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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 9 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 September 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2023/0027171 A1).
As to claim 16, Sato discloses a method of manufacturing a CO2 reduction membrane electrode assembly, the method comprising:
Preparing a gas diffusion layer (#28 [0039])
Coating the gas diffusion layer with a solution to form a cathode layer (Example 1 and 5 “…the resulting solution was coated onto a 1.13 cm.sup.2 microporous layer-containing carbon paper (GDS3250, manufactured by Avcarb LLC) used as a gas diffusion layer” [0062])
Stacking a cation exchange membrane (Fig. 1 #14 [0051]) and an anode layer on the cathode layer (Fig. 1 #16).
The specific embodiments of Sato disclose using a solution of a reduction catalyst, an cation exchange ionomer, a cation, and a carbon-based mixture (Example 5 “A metal complex polymer solution was prepared by dissolving 11.6 mg (14.7 mmol) of a complex catalyst having a chemical structure represented by formula (3) shown above [Mn{4,4′-di(1H-1-pyrrolyl-3-propyl carbonate)-2,2′-bipyridine}(CO).sub.3(CH.sub.3CN)](PF.sub.6) in 1.58 mL of acetonitrile, and then adding 33 μL of a 0.5 vol % pyrrole acetonitrile solution and 154 μL of a 0.2 M FeCl.sub.3 ethanol solution. Subsequently, 16.5 mg of a carbon material (Vulcan (a registered trademark) XC-72), 68,8 μL of a Nafion 117 alcohol-water mixed solution (manufactured by Aldrich Co., Ltd.) and 5 mg of KOtf were added, and the mixture was then subjected to ultrasonic dispersion. An operation in which 41 μL of the resulting suspension was dripped onto a 1.13 cm.sup.2 microporous layer-containing carbon paper (GDS3250, manufactured by Avcarb LLC) used as a gas diffusion layer and then dried at 60° C.” emphasis added to each constituent).
Sato further discloses the exchange ionomer in the catalyst layer may be either an anionic or cationic exchange ionomer ([0048]) depending on whether the device is operated with an acidic or alkaline medium ([0032]-[0033] depending on the charge transfer required through the membrane).
Thus, the prior art discloses the specific constituents of the cathode layer and ionic exchange membrane, although without a specific embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the specific anion exchange ionomer in the solution as disclosed in Sato in forming the MEA of Sato because Sato expressly discloses its suitability for use in the cathode layer of the MEA and thus provide an expected result of operating as an ion conductor and binder (Sato [0048]). See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 B.
As to claim 17, Sato discloses wherein the carbon based mixture is carbon black, or carbon nanotubes ([0043] via explicit citation that the Vulcan used in the specific example is a carbon black).
As to claim 18, Sato further discloses wherein the carbon-based mixture is comprised in an amount of 20 parts to 500 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the reduction catalyst. (as calculated from Example 5 11.6 mg catalysts to 16.5 mg carbon by weight thus providing about 70 parts by weight catalyst to 100 parts by weight carbon thus falling within the instantly claimed range).
As to claim 20, Sato discloses wherein the at least one cation is sodium, potassium, or cesium ([0045] and potassium as provided in the examples).
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhl et al (US 2017/0321334 A1) in view of Sato et al (US 2023/0027171 A1).
As to claim 16, Kuhl discloses a method of manufacturing a CO2 reduction membrane electrode assembly, the method comprising:
preparing a gas diffusion layer ([0034], #626 Fig. 6)
a cathode layer (#620 Fig. 6 ) comprising a reduction catalysts, an anion exchange ionomer and a carbon based mixture ([0046]-[0047] such as Vulcan carbon which is a carbon black as required by instant claim 17)
stacking a cation exchange membrane (Fig. 1 #14 [0051]) and an anode layer on the cathode layer (Fig. 1 #16).
Kuhl fails to explicitly disclose the explicit coating of the gas diffusion layer for manufacturing and the cation included with the solution.
Sato discloses a method of manufacturing a CO2 reduction membrane electrode assembly, the method comprising:
Coating the gas diffusion layer with a solution to form a cathode layer (Example 1 and 5 “…the resulting solution was coated onto a 1.13 cm.sup.2 microporous layer-containing carbon paper (GDS3250, manufactured by Avcarb LLC) used as a gas diffusion layer” [0062]) and using a cation included with the catalysts layer ([0011],[0014],[0044]-[0047]), where the cation includes Na, K, and Cs (as required by instant claim 20, [0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an alkali metal within the cathode as taught by Sato in the cathode of Kuhl because when the metal complex catalyst reacts with CO.sub.2, because the alkali metal salt (or alkali metal ions) adsorbs specifically to the oxygen side of the CO.sub.2, lowering the activation energy, the overpotential due to the CO2 reduction reaction is lowered, and carbon dioxide electrolysis can occur at a lower cell potential to yield a carbon dioxide reduction product and as a result of the alkali metal salt (or alkali metal ions) adsorbing specifically to the oxygen side of the CO.sub.2, oxidation of the metal complex catalyst by CO.sub.2 is suppressed, and an improvement in the durability of the metal complex catalyst is sometimes observed (Sato [0053]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the conventional method of coating the gas diffusion layer with a solution of cathode constituents as disclosed in Sato in manufacturing the MEA of Kuhl because it is a recognized method of applying cathode catalysts layers to a gas diffusion layer to provide the expected result of assembling the MEAs. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
As to claim 19, Kuhl discloses wherein the ionomer is comprised in an amount of 50 parts to 300 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the reduction catalyst. ([0046] 30-70wt% of the entire catalyst layer which overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795