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 Applicant’s claim amendments received 29 May 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 10 and 11 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the raised PTL portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 29 May 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 30 January 2026 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0401214 A1 to Duran et al. (Duran) in view of WO 2024/126714 A1 to Mandl et al. (Mandl).
As to claims 1, 3 and 4, Duran teaches an electrolysis cell, capable of operating for the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, the cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (123), a porous transport layer (127) including a PTL surface comprising a microporous layer (133), the surface having a surface morphology having raised portions and recessed portions formed by the natural porosity of the surface and an anode catalyst layer (121) deposited on the surface forming a porous transport electrode including contact regions on the raised portions and non-contact regions on the recessed portions (i.e. where a pore does not directly contact the PTL) (Paragraphs 0045, 0064 and 0065; Figure 1B).
However, Duran fails to teach that the anode catalyst layer is selectively deposited on the raised portions. However, Duran does further discuss minimizing catalyst loading (Paragraph 0051 and 0065).
Mandl also discusses PEM electrolysis cell and teaches that catalyst loading can be significantly reduced by selectively coating the catalyst at contact regions between the PEM and the PTL (gas diffusion layer) only (Paragraphs 0010 and 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to selectively deposit the catalyst of Duran on to only the contacting raised portions of the PTL surface in order to significantly reduce the amount of catalytic material required as taught by Mandl.
As to claim 2, the combination of Duran and Mandl teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the non-contact regions are not coated and spaced form the surface of the PEM thus forming gaps extending from the PEM to the PTL.
As to claims 5 and 6, the combination of Duran and Mandl teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Duran further teaches that the anode catalyst layer includes an anode catalyst material such as iridium or ruthenium (Paragraph 0159).
As to claim 7, the combination of Duran and Mandl teaches the apparatus of claim 5. The limitations of crystalline, amorphous or a combination thereof covers substantially all possible embodiments for the catalyst material and thus is taught by Duran.
As to claims 8 and 9, the combination of Duran and Mandl teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Duran further teaches that the anode catalyst layer comprises an anode catalyst support such as titanium particles (Paragraph 0159).
As to claim 10, Duran teaches an electrolysis cell, capable of operating for the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, the cell comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (123), a porous transport layer (127), a microporous layer (133) contacting the porous transport layer (127), the microporous layer (133) having a surface having a surface morphology having raised portions and recessed portions formed by the natural porosity of the surface and an anode catalyst layer (121) deposited on the surface forming a porous transport electrode including contact regions on the raised portions and non-contact regions on the recessed portions (i.e. where a pore does not directly contact the PTL) (Paragraphs 0045, 0064 and 0065; Figure 1B).
However, Duran fails to teach that the anode catalyst layer is selectively deposited on the raised portions. However, Duran does further discuss minimizing catalyst loading (Paragraph 0051 and 0065).
Mandl also discusses PEM electrolysis cell and teaches that catalyst loading can be significantly reduced by selectively coating the catalyst at contact regions between the PEM and the PTL (gas diffusion layer) only (Paragraphs 0010 and 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to selectively deposit the catalyst of Duran on to only the contacting raised portions of the PTL surface in order to significantly reduce the amount of catalytic material required as taught by Mandl.
As to claim 11, the combination of Duran and Mandl teaches the apparatus of claim 10. As discussed above, the non-contact regions are not coated and spaced form the surface of the PEM thus forming gaps extending from the PEM to the PTL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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