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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 24 September 2025 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0068115 A1 to Desmaris et al. (Desmaris).
As to claim 1, Desmaris teaches an electrolysis cell (400) for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the cell (400) comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) (430), a porous transport layer (PTL) (not shown in the figure, but located between conductive element (423) and elongated nanostructures (221)) including a surface facing the PEM (430) and including some sort of surface morphology, and an anode catalyst layer (221/222) deposited on the PTL surface morphology to form a porous transport electrode on the PTL surface including contact regions between the PEM and the PTL (i.e. the regions wherein contact between the PTL and PEM is made with the catalyst (221/222)) and non-contact regions wherein the PEM is spaced from the PTL without an intervening catalyst (i.e. the gaps between the catalysts (221/222)) (Paragraphs 0001, 0055 and 0114-0121; Figure 4).
As to claim 2, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Desmaris teaches that the non-contact regions form gaps extending from the PEM (430) to the PTL (Figure 4).
As to claim 3, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Desmaris further teaches that the anode catalyst layer (221/222) only resides in the contact regions (Figure 4).
As to claims 5 and 6, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Desmaris further teaches that the anode catalyst layer (221/222) comprises an anode catalyst (222) comprising, for example, iridium (Paragraphs 0079 and 0115; Figure 4).
As to claim 7, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 5. The limitation of amorphous, crystalline or a combination thereof covers all options for iridium, i.e. amorphous, crystalline, partially amorphous or partially crystalline, and thus is taught by Desmaris.
As to claims 8 and 9, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Desmaris further teaches that the anode catalyst layer (221/222) includes an anode catalyst support (221) comprising, for example, titanium (Paragraphs 0093 and 0115; Figure 4).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desmaris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0307141 A1 to Hegge et al. (Hegge).
As to claim 4, Desmaris teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Desmaris fails to further teach that the porous transport layer surface comprises a microporous layer. However, Hegge also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that a microporous layer between the catalytic layer and the porous transport layer can improve conduction and resistance (Paragraphs 0008 and 0213). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Desmaris such that the surface of the porous transport layer comprises a microporous layer in order to improve conduction and resistance as taught by Hegge.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desmaris in view of Hegge.
As to claim 10, Desmaris teaches an electrolysis cell (400) for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, the cell (400) comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) (430), a porous transport layer (PTL) (not shown in the figure, but located between conductive element (423) and elongated nanostructures (221)) including a surface facing the PEM (430) and an anode catalyst layer (221/222) deposited on the PTL (Paragraphs 0001, 0055 and 0114-0121; Figure 4).
However, Desmaris fails to further teach that the apparatus includes a microporous layer between the porous transport layer and the catalyst layer. However, Hegge also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that a microporous layer between the catalytic layer and the porous transport layer can improve conduction and resistance (Paragraphs 0008 and 0213). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Desmaris with a microporous layer between the porous transport layer and the catalyst layer in order to improve conduction and resistance as taught by Hegge.
The combination thus forming the catalyst layer on the surface morphology of the microporous layer (MPL) to form a porous transport electrode on the surface including contact regions between the PEM and the MPL (i.e. the regions wherein contact between the MPL and PEM is made with the catalyst (221/222)) and non-contact regions wherein the PEM is spaced from the MPL without an intervening catalyst (i.e. the gaps between the catalysts (221/222)) (Paragraphs 0001, 0055 and 0114-0121; Figure 4).
As to claim 11, the combination of Desmaris and Hegge teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Desmaris teaches that the non-contact regions form gaps extending from the PEM (430) to the MPL (Figure 4).
Conclusion
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