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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 10, the claim recites a second barrier layer arranged spaced apart and facing the second electrocatalyst layer. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 is dependent, recites a barrier layer arranged spaced apart and facing either the first or second electrocatalyst layer. Claim 10 thus reads on an embodiment with two barrier layers spaced apart from and facing the second electrocatalyst layer, which is not supported by the disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, at line 21, the claim recites “a permeability ratio of the first constituent and the second constituent”; however, this is unclear, i.e. if “and” is intended, what is the ratio in comparison to, or is “or” intended in place of “and”.
As to claim 14, the claim recites the limitations “the barrier layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the claim recites “a first barrier layer” and “a second barrier layer”. It is thus unclear as to if the limitation “the barrier layer” intends to refer to “the first barrier layer”, “the second barrier layer”, both or neither. For the purpose of Examination, the claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, all of the above interpretations.
Further as to claim 14, at line 24, the claim recites “a permeability ratio of the first constituent and the second constituent”; however, this is unclear, i.e. if “and” is intended, what is the ratio in comparison to, or is “or” intended in place of “and”.
As to claim 17, at line 25, the claim recites “a permeability ratio of the first constituent and the second constituent”; however, this is unclear, i.e. if “and” is intended, what is the ratio in comparison to, or is “or” intended in place of “and”.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 11-137946 to Imaizumi et al. (Imaizumi) in view of US 2014/0343177 A1 to Willis et al. (Willis).
As to claims 1 and 4, Imaizumi teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly to break apart a fluid at the anode comprising water and oxygen (at least two components) into a first constituent and a second constituent (additional oxygen and hydrogen ions that pass to the cathode to reform water), the membrane electrode assembly comprising a first electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), a second electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), and an ion exchange membrane (3) therebetween; and a barrier layer (10) positioned external to the membrane electrode assembly, spaced apart and facing the first electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer supported by frames (5/11) for separating the barrier layer from the electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer formed to pass water freely but be substantially impermeable to oxygen gas and thus with a permeability ratio of the first component (water) to the first constituent (oxygen) of greater than 5:1 thereby restricting the flow of the first constituent (oxygen) (Paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0011, 0012 and 0014; Figure 1).
However, Imaizumi fails to teach that the barrier layer for passing water but blocking oxygen is a sulfonated polymer membrane.
However, Willis teaches that functionalized block copolymer membranes have high rates of water transport, exceptional barrier properties for gases and strength (Paragraph 0178). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a block copolymer as in Willis for the membrane of Imaizumi with the expectation of forming a membrane that transports the water but blocks the oxygen gas with a high rate of water transfer and exceptional oxygen gas barrier properties and strength as taught by Willis.
Willis further teaches that the block copolymer is, for example, A-B-D-B-A or A-D-B-D-A (thus essentially B and D being interchangeable), with A comprising, for example, para-n-propyl styrene, B (equivalent of D in Willis) comprising isoprene, and D (equivalent of B in Willis) comprising alpha-methyl styrene (Paragraphs 0043, 0055, 0067 and 0090).
The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the IEC would be at least 0.5 meq/g.
As to claim 2, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the degree of sulfonation is 10-100 mol %.
As to claims 5 and 6, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Imaizumi further teaches that the ion exchange membrane is a Nafion membrane, a sulfonated polymer cation exchange membrane (Paragraph 0012).
As to claim 9, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Imaizumi further teaches that the electrochemical cell assembly is located outside an enclosure (7) such that the barrier layer (3) is arranged in fluid communication with the enclosure (7) to allow a flow of water from the enclosure to the catalyst and layer and to restrict a flow of oxygen from the catalyst layer to the enclosure (7) (Paragraphs 0014, 0018 and 0019; Figure 1).
As to claim 11, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Imaizumi further teaches that the membrane electrode assembly comprises gas diffusion layers (titanium mesh sheets) (Paragraph 0011).
As to claim 12, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Imaizumi further teaches that the apparatus comprises a voltage application unit (external power source) (6) to apply a voltage to the membrane electrode assembly (Paragraph 0013; Figure 1).
As to claim 13, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Imaizumi further teaches that the apparatus is used in separating and recovering fluid in dehumidification (Paragraph 0001).
As to claims 17 and 19, Imaizumi teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly to break apart a fluid at the anode comprising water and oxygen (at least two components) into a first constituent and a second constituent (additional oxygen and hydrogen ions that pass to the cathode to reform water), the membrane electrode assembly comprising a first electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), a second electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), and an ion exchange membrane (3) therebetween; and a barrier layer (10) positioned external to the membrane electrode assembly, spaced apart and facing the first electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer supported by frames (5/11) for separating the barrier layer from the electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer formed to pass water freely but be substantially impermeable to oxygen gas and thus with a permeability ratio of the first component (water) to the first constituent (oxygen) of greater than 5:1 thereby restricting the flow of the first constituent (oxygen) (Paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0011, 0012 and 0014; Figure 1).
Imaizumi further teaches that the electrochemical cell assembly is located outside an enclosure (7) such that the barrier layer (3) is arranged in fluid communication with the enclosure (7) to allow a flow of water from the enclosure to the catalyst and layer and to restrict a flow of oxygen from the catalyst layer to the enclosure (7) (Paragraphs 0014, 0018 and 0019; Figure 1).
However, Imaizumi fails to teach that the barrier layer for passing water but blocking oxygen is a sulfonated polymer membrane.
However, Willis teaches that functionalized block copolymer membranes have high rates of water transport, exceptional barrier properties for gases and strength (Paragraph 0178). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a block copolymer as in Willis for the membrane of Imaizumi with the expectation of forming a membrane that transports the water but blocks the oxygen gas with a high rate of water transfer and exceptional oxygen gas barrier properties and strength as taught by Willis.
Willis further teaches that the block copolymer is, for example, A-B-D-B-A or A-D-B-D-A (thus essentially B and D being interchangeable), with A comprising, for example, para-n-propyl styrene, B (equivalent of D in Willis) comprising isoprene, and D (equivalent of B in Willis) comprising alpha-methyl styrene (Paragraphs 0043, 0055, 0067 and 0090).
The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the IEC would be at least 0.5 meq/g.
As to claim 18, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 17. The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the degree of sulfonation is 10-100 mol %.
As to claim 20, the combination of Imaizumi and Willis teaches the apparatus of claim 17. Imaizumi further teaches that the apparatus is used in separating and recovering fluid in dehumidification (Paragraph 0001).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0011164 A1 to Sakurai et al. (Sakurai) in view of JP 2015-064934 A to Ohashi (Ohashi) (as evidenced by US 2017/0037207 A1 to Kunita et al. (Kunita)).
As to claims 1, 3, 10, 13 and 14, Sakurai teaches an electrochemical cell (water electrolyzer) assembly comprising a membrane electrode assembly (80) to break apart a fluid (water) comprising at least two components (anode side water and cathode side water) into a first constituent (hydrogen) and a second constituent (oxygen), the MEA comprising a first electrocatalyst layer, a second electrocatalyst layer and a membrane (800) therebetween; a first barrier layer (53) positioned external to the MEA spaced apart and facing the first electrocatalyst layer and a second barrier layer (53’) spaced apart and facing the second catalyst layer, each barrier layer supported by gaskets (frames) for separating the barrier layer form the respective catalyst layer, each barrier layer acting to passing the respective hydrogen or oxygen therethrough but preventing the water from passing therethrough, thus a first barrier layer with a permeability ratio of the first constituent to the first component of greater than 5:1 and a second barrier layer with a permeability ratio of the second constituent to the second component of greater than 5:1 thereby restricting the flow of the components (Paragraphs 0054 and 0071-0074; Figure 13).
However, Sakurai teaches that the barrier layers are formed of, for example, PTFE and fails to contemplate a sulfonated polymer. However, Ohashi also discusses gas liquid separation membranes and teaching that in addition to PTFE, Nafion, a sulfonated polymer, is an equivalent material (Paragraph 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the PTFE of Sakurai with Nafion as a known equivalent (MPEP 2144.06 II) still with the expectation of maintaining the greater than 5:1 ratio. Nafion has an IEC of 0.92 meq/g as evidenced by Kunita (Paragraph 0183).
As to claims 5 and 6, the combination of Sakurai and Ohashi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sakurai further teaches that the membrane is Nafion, a sulfonated polymer cation exchange membrane (Paragraph 0053).
As to claim 11, the combination of Sakurai and Ohashi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sakurai further teaches that the membrane electrode assembly comprises gas diffusion layers (801 and 802) (Paragraph 0062; Figure 13).
As to claim 12, the combination of Sakurai and Ohashi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sakurai further teaches that the apparatus comprises a voltage application unit to apply a voltage to the MEA (Paragraph 0062).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sakurai and Ohashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0048962 A1 to Reece et al. (Reece).
As to claims 7 and 8, the combination of Sakurai and Ohashi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Sakurai teaches that the water electrolysis membrane is a cation exchange membrane and not an anion exchange membrane. However, Reece also discuses water electrolysis and teaches that in addition to a cation exchange membrane, anion exchange membranes such as quaternary ammonium polysulfone are equivalents (Abstract; Paragraph 0136). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cation membrane of Reece with an anion membrane comprising a quaternary ammonium polysulfone as a known equivalent (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaizumi in view of Willis in view of US 2021/0381117 A1 to Bahar et al. (Bahar) and further in view of Sakurai.
As to claims 1, 4, 10, 14 and 16, Imaizumi teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly to break apart a fluid at the anode comprising water and oxygen (at least two components) into a first constituent and a second constituent (additional oxygen and hydrogen ions that pass to the cathode to reform water), the membrane electrode assembly comprising a first electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), a second electrocatalyst layer (platinum black), and an ion exchange membrane (3) therebetween; and a barrier layer (10) positioned external to the membrane electrode assembly, spaced apart and facing the first electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer supported by frames (5/11) for separating the barrier layer from the electrocatalyst layer, the barrier layer formed to pass water freely but be substantially impermeable to oxygen gas and thus with a permeability ratio of the first component (water) to the first constituent (oxygen) of greater than 5:1 thereby restricting the flow of the first constituent (oxygen) (Paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0011, 0012 and 0014; Figure 1).
Imaizumi further teaches that the electrochemical cell assembly is located outside an enclosure (7) such that the barrier layer (3) is arranged in fluid communication with the enclosure (7) to allow a flow of water from the enclosure to the catalyst and layer and to restrict a flow of oxygen from the catalyst layer to the enclosure (7) (Paragraphs 0014, 0018 and 0019; Figure 1).
However, Imaizumi fails to teach that the barrier layer for passing water but blocking oxygen is a sulfonated polymer membrane.
However, Willis teaches that functionalized block copolymer membranes have high rates of water transport, exceptional barrier properties for gases and strength (Paragraph 0178). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a block copolymer as in Willis for the membrane of Imaizumi with the expectation of forming a membrane that transports the water but blocks the oxygen gas with a high rate of water transfer and exceptional oxygen gas barrier properties and strength as taught by Willis.
Willis further teaches that the block copolymer is, for example, A-B-D-B-A or A-D-B-D-A (thus essentially B and D being interchangeable), with A comprising, for example, para-n-propyl styrene, B (equivalent of D in Willis) comprising isoprene, and D (equivalent of B in Willis) comprising alpha-methyl styrene (Paragraphs 0043, 0055, 0067 and 0090).
The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the IEC would be at least 0.5 meq/g.
However, Imaizumi fails to further teach that the apparatus comprises a second barrier layer. However, Bahar also discusses electrochemically induced dehumidification and teaches that a side reaction at the cathode can comprise the generation of hydrogen gas which while presenting no problems with dehumidification would be a product that would need to be removed, thus limiting the operating voltage of the cell and the rate of humidity reduction (Abstract; Paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the operating voltage, and thus the rate, of the apparatus of Imaizumi would need to be controlled or a means for removing hydrogen would need to be provided.
Sakurai also discusses the electrolysis of water with hydrogen generation and water on a cathode side and teaches that the cathode side can be provided with a barrier layer (53) allowing for the internal separation of the water from the generated hydrogen, the generated hydrogen having a valuable usage (Paragraphs 0071-0074; Figure 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Imaizumi with the addition of a second barrier layer (supported as in the first) spaced apart and facing the second electrocatalyst (cathode side) in order to allow for hydrogen separation from the water thus allowing for higher voltages, higher rates, and a valuable by-product.
As to claims 2 and 15, the combination of Imaizumi, Willis, Bahar and Sakurai teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 14. The block copolymer of Willis is an embodiment as described in the present disclosure, and thus, as evidenced by, at least, Applicant’s own disclosure, the degree of sulfonation is 10-100 mol %.
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