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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 4, 2023 and November 15, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, ‘quanititative’ appears to be a typo. Examiner suggests rewording to ‘quantitative’ for clarity.
In claim 1 line 3, ‘electrolyte or overall or overall system-level property’ appears to be a typo. Examiner suggests rewording the claim limitation to ‘determining a target material property of the electrolyte or overall system-level property of the fuel cell or electrolyzer;’ for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to the generic claims 1 and 18 being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1 and 18,
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03). The claim recites at least one step or act, including fabricating an electrolyte suitable for a fuel cell or electrolyzer. Thus, the claim is to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The limitation of ‘determining a target property’ is considered an abstract idea because it is a mental process. Mental processes are defined as concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. ‘Determining a target material property’ would be considered an evaluation and judgement that is performed by the human mind. The limitation of ‘utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship between a material property and an order parameter’ is also considered abstract idea because it involves a mathematical relationship between variables.
Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation following the abstract ideas is ‘controlling process parameters’ which is something controlled by the overall process to maintain the general target material property. This is all stated with a high degree of generality and therefore are merely generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP §2106.05(h)).
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims recite any elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely controlling parameters, which is a well understood routine and conventional within the prior art and further simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Similarly claims 2-17 do not add significantly more (as seen as well known in the art below) and are therefore rejected under 35USC101.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to the generic claim 19 being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 19-20,
The first step of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03). The claim recites at least one step or act, including fabricating an electrolyte suitable for a fuel cell or electrolyzer. Thus, the claim is to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The limitation of ‘determining one or more target material properties’ is considered an abstract idea because it is a mental process. Mental processes are defined as concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. ‘Determining one or more target material properties’ would be considered an evaluation and judgement that is performed by the human mind. The limitation of ‘utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship between the one or material/system-level property and an order parameter’ is also considered abstract idea because it involves a mathematical relationship between variables.
Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation following the abstract ideas is ‘controlling process parameters’ which is something controlled by the overall process to maintain the general target material property. This is all stated with a high degree of generality and therefore are merely generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP §2106.05(h)).
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims recite any elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely controlling parameters, which is a well understood routine and conventional within the prior art and further simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 18-19, it is unclear if the term ‘material property’ (Claim 1: line 5, Claim 18: line 5, and Claim 19: line 6) is a different property or the same property as the ‘target material property’ previously introduced (Claim 1: line 3 and 7, Claim 18: line 3, and Claim 19: line 3). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this as: “a material property wherein the material property has a target material property.” Clarification is required. Claims 2-17 and 20 are rejected as depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non Patent Literature: Park, Min-sung, et. al., Oxygen-ion Conductivity and Mechanical properties of Lu2O3-doped ZrO2 as a Solid Electrolyte. Ceramics International. 2021., hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of fabricating an electrolyte (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) suitable for a fuel cell (‘it can be applied as an electrolyte in solid oxide fuel cells’ Introduction: P1 L4) or electrolyzer, comprising:
determining a target material property (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1) of the electrolyte or overall system-level property of the fuel cell or electrolyzer;
utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship (‘the oxygen transference number was -0.99, as determined by EMF method’ Results and Discussion: P6 L6) between a material property (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1) and an order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) involving one or more electrolyte components to determine at least one material ordering that has the target material property; and
controlling process parameters (‘open-circuit potential measurements were conducted on 8 mol% LuSZ in the temperature range of 900-700C, with different gas atmospheres on either side of the cell’ Materials and Methods: P3 L11-12) to form at least one electrolyte material having the target material property (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, wherein the quantitative relationship can be expressed as a linear relationship (the phrase “can be expressed” is very broad because the claim doesnot require a degree of agreement. Therefore, the relationship between the material property and order parameter can be expressed linearly and therefore reads on the claim because whether or not the linear expression is a good fit is not required by the instant claimed invention.) between the material property (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1) and order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) S or S2.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is a solid oxide (‘ZrO2 as a solid electrolyte material’ Abstract: P1 L1).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, wherein the material property is ion conductivity (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, wherein the material property is oxygen ion conductivity (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, wherein the process parameters are controlled such that the order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) is changed for the electrolyte material (‘one side of the cell was exposed to H2 gas, while the other side was exposed to O2 or N2 gas’ Material and Methods: P3 L13-14).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 7, wherein the stoichiometry of the components of the electrolyte material remains substantially constant (‘content’ column of Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 7, wherein the order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) is controlled via controlling the growth parameters of the electrolyte (‘disc- and strip-shaped specimens were sintered at 1600C for 6hr in air and slowly cooled to 400C over 9hr’ Materials and Methods: P1 L5-6) .
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 3, where the solid oxide comprises yttria-stabilized zirconia (ZrO2 samples were prepared by ball-milling ZrO2 with either Sc2O3, Y-2O3, or Lu2O3’ Materials and Methods: P1 L1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 3, where the solid oxide comprises ZrO2 (‘ZrO2 as a solid electrolyte material’ Abstract: P1 L1).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, where the electrolyte is fabricated for use in a fuel cell (‘it can be applied as an electrolyte in solid oxide fuel cells’ Introduction: P1 L4).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) of claim 1, where the target property is ion conductivity (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1). at a temperature at or lower than about 800C (‘the electric potential differed by less than 0.5% in the temperature range of 700-900C, and the oxygen transference number was -0.99, as determined by EMF method’ Results and Discussion: P6 L4-5).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches a method of fabricating an electrolyte (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P 1 L 1) suitable for fuel cell (‘it can be applied as an electrolyte in solid oxide fuel cells’ Introduction: P1 L4) or electrolyzer device comprising:
determining two or more target material properties (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity and flexural strength’ Abstract: P1 L1-2) of the electrolyte or overall system-level property of the device;
utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship (‘the oxygen transference number was -0.99, as determined by EMF method’ Results and Discussion: P6 L6) between each material or system- level property (‘oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1) and an order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) to determine at least one optimal ordering that provides the best overall performance for the device;
and controlling process parameters (‘open-circuit potential measurements were conducted on 8 mol% LuSZ in the temperature range of 900-700C, with different gas atmospheres on either side of the cell’ Materials and Methods: P3 L11-12) to form the electrolyte material and device having the targeted ordering and optimally determined performance.
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches a method of selecting an electrolyte (‘investigated the feasibility of using Lu2O3-doped ZrO2 as a solid electrolyte by evaluating its electrical conductivity and flexural strength’ Conclusions: P1 L1-3) suitable for fuel cell (‘it can be applied as an electrolyte in solid oxide fuel cells’ Introduction: P1 L4) or electrolyzer device comprising:
determining one or more target material properties (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity and flexural strength’ Abstract: P1 L1-2) of the electrolyte or overall system-level property of the device;
utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship (‘the oxygen transference number was -0.99, as determined by EMF method’ Results and Discussion: P6 L6) between the one or material/system-level property (‘oxygen ion conductivity’ Abstract: P1 L1) and an order parameter (‘O2-facing condition and N2 facing condition’ Result and Discussion: P6 L3) to determine at least one optimal ordering that provides the best overall performance for the device.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches the method (‘investigated the feasibility of using Lu2O3-doped ZrO2 as a solid electrolyte by evaluating its electrical conductivity and flexural strength’ Conclusions: P1 L1-3) of claim 19, wherein two or more target material properties of the electrolyte (‘investigated in terms of its oxygen ion conductivity and flexural strength’ Abstract: P1 L1-2) or overall system-level property of the device are determined.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non Patent Literature: Konovalova, Anastasiia, et. al., Blend Membranes of Polybenzimidazole and an Anion Exchange Ionomer (FAA3) for Alkaline Water Electrolysis: Improved Alkaline Stability and Conductivity. Journal of Membrane Science. 2018., hereinafter Konovalova.
Regarding claim 1, Konovalova teaches a method of fabricating an electrolyte (‘a 10 wt% solution of mPBI (meta-polybenzimiadazole)’ Experimental: 2.2 P1 L1) suitable for a fuel cell or electrolyzer (‘alkaline electrolyzer system’ Introduction: P6 L13-14), comprising:
determining a target material property (‘the swelling S during doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L1) of the electrolyte or overall system-level property of the fuel cell or electrolyzer;
utilizing a predefined quantitative relationship (Formula 1, Experimental) between a material property (‘the swelling S during doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L1) and an order parameter (‘area and thickness were noted before and after doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L2-3) involving one or more electrolyte components to determine at least one material ordering that has the target material property (‘the swelling S during doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L1); and
controlling process parameters (‘a 10 wt% solution of mPBI was prepared by dissolving the polymer fibers in DMAc under argon atmosphere during vigorous stirring at 70C overnight’ Experimental: 2.2 P1 L1-3) to form at least one electrolyte material having the target material property (‘the swelling S during doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L1).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P1 L1) of claim 1, wherein the quantitative relationship can be expressed as a linear relationship (Formula 1, Experimental) between the material property (‘the swelling S during doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L1) and order parameter (‘area and thickness were noted before and after doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L2-3) S or S2.
Regarding claim 4, Konovalova teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is a polymer (‘a 10 wt% solution of mPBI (meta-polybenzimiadazole) was prepared by’ Experimental: 2.2 P1 L1).
Regarding claim 9, Konovalova teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P1 L1) of claim 2, wherein the order parameter (‘area and thickness were noted before and after doping’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P1 L2-3) S or S2 is assessed via one or more of electron diffraction, Raman spectroscopy, Rutherford backscattering and electron microscopy (‘analyzed by cryogenic transmission electron microscopy’ Experimental: 2.2.1 P4 L2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Konovalova teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P1 L1) of claim 4, where the electrolyte comprises polybenzimidazole (‘a 10 wt% solution of mPBI (meta-polybenzimiadazole) was prepared by’ Experimental: 2.2 P1 L1).
Regarding claim 16, Konovalova teaches the method (‘trivalent rare earth oxide-stabilized ZrO2 samples were prepared by’ Materials and Methods: P1 L1) of claim 1, where the electrolyte is fabricated for use in a electrolyzer (‘we will show how this concept influences the membrane conductivity and cell resistance of an alkaline electrolyzer system’ Introduction: P6 L13-14).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non Patent Literature: Konovalova, Anastasiia, et. al., Blend Membranes of Polybenzimidazole and an Anion Exchange Ionomer (FAA3) for Alkaline Water Electrolysis: Improved Alkaline Stability and Conductivity. Journal of Membrane Science. 2018., hereinafter Konovalova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Non Patent Literature: Lim, Kean Long, et. al., Radiation-Grafted Anion-Exchange Membrane for Fuel Cell and Electrolyzer Applications: A Mini Review. Membranes. 2021., hereinafter Lim.
Regarding claim 11, Konovalova teaches a meta-polybenzimidazole blended with a commercially available anion exchange membrane to be used in electrolyzers. The swelling of this polymer is related to the area and thickness of the electrolyte before and after doping and can be adjusted during the synthesis process. However, Konovalova does not teach the how these parameters can be affected by exposure to radiation.
The use of radiation exposure is considered well-known in the art. Lim teaches ‘the roles of anion exchange membranes as a solid-state electrolyte in fuel cell and electrolyzer applications’ (Abstract: L1-2). Specifically, it teaches that ‘the radiation grafting technique is capable of modifying the hydrophilic and hydrophobic domains to control the ionic properties of membrane as well as its water uptake and swelling ratio without scarifying its mechanical properties’ (Abstract: L9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control parameters such as swelling and mechanical properties while using radiation because it’s considered ‘green synthesis because they are usually performed at room temperature and practically eliminated the use of catalysts and toxic solvents, yet the final products are homogenous and high quality’ (Abstract: L7-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Non Patent Literature: Apriany, Karima, et. al. Electrical Conductivity of Zirconia and Yttrium-Doped Zirconia from Indonesian Local Zircon as Prospective Material for Fuel Cells. IOP Conf Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2016., hereinafter Apriany.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724