DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s amendments received 11 December 2025. Currently, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Carrasco et al. discloses an electrode catalyst for a water electrolysis cell (i.e.: water oxidation on pg. 6798: title and abstract), the electrode catalyst (a family of NiFe-LDH electrocatalysts for OER) comprising: a catalyst, the catalyst being a layered double hydroxide that contains a chelating agent according pg. 6799 in the section title “Synthesis of LDHs” where Ni/Fe LDH is prepared using a hydrothermal method from iron(III) chloride, nickel(II) chloride, and triethanolamine (i.e.: chelating agent) in a mixture of water/ethanol. Various other NiFe LDH materials were synthesized by anion exchange with the chloride to form sodium alkyl sulfonates as intercalants (pg. 6799-6800). Carrasco et al. discloses two different support/organic compound formulations for electrochemical measurements using NiFe-LDH inks. The first formulation comprised LDH, a PTFE binder, acetylene black in ethanol deposited onto nickel foam (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). The second formulation was applied to a glassy carbon rotating disc electrode and comprised LDH, graphitized carbon, and Nafion in ethanol/water (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer meaning it has an anionic group (i.e.: sulfonate, RSO31-). Since the both LDH inks were deposited directly onto the support, both the NiFe LDH and organic binder are capable of be directedly disposed on the surface of the support.
The first LDH electrode formulation discloses a transition metal support (i.e.: nickel foam) while the second LDH electrode discloses an anionic organic group (i.e.: Nafion) as required by Claim 1 of the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the support of the first LDH formulation due (i.e.: nickel foam) due to its high surface area and increased conductivity and the organic species (i.e.: Nafion) from the second LDH formulation due to its higher ionic conductivity while still maintaining good adhesion with the reasonable expectation of forming a superior OER electrode.
Regarding Claim 2, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the anionic functional group is a sulfonic acid group (i.e.: Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer) on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section.
Regarding Claim 4, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the organic functional group includes a perfluorocarbon polymer having a sulfonic acid group (i.e.: Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer) on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section.
Regarding Claim 5, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the layered double hydroxide contains Ni and Fe on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section and pg. 6802 in Table 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the transition metal in the support is Ni (foam) (pg. 6799-6800: Electrode Preparation section).
Regarding Claim 13, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the layered double hydroxide contains Ni and Fe on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section and pg. 6802 in Table 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the support consists of Ni since the support is nickel foam (pg. 6799-6800: Electrode Preparation section).
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Flegler et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Flegler et al. (“Screen printed bifunctional gas diffusion electrode for metal-air batteries: Combining the best of the catalyst and binder world,” Electrochimica Acta 2017, 258, 495-503 – previously presented) is directed towards optimizing a binder for use in an electrode for the OER reaction (pg. 496: 1. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 3, Carrasco et al. discloses the electrode catalyst for a water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the organic compound has an anionic group that is a sulfonic acid group (e.g.: Nafion). However, Carrasco et al. does not disclose an anionic group that is a carboxylic acid ionic group.
Flegler et al. is directed towards a gas diffusion electrode that has both oxygen reduction (ORR) and oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalysts with the intent of optimizing the wetting of the electrode surface by binder selection (pg. 495: abstract). In the latter case, the OER catalyst is a non-noble metal oxide (NiCo2O4) (pg. 495-6: Introduction). Flegler et al. found that the use of CMC (carboxymethylcellulose) as the binder in the OER layer resulted in a layer low contact angle (i.e.: hydrophilic layer) and a system with a lower overpotential (pg. 501-2: 3.3.2. Double-layer GDE section). Moreover, the use of CMC in the OER catalyst layer facilitated wetting of the catalyst by penetration of the electrolyte through the porous layer (pg. 501: 3.3.2. Double-layer GDE section). CMC is a common binder in electrochemical application including lithium-ion batteries (pg. 495-6: 1. Introduction). As per the chemical structure below, CMC has an anionic functionality that is a carboxylic acid ionic group (R = CH2CO2H). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode composition of Carrasco et al. with CMC as a binder (i.e.: “organic compound”) as disclosed by Flegler et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an OER catalyst electrode with a lower overpotential due to the more efficient wetting of the catalyst layer by the electrolyte.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
CMC Chemical Structure)]8. Claims 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dresp et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Dresp et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0028465 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a membrane electrode assembly for water electrolysis with a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH OER anode catalyst (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Carrasco et al. a water electrolysis device comprising a three electrode set up in a KOH electrolyte (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). The three electrodes are an anode that is the electrode catalyst according to Claim 1 (i.e.: OER catalyst), a steel counter electrode (i.e.: counter electrode or cathode) and a Ag/AgCl reference electrode (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). However, Carrasco et al. does not disclose an electrolyte membrane as the electrochemical set up of Carrasco et al. is designed for catalyst evaluation, not larger scale water splitting. Since the anode catalyst of Carrasco et al. is an effective catalyst for alkaline OER (pg. 6800: Electrochemical Characterization), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use said anode catalyst in an MEA to evaluate its performance on a more industrially relevant scale.
Dresp et al. discloses a membrane electrode 100 (FIG. 6), which is used in fuel cells or electrolyzers (i.e.: water electrolysis cell) as per the abstract; ¶2, ¶4, ¶12; Claims 1, 10, and 11. Dresp et al. further discloses an anode catalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction comprises a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH material (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3). Also, Dresp’465 teaches that a binder (analogous to the anionic organic group of the present application) comprised of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer (e.g.: Nafion) can be used to improve the electrode adhesion/cohesion, conductivity, and operational temperature range (¶30-31). Since both Carrasco et al. and Dresp et al. disclose LDH-based catalysts with binders for OER, they are analogous art. In FIG. 6, Dresp et al. discloses a MEA 100 for use in a reversible fuel cell (analogous to a water electrolysis cell of the instant application) as indicated by the operation flow direction 11 (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). FIG. 6 further teaches a second electrode 2 that is the cathode with an ion exchange membrane 1 disposed between the two electrodes (¶54-56 and ¶84-92).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the OER NiFe electrode catalyst of Carrasco et al. in the electrochemical cell of Dresp et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an effective water electrolyzer for use on an industrial scale.
Regarding Claim 8, Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. discloses the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 7, wherein the electrolyte membrane include an ion exchange membrane which can be any ion exchange membrane used in fuel cell or electrolyzers technology (¶61 of Dresp et al.). The ion exchange membrane must have electrical conductivity when wet and one such example is based on Nafion (perfluorosulfonic acids), which are proton exchange membranes (¶61 of Dresp et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. discloses the electrolysis cell according to Claim 7, wherein the electrolyte membrane include an anion exchange membrane, which (selectively) permits ion diffusion from the anode chamber into the cathode chamber or vice versa as per ¶54 of Dresp et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Carrasco et al. discloses a water electrolysis cell, but the electrochemical reactions all occur in single space. Carrasco et al. is silent on the redox chemistry of water splitting when it occurs in multiple spaces. Since the anode catalyst of Carrasco et al. is an effective catalyst for alkaline OER (pg. 6800: Electrochemical Characterization), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use said anode catalyst in an MEA to evaluate its performance on a more industrially relevant scale.
Dresp et al. discloses an OER anode (electrode 2 in FIG. 6 of Dresp et al.) based on a doped-NiFe LDH material like Carrasco et al, so they are analogous art. FIG. 6 of Dresp et al. discloses a MEA 100 for use in a reversible fuel cell (analogous to a water electrolysis cell of the instant application) as indicated by the operation flow direction 11 (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). FIG. 6 further teaches a second electrode 2 that is the cathode with an ion exchange membrane 1 (analogous to the diaphragm of Claim 10) disposed between the two electrodes (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). The first space and the second space as per the limitation of Claim 10 of the present application is analogous to the gas diffusion layers 3 described in ¶55 of Dresp et al. and depicted in FIG. 6. The electrodes (2, i.e.: the anode and cathode) are provided in the first and second space as per the FIG. 6 of Dresp et al.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the OER NiFe electrode catalyst of Carrasco et al. in the electrochemical cell of Dresp et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an effective water electrolyzer for use on an industrial scale.
9. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. as applied to Claims 7 and 10 above, and further in view of Nakamura’406
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Dresp et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0028465 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a membrane electrode assembly for water electrolysis with a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH OER anode catalyst (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3). Nakamura et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0301406 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward method and apparatus for water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 11, Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 7. However, Carrasco et al. and Dresp et al. does not explicitly teach a power source, but said power source (e.g.: voltage applicator) would be required to promote water electrolysis as the reaction is not spontaneous under standard conditions. Nakamura et al. is analogous art to Carrasco et al. and Dresp et al. since it is directed at water electrolysis (title) and has the same structure (i.e.: parts) as the water electrolysis cell of Claim 7 of the instant application. In Claim 18 of Nakamura et al., the structure of the water electrolysis apparatus is a solid polymer electrolytic membrane with an anode and a cathode disposed sandwiching the solid polymer electrolytic membrane, and a power supply unit for applying potential between the anode and the cathode. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water electrolysis device of Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. in with the power supply taught by Nakamura et al. with the reasonable expectation of applying a voltage between the anode and cathode to promote the electrolysis of water.
Regarding Claim 12, Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 10. However, Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. does not explicitly teach a power source, but said power source (e.g.: voltage applicator) would be required to promote water electrolysis as the reaction is not spontaneous under standard conditions. Nakamura et al which is analogous art to Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. since it is directed at water electrolysis (title) and has a similar structure to the water electrolysis cell of Claim 10 of the instant application. In Claim 18 of Nakamura et al., the structure of the water electrolysis apparatus is a solid polymer electrolytic membrane with an anode and a cathode disposed sandwiching the solid polymer electrolytic membrane, and a power supply unit for applying potential between the anode and the cathode. Moreover, in ¶90, Nakamura et al. indicates that a stainless-steel mesh is used as the gas diffusion layer for both the anode and cathode, which is analogous to the “space” of the instant application as per Claim 10. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water electrolysis device of Carrasco et al. in view of Dresp et al. with the power supply taught by Nakamura et al. with the reasonable expectation of applying a voltage between the anode and cathode to promote the electrolysis of water.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-6, filed 11 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carrasco et al. The reasons for the rejections are explained in detail above.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM 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, 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.
12. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794