (Hegge).
As to claims 1 and 8, Hegge teaches an electrolysis cell for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the electrolysis cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (7), a porous transport layer (11) including a surface facing the PEM (7) and including a surface morphology comprising PTL pores, and an anode catalyst layer (9) deposited on the PTL (11) surface morphology to form a porous transport electrode including a PTE surface morphology, the anode catalyst layer sprayed on to the PTL from an ink comprising the catalyst material and an ionomer, thus forming an infiltrated PTE wherein the catalyst and ionomer at least partially infiltrate the PTL pore of the surface morphology, the infiltrated PTE bound to the PEM (Paragraphs 0028-0041, 0097, 0120, 0171-0174 and 0207; Figures 2 and 3).
As to claims 4, 5 and 7, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hegge further teaches that the anode catalyst layer includes an anode catalyst material, such as iridium, thus essentially iridium, supported on an anode catalyst support, such as titanium nanofibers (Paragraphs 0028-0034 and 0134-0137).
As to claim 6, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Hegge further teaches that a weight percent of the catalyst material to the anode catalyst support is between 5 and 100 weight percent (ratio of, for example 1:0.5) (Paragraph 0052).
As to claim 9, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Hegge further teaches that the ionomer material, the polymer membrane material is a perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer, Nafion (Paragraph 0207).
As to claim 11, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hegge further teaches that the PTL (11) surface morphology includes pores with a larger pore size than the pores of the PTE (9) surface morphology (Figure 2).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegge as applied to claim 1, and further in view of EP 3 686 318 A1 to Buechi et al. (Buechi).
As to claim 3, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Hegge fails to further teach that there is a microporous layer forming at least a portion of the PTL surface. However, Buechi also discusses electrolysis cells with porous transport layers and teaches that the surface towards the catalyst/membrane should be formed as a microporous layer in order to improve efficiency and durability (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the PTL of Hegge with a PTL surface comprising a microporous layer in order to improve efficiency and durability as taught by Buechi.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegge as applied to claim 8, and further in view of US 2023/0287587 A1 to Rojas Herrera et al. (Rojas).
As to claim 10, Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 8. However, Hegge fails to teach a percentage of ionomer material that should be formed in the anode catalyst layer. However, Rojas also discusses water electrolysis with iridium anode catalysts formed with an ionomer and teaches that the ionomer percentage should be below 40% (Paragraph 0105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the ionomer to the anode catalyst at less than 40%, i.e. between 0 and 40%, with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the anode catalyst layer as taught by Rojas.
Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegge in view of “Novel Nafion composite membranes with mesoporous silica nanospheres as inorganic fillers” to Jin et al. (Jin).
As to claims 12, 13, 15 and 16, Hegge teaches an electrolysis cell for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the electrolysis cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (7) comprising an ionomer material comprising a perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer, a porous transport layer (11) including a surface facing the PEM (7) and including a surface morphology comprising PTL pores, and an anode catalyst layer (9) deposited on the PTL (11) surface morphology to form a porous transport electrode including a PTE surface morphology, the polymer electrolyte membrane pressed to the PTE surface morphology such that at least a portion of the ionomer of the PEM infiltrates the PTE surface morphology such that the ionomer material at least partially coats/occupies the PTL pores (Paragraphs 0028-0041, 0097, 0120, 0147 and 0171-0174; Figures 2 and 3). However, Hegge fails to further teach that the ionomer of the PEM comprises a filler material bound to the ionomer.
However, Jin also discusses proton exchange membranes for electrolysis formed of perfluorosulfonic acid and teaches that the inclusion of silica nanospheres improves water retention in the membrane (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the membrane of Jin with the inclusion of silica nanospheres in order to improve the water retention as taught by Jin.
Claims 12, 13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegge in view of “Monolayer Hexagonal Boron Nitride Nanosheets as Proton-Conductive Gas Barriers for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Water Electrolysis” to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claims 12, 13, 16 and 21, Hegge teaches an electrolysis cell for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the electrolysis cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (7) comprising an ionomer material comprising a perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer, a porous transport layer (11) including a surface facing the PEM (7) and including a surface morphology comprising PTL pores, and an anode catalyst layer (9) deposited on the PTL (11) surface morphology to form a porous transport electrode including a PTE surface morphology, the polymer electrolyte membrane pressed to the PTE surface morphology such that at least a portion of the ionomer of the PEM infiltrates the PTE surface morphology such that the ionomer material at least partially coats/occupies the PTL pores (Paragraphs 0028-0041, 0097, 0120, 0147 and 0171-0174; Figures 2 and 3). However, Hegge fails to further teach that the ionomer of the PEM comprises a filler material bound to the ionomer.
However, Kim also discusses proton exchange membranes for water electrolysis formed of perfluorosulfonic acid and teaches that the inclusion of boronitride flakes improves the hydrogen gas barrier and mechanical stability of the membrane (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the membrane of Hegge with boronitride flakes in order to improves the hydrogen gas barrier and mechanical stability of the membrane as taught by Kim.
Claims 12, 13, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegge in view of US 2023/0369612 A1 to Azra et al. (Azra).
As to claims 12, 13, 16 and 22, Hegge teaches an electrolysis cell for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the electrolysis cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (7) comprising an ionomer material comprising a perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer, a porous transport layer (11) including a surface facing the PEM (7) and including a surface morphology comprising PTL pores, and an anode catalyst layer (9) deposited on the PTL (11) surface morphology to form a porous transport electrode including a PTE surface morphology, the polymer electrolyte membrane pressed to the PTE surface morphology such that at least a portion of the ionomer of the PEM infiltrates the PTE surface morphology such that the ionomer material at least partially coats/occupies the PTL pores (Paragraphs 0028-0041, 0097, 0120, 0147 and 0171-0174; Figures 2 and 3). However, Hegge fails to further teach that the ionomer of the PEM comprises a filler material bound to the ionomer.
However, Azra also discusses electrolysis membranes and teaches that incorporated graphene oxide particles (considered flakes) into the ionomer material imparts additional ion conductivity (Abstract; Claims 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the membrane of Hegge with the addition of graphene oxide flakes in order to impart additional conductivity as taught by Azra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue that Hegge fails to teach a separate ionomer material infiltrated into the PTE surface morphology, instead teaching only a PEM. However, the Examiner disagrees, Hegge specifically teaches that the catalyst ink comprises an ionomer material that can be sprayed directly onto the porous PTL, as discussed above.
The remaining arguments do not apply to the combination of references utilized above, which are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment.
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights