DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) and species 1, sub-sub-species b of subspecies A (electrospun nanofibers), sub-sub-species d of sub-species B (electrosprayed nanoparticles), and sub-spubspecies f of sub-species C (electrosprayed binder droplets) in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. This election results in the examination of Claims 1-3 herein.
Claims 4-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups and non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted November 27, 2023 and December 3, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pintauro US PG Publication 2014/0038076.
Regarding Claim 1, Pintauro discloses a membrane assembly for an electrochemical device, the membrane assembly comprising at least an anode layer 110, a separation layer (membrane) 130, and a cathode layer 120 that are all embedded in continuous polymerized ionomer material since the three layers are all formed of fiber mats formed from electrospun nanofibers and where e.g. PPSU or polyphenylsulfone ionomer polymer nanofibers are embedded in a Nafion matrix, which the skilled artisan would understand would form (separately and together) a “continuous polymerized ionomer material” in which the nanofiber mat electrodes and separator are embedded (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. Fig 1, abstract, paras 0048-0069). That is, ion conductive continuity is formed by the polymerized ionomer nanofiber mats, by the softened matrix of polymerized ionomer, and by the combination of these materials. See especially paras 0064-0069, which describe the annealing process for each electrode and the separator/membrane, said annealing process being the step that softens the Nafion ionomer to form the matrix around the PPSU fiber mats.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintauro US PG Publication 2014/0038076, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Elabd et al. J Power Sources 264 (2014) 42-28 (hereinafter “Elabd NPL”).
Regarding Claim 2, Pintauro discloses the claimed membrane assembly as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Pintauro discloses wherein the ionomer material (both Nafion and polyphenylsulfone polymerized ionomer material) comprises electrospun nanofibers (see e.g. paras 0064-0069) but does not specifically disclose wherein the anode and cathode layers comprise corresponding electrosprayed catalyst particles. However, in the same field of endeavor of membrane electrode assembly design, Elabd NPL discloses wherein electrospinning methods of forming electrodes in MEAs is improved by using a combined electrospin/electrospray process instead of just electrospinning because this technique allows for a higher level of control over ionomer fiber diameters and catalyst agglomerate sizes, and improves Pt utilization without sacrificing any significant amount of power output (see highlighted portions of Elabd NPL, e.g. those on pp. 43-44 and 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the membrane assembly of Pintauro such that the anode and cathode layers comprise corresponding electrosprayed catalyst particles because Elabd NPL teaches that electrospinning the ionomer fibers while electrospraying the catalyst particles to form the electrodes allows for a higher level of control over ionomer fiber diameters and catalyst agglomerate sizes, and improves Pt utilization without sacrificing any significant amount of power output.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintauro US PG Publication 2014/0038076 in view of Elabd et al. J Power Sources 264 (2014) 42-28 (hereinafter “Elabd NPL”), as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Price US PG Publication 2020/0099061.
Regarding Claim 3, Pintauro modified by Elabd NPL discloses the claimed membrane assembly as described in the rejection of Claim 2, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Pintauro modified by Elabd NPL fails to specifically disclose wherein the membrane assembly further comprises electrosprayed binder droplets forming the separation layer together with the polymerized ionomer material and consolidating the electrode assembly. However, in the same field of endeavor of membrane electrode assembly design, Prices teaches that different layer components of a membrane electrode assembly can be further supported by reinforcing components embedded in the membrane components and which can increase mechanical strength (which would help consolidate the membrane assembly), such components exemplified by e.g. PTFE, PVDF, etc. (see e.g. pars 0068-0071), all of which are known binding materials and therefore can be considered binders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a binder to the separation layer of Pintauro modified by Elabd NPL such that the binder forms the separation layer together with the polymerized ionomer material such that the membrane assembly is consolidated because Price teaches that this inclusion further supports the assembly by reinforcing components embedded in the membrane components which can increase mechanical strength. Pintauro modified by Elabd NPL and Price does not specifically disclose that the binder is added by using electrosprayed binder droplets. However, Elabd NPL teaches that electrospraying a material to integrate into a membrane assembly with ionomer can provide a higher level of control over ionomer fiber diameters and particle sizes of the material being added to the ionomer (see highlighted portions of Elabd NPL, e.g. those on pp. 43-44 and 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the membrane assembly of Pintauro modified by Elabd NPL and Price such that the binder is added by using electrosprayed binder droplets because Elabd NPL teaches that electrospinning the ionomer fibers while electrospraying needed additional components allows for a higher level of control over ionomer fiber diameters and the sizes of added materials.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roelofs US PG Publication 2014/0120431 discloses a membrane assembly for an electrochemical device, the membrane assembly comprising at least an anode layer, a separation layer (dry membrane), and a cathode layer that are all embedded in continuous polymerized ionomer material since Nafion ionomer is a polymer that is integrated with every layer of the assembly and heated together (see paras 0162, 0168-0169).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights