DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 22-41 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-21 have been canceled. New claim 42 has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 22, 26, 27 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer further in view of US2012282501A1 of Haynes.
Regarding Claim 22, Fleck discloses a redox flow battery with at least one cell and an electrode and method of forming a conductive pattern of a redox flow battery electrode element in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fleck teaches a porous electrode, Para[0014], with different density regions, Para[0015], produced by additive manufacturing, Para[0027]. This encompasses the laser powder bed fusion and dense/porous region limitations. Fleck discloses that the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another. Simulation calculations indicate that the density ranges are advantageously arranged asymmetrically with respect to one another in order to promote a distribution of the electrolyte in the electrode. The respective density can be influenced in particular by the porosity or fiber structure of the material of the electrode. By means of the different density ranges, the electrolyte or electrolytes can be guided in a targeted manner to a reaction surface, which is in particular the active surface of the electrode formed, for example, by pores. In addition, pressure losses and also losses due to diffusion polarization can be kept particularly low. Furthermore, owing to the density ranges, turbulence and/or homogenization of the electrolyte, Para[0015]. Fleck also teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation. Fleck does not teach monolithic structure or a metal catalyst for the electrochemical reaction.
Greer discloses three-dimensional architected pyrolyzed electrodes for use in secondary batteries and methods of making three-dimensional architected electrodes in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Greer teaches that the fabricated 3D monolithic electrode may have great structural integrity, which can maintain the designed architecture from the fabrication even after battery operations, Para[0276]. Greer teaches that the additive manufacturing process may be a powder bed fusion technique, Para[0032]. This encompasses the laser powder bed fusion limitation of claim 22. Greer also discloses a nickel catalyst, Para[0257]. Greer teaches that these electrodes described herein have a combination of features and properties that are elusive in conventional electrodes, including, but not limited to, high strength, high deformability/ductility, large elastic limit, low weight, and low density, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monolithic structure and the nickel catalyst taught by Greer in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to achieve great structural integrity, high strength, high deformability/ductility, large elastic limit, low weight, and low density.
Haynes teaches a metal electrode assembly for flow batteries in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Haynes teaches that the impermeable metal cathode 25 , may be fabricated from sheet metal, cast, forged, compacted from powder metal or fabricated by any other technique suitable for forming impermeable metal electrodes. In alternative embodiments, however, the impermeable electrode 25 may have corrugations, protrusions, channels, or other features rendering the impermeable electrode 25 non-flat, Para[0132]. In the electrode assembly 900 , the metal spacers 518 , 519 may operate as flow directors which separate the electrolyte flow path 526 into a number distinct of electrolyte flow channels 526 a, 526 b, etc, Para[0132]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an impermeable section of the electrode with channels taught by Haynes in order to direct the electrolyte flow path across the permeable electrode portion of Fleck.
Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 26 further limits claim 22 by claiming that a density of the dense region is equal to, or greater than, 90%, and a density of the porous region is smaller than 90%.
While Fleck teaches different density regions, Para[0015], Fleck does not teach a specific density.
Greer teaches that the porosity of the structure is selected from the range of 10% to 95%. This overlaps with both the claimed range for the dense region and the claimed range for the porous region. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Greer discloses that the electrodes described herein have advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Generally, development of electrodes involves trade-offs among a number properties or features. In the case of lightweight electrodes, a challenge is the trade-off among density, strength, and stiffness. The electrodes described herein address these challenges via a combination of properties and features, such as low density and high strength, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the dense and porous regions disclosed by Fleck with the density taught by Greer in order to achieve advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 further limits claim 26 by claiming that the density of the porous region is in a range from 25% to 50%.
While Fleck teaches different density regions, Para[0015], Fleck does not teach a specific density.
Greer teaches that the porosity of the structure is selected from the range of 10% to 95%. This overlaps with both the claimed range for the dense region and the claimed range for the porous region. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Greer discloses that the electrodes described herein have advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Generally, development of electrodes involves trade-offs among a number properties or features. In the case of lightweight electrodes, a challenge is the trade-off among density, strength, and stiffness. The electrodes described herein address these challenges via a combination of properties and features, such as low density and high strength, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the dense and porous regions disclosed by Fleck with the density taught by Greer in order to achieve advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 33 further limits claim 22 by claiming dense region flow channels having a serpentine, interdigitated, or pin-type flow field design.
Fleck does not specifically teach a flow field design with serpentine, interdigitated, or pin-type design.
Greer teaches that the electrode is an interdigitated electrode in said electrochemical cell, Para[0030]. Greer discloses that it is possible to make a 3D interdigitated full cell to have great energy and power density due to short ion-diffusion length in an electrolyte and a high active materials fraction, Para[0275]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the interdigitated design disclosed by Greer in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to have great energy and power density. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the forming further includes: forming in the porous region a plurality of sub-regions having different porosities.
Fleck teaches that in an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 34.
Claim 35 further limits claim 34 by claiming that a porosity of the porous region is provided by a porosity gradient.
Fleck teaches that in an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Adjacent density regions form a porosity gradient. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Haynes cover all limitations of claim 35.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer further in view of US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of US2019299290A1 of Kuhns.
Claim 23 further limits claim 22 by claiming adjusting one or more parameters of the laser power bed fusion that control a laser power, a scan speed, or a hatch spacing; and based on the adjusting, controlling a porosity of the porous region.
Fleck does not teach adjusting the laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing.
Kuhns discloses an additively manufactured non-uniform porous materials and components in-situ with fully material, and related methods, systems and computer program product in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kuhns teaches that the distance between scan lines can be increased to increase porosity or the laser power can be pulsed from higher to a lower power or on and off. These methods allow the user to set the laser parameters in the print control file and thereby control the porosity throughout the part, Para[0101]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the porosity of the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer by adjusting the laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing as taught by Kuhns. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Kuhns covers all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer further in view of US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of CN106299383A (machine translation) of Zhang.
Claim 24 further limits claim 22 by claiming that an outer surface of the dense region distal the porous region has a shape of a dome.
Fleck does not teach a dome shape.
Zhang discloses a fuel cell module in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang teaches that since the original planar type membrane electrode is changed to a curved shape, the specific surface area of the membrane electrode is increased and the internal exchange reaction efficiency is improved, so that the practical use efficiency of the fuel cell module adopting the membrane electrode is improved, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dome or curve shaped electrode in order to increase the surface area of the electrode increasing efficiency. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 24.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer further in view of US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of DE3812813A1 (machine translation) of Lemoine.
Claim 25 further limits claim 22 by claiming that an outer surface of the porous region distal the dense region has a ridged shape.
Fleck does not specifically teach a ridged shape.
Lemoine teaches a fuel cell working electrochemically in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lemoine teaches wave-shaped electrodes, Para[0009], equivalent to the claimed ridged shape. Lemoine discloses that the wave-like formation of electrodes and electrolyte results in high mechanical strength of the fuel cells, Para[0009]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the wave shape taught by Lemoine in the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer in order to achieve high mechanical strength. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Lemoine cover all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer further in view of US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of JP2019216060A (machine translation) of Miyake and WO2012014768A1 (machine translation) of Sasaki.
Claim 28 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the dense region provides functionality of a flow field layer of the electrode, and the porous region provides combined functionalities of a gas diffusion layer and a catalyst layer of the electrode.
Fleck teaches that in conventional redox flow batteries, the electrolyte is pumped to or through the electrode by means of a so-called flow field (flow field). The flow field forms a conductive structure which is arranged as part of an electrode element on the electrode. Fleck does not teach a gas diffusion layer or a catalyst layer.
Miyake teaches a production method of coating liquid for forming fine porous layer of gas diffusion electrode in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Miyake teaches a structure consisting of a formed catalyst layer and a gas diffusion layer, and that the performance required of the gas diffusion electrode includes, for example, gas diffusion, conductivity for collecting electricity generated in the catalyst layer, and drainage for efficiently removing moisture generated on the surface of the catalyst layer. can give. In order to obtain such a gas diffusion electrode, generally, a conductive porous substrate having both gas diffusion ability and conductivity is used, Para[0002].
Sasake teaches an electrode for use in a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sasake discloses an electrode for a fuel cell having both functions of a gas diffusion layer and an electrode catalyst layer, Para[0001]. Sasake teaches that since the electrode for a fuel cell of the present invention also has the functions of a catalyst layer and a gas diffusion layer, it is not necessary to use a gas diffusion layer when forming a membrane electrode assembly. Therefore, when used for either one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, the gas diffusion layer can be omitted on the electrode side. As a result, the membrane electrode assembly can be made thinner, and as a result, the fuel cell stack can be made thinner and thinner, and the contact surface resistance can be reduced by omitting it further, Para[0030].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the porous region taught by Fleck and Greer as the gas diffusion layer and catalyst layer because the porous region would meet the requirement of the gas diffusion layer and catalyst layer as taught by Miyake and Sasake. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Miyake and Sasake cover all limitations of claim 28.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, further in view of JP2019216060A (machine translation) of Miyake and WO2012014768A1 (machine translation) of Sasaki, as applied to claim 28 above, further in view of US20190067706A1 of Liu.
Claim 29 further limits claim 28 by claiming that an entirety of a volume of the porous region contains catalytic surfaces provided by pores of the porous region.
Fleck does not teach catalytic surfaces.
Liu teaches carbon dioxide reduction electro catalysts prepared for metal organic frameworks in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liu teaches that the catalytic reactions generally take place on the surface and inside of the pores of the catalyst material. Highly porous catalysts, however, offer more catalytic surface area, therefore more overall catalytic activity. The microporosity of the catalyst will also elongate the carbon dioxide retention time inside of the pore, which could potentially alter the reaction paths and products, Para[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalytic surfaces as taught by Liu in the porous region taught by Fleck to offer more catalytic surface area. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Miyake, Sasaki, and Liu teach all limitations of claim 29.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of CN111508712A (machine translation) of Jia.
Claim 30 further limits claim 22 by further comprising: selectively etching at least a portion of the monolithic structure after the fabricating to increase a surface area of the catalyst.
Fleck does not teach etching.
Jia discloses a manufacturing method of powder sintered anode foil and anode foil in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jia teaches that in order to store electrical energy, etching processing technology is currently applied to both the anode and the cathode to form a concave-convex shape on the surface of the aluminum foil, thereby increasing the electrode area. Especially for the anode aluminum foil, the surface is etched to open countless tiny tunnel-like holes. The surface area can be expanded, Para[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the electrode as taught by Jia to increase the surface area of the electrode. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Jia covers all limitations of claim 30.
Claims 31, 32, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of US2019299290A1 of Kuhns and of WO2007117230A1 (machine translation) of Darling.
Claim 31 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region includes a first porous surface that contacts the dense region, and a second porous surface configured to contact a membrane of the electrochemical flow cell, and pores of the porous region include decreasing or increasing pore sizes between the first porous surface and the second porous surface.
Fleck teaches different adjacent density regions each having a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Fleck does not specifically teach an increase or decrease in pore size.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore size between porous surfaces as taught by Kuhns and Darling in the electrode taught by Fleck, Greer and Haynes in order to regulate the flow of the fluid. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 31.
Claim 32 further limits claim 31 by claiming that the pore sizes increase in a direction of the first porous surface so as to provide flow of liquid from the second porous surface to the first porous surface via capillary action.
Fleck teaches different adjacent density regions each having a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Fleck discloses that the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another. Simulation calculations indicate that the density ranges are advantageously arranged asymmetrically with respect to one another in order to promote a distribution of the electrolyte in the electrode. The respective density can be influenced in particular by the porosity or fiber structure of the material of the electrode. By means of the different density ranges, the electrolyte or electrolytes can be guided in a targeted manner to a reaction surface, which is in particular the active surface of the electrode formed, for example, by pores. In addition, pressure losses and also losses due to diffusion polarization can be kept particularly low. Furthermore, owing to the density ranges, turbulence and/or homogenization of the electrolyte, Para[0015]. Fleck does not specifically teach an increase in pore size or capillary action.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore size between porous surfaces as taught by Kuhns and Darling in the electrode taught by Fleck, Greer, and Haynes in order to regulate the flow of the fluid via capillary action. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 32.
Claim 41 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region is further configured to interact with the embedded flow channels for removal of a product produced by the electrochemical reaction.
Fleck teaches a porous electrode, Para[0014], with different density regions, Para[0015], produced by additive manufacturing, Para[0027]. This covers the additive manufacturing and dense/porous region limitations. Fleck discloses that the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another. Simulation calculations indicate that the density ranges are advantageously arranged asymmetrically with respect to one another in order to promote a distribution of the electrolyte in the electrode. The respective density can be influenced in particular by the porosity or fiber structure of the material of the electrode. By means of the different density ranges, the electrolyte or electrolytes can be guided in a targeted manner to a reaction surface, which is in particular the active surface of the electrode formed, for example, by pores. In addition, pressure losses and also losses due to diffusion polarization can be kept particularly low. Furthermore, owing to the density ranges, turbulence and/or homogenization of the electrolyte, Para[0015]. Fleck also teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation.
Haynes teaches that the impermeable metal cathode 25 , may be fabricated from sheet metal, cast, forged, compacted from powder metal or fabricated by any other technique suitable for forming impermeable metal electrodes. In alternative embodiments, however, the impermeable electrode 25 may have corrugations, protrusions, channels, or other features rendering the impermeable electrode 25 non-flat, Para[0132]. In the electrode assembly 900 , the metal spacers 518 , 519 may operate as flow directors which separate the electrolyte flow path 526 into a number distinct of electrolyte flow channels 526 a, 526 b, etc, Para[0132]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an impermeable section of the electrode with channels taught by Haynes in order to direct the electrolyte flow path across the permeable electrode portion of Fleck.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the flow channels as taught by Fleck and Haynes to regulate the flow of the fluid as disclosed by Kuhns and Darling resulting in a removal of the product produced in the electrochemical reaction. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 41.
Claim 42 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the reactant is conducted through the dense region exclusively via the embedded flow channels and then spread into the porous region.
Fleck teaches a porous electrode, Para[0014], with different density regions, Para[0015], produced by additive manufacturing, Para[0027]. This covers the additive manufacturing and dense/porous region limitations. Fleck discloses that the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another. Simulation calculations indicate that the density ranges are advantageously arranged asymmetrically with respect to one another in order to promote a distribution of the electrolyte in the electrode. The respective density can be influenced in particular by the porosity or fiber structure of the material of the electrode. By means of the different density ranges, the electrolyte or electrolytes can be guided in a targeted manner to a reaction surface, which is in particular the active surface of the electrode formed, for example, by pores. In addition, pressure losses and also losses due to diffusion polarization can be kept particularly low. Furthermore, owing to the density ranges, turbulence and/or homogenization of the electrolyte, Para[0015]. Fleck also teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation.
Haynes teaches that the impermeable metal cathode 25 , may be fabricated from sheet metal, cast, forged, compacted from powder metal or fabricated by any other technique suitable for forming impermeable metal electrodes. In alternative embodiments, however, the impermeable electrode 25 may have corrugations, protrusions, channels, or other features rendering the impermeable electrode 25 non-flat, Para[0132]. In the electrode assembly 900 , the metal spacers 518 , 519 may operate as flow directors which separate the electrolyte flow path 526 into a number distinct of electrolyte flow channels 526 a, 526 b, etc, Para[0132]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an impermeable section of the electrode with channels taught by Haynes in order to direct the electrolyte flow path across the permeable electrode portion of Fleck.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the flow channels as taught by Fleck and Haynes to regulate the flow of the fluid as disclosed by Fleck, Haynes, Kuhns and Darling resulting in a removal of the product produced in the electrochemical reaction. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 42.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of KR101267326B1 (machine translation) of Ihm.
Claim 36 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the forming further includes: forming cooling channels embedded within the dense region, the cooling channels forming one or more closed loops for flow of a working fluid.
Fleck teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation. Fleck does not specifically teach cooling channels.
Ihm teaches a separator, manufacturing method thereof and fuel cell including the separator in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ihm teaches that a cooling channel may be formed on the back surface of the air electrode, or a cooling channel may be formed on the back surface of the fuel electrode. In addition, a cooling channel is formed at the back of the cathode and the backside of the anode to reduce the volume of the fuel cell stack, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cooling channels taught by Ihm in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to reduce the volume of the fuel cell. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Ihm covers all limitations of claim 36.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of US2019067706A1 of Liu.
Claim 37 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the electrode is a cathode for an electrolyzer and the electrochemical reaction is a CO2 reduction reaction, and the metal comprises one of: copper, a copper alloy, tin, lead, a tin-lead alloy, indium, or an alloy containing any one of the foregoing.
Fleck does not teach a CO2 reduction reaction or the metal.
Greer teaches that the active electrode carbon allotrope material is a composite comprising glassy carbon, pyrolytic carbon, graphitic carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination of these, and one or more additives selected from the group consisting of nickel, copper, cobalt, iron, silicon, germanium, tin, magnesium, aluminum, titanium, vanadium, chromium, zinc, molybdenum, antimony, phosphorous, and metal oxides, Para[0024], and that the electrodes described herein can have a wide range of geometries and configurations suitable for and advantageous for electrochemical cells. In addition to beneficial physical and mechanical embodiments noted above, these electrodes include low tortuosity, for example, Para[0025]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include copper or tin as taught by Greer in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to achieve beneficial physical and mechanical properties.
Liu teaches that embodiments described herein relate generally to the synthesis and fabrication of MOF based electro-catalysts with highly porous frameworks. Such a set of electrocatalysts can be used as catalysts for carbon dioxide reduction reactions (CRR), Para[0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer in an electrolyzer with a CO2 reduction reaction as taught by Liu.
Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Liu cover all limitations of claim 37.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer and US2012282501A1 of Haynes, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of CN112242546A (machine translation) of Song.
Claim 38 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region has a thickness in a range from 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers.
Fleck does not teach a thickness of the porous region.
Song teaches metal-supported self-sealing solid oxide fuel cell/electrolytic cell based on additive manufacturing and galvanic pile in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Song teaches that the thickness of the dense metal body is not less than 0.3 mm (300 micrometers), and the thickness of the porous metal body is not less than 0.1 mm (100 micrometers), Para[0080]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Song teaches that the inventor found that within the above-mentioned structural size range, the fabricated battery structure can be better achieved without collapse and sufficient supporting force, Para[0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of the porous region as taught by Song in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to provide sufficient support of the structure. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Song cover all limitations of claim 38.
Claim 39 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the dense region has a thickness in a range from 2 millimeters to 1 centimeter.
Fleck does not teach a thickness of the dense region.
Song teaches metal-supported self-sealing solid oxide fuel cell/electrolytic cell based on additive manufacturing and galvanic pile in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Song teaches that the thickness of the dense metal body is not less than 0.3 mm (300 micrometers), and the thickness of the porous metal body is not less than 0.1 mm (100 micrometers), Para[0080]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Song teaches that the inventor found that within the above-mentioned structural size range, the fabricated battery structure can be better achieved without collapse and sufficient supporting force, Para[0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of the dense region as taught by Song in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to provide sufficient support of the structure. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer, Haynes and Song cover all limitations of claim 39.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448A1 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600A1 of Greer, US2012282501A1 of Haynes and CN106299383A (machine translation) of Zhang, as applied to claim 24 above, further in view of US2011186582A1 of Whitaker.
Claim 40 further limits claim 24 by claiming forming dense capping regions laterally surrounding the porous region so as to contain reactants and products within an active area of the electrode.
While Fleck teaches different density regions to control the flow of the fluid, Para[0015], Fleck does not specifically teach a capping region.
Whitaker teaches a nanolaminate-reinforced metal composite tank material and design for storage of flammable and combustible fluids in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Whitaker teaches that a dense layer of the compositionally modulated material, referred to as the capping layer is further applied to the exterior of the substrate to close off the accessible pore structure, Para[0064] . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the capping of a porous region with a dense region as taught by Whitaker in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to close off the accessible pore structure. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Haynes, Zhang, and Whitaker cover all limitations of claim 40.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 7 of 12) there was an improper mapping of Fleck’s explicit “teaching away” from prior art channels as Fleck states that the prior art channels “have proven inadequate” and “would result in an inhomogeneous distribution of electrolyte flows…and thus ultimately to increased diffusion losses. This is not found persuasive as Fleck’s teachings of the prior art channels are a mere disclosure of alternatives. The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed, see MPEP 2145. While Fleck teaches increased diffusion loss caused by the prior art channels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the a reflow battery could still function with these prior art channels. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use, see MPEP 2145. Additionally, this argument is moot as the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment relies upon secondary reference Haynes for teaching embedded flow channels within a fully dense electrode.
Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 8 and 9 of 12) in Fleck, any and all channels, irrespective of whether they are the inadequate prior art channels or Fleck's own integrated conductive structures, take place entirely within an inherently porous, fluid-pervious matrix. Fleck lacks any disclosure or suggestion of embedding channels within a solid, fluid-impermeable physical barrier. This is not found persuasive as Fleck discloses that the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another. Simulation calculations indicate that the density ranges are advantageously arranged asymmetrically with respect to one another in order to promote a distribution of the electrolyte in the electrode. The respective density can be influenced in particular by the porosity or fiber structure of the material of the electrode. By means of the different density ranges, the electrolyte or electrolytes can be guided in a targeted manner to a reaction surface, which is in particular the active surface of the electrode formed, for example, by pores. In addition, pressure losses and also losses due to diffusion polarization can be kept particularly low. Furthermore, owing to the density ranges, turbulence and/or homogenization of the electrolyte, Para[0015]. Fleck’s adjacent density regions arranged asymmetrically in order to promote distribution of the electrolyte would encompass the claimed fully dense section next to a porous section. Additionally, secondary reference Greer teaches a density that overlaps with the claimed density of the solid, non-porous section of the electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art applying Greer’s density to Fleck would arrive at the claimed solid section. Additionally, this argument is moot as the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment relies upon secondary reference Haynes for its teachings of a fully dense impermeable electrode with embedded channels.
Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 9 and 10 of 12) modifying Fleck's structure to incorporate the claimed dense, fluid- impermeable region would render Fleck's device entirely inoperable for its intended purpose. This argument is moot as the new grounds of rejection relies upon secondary reference Haynes for teaching the embedded flow channels in an impermeable electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the flow path taught by Haynes to the battery of Fleck.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 10 of 12) Greer would not be able to be properly combined with Fleck because the electrode of Greer which is architected pyrolyzed carbon is structurally different from Fleck. This is not found persuasive as Fleck teaches that the electrode 14 has a porous basic structure, wherein the material, in particular depending on the electrolytes 26 used, can have, in particular, carbon, Para[0034]. Therefore, Fleck teaches electrodes of the same structure of Greer. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could still apply the teachings of Greer as a whole, specifically the density of the electrodes, without Greer’s structure necessarily being substitutable into Fleck. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2145.
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights