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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/26.
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.
1. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
2. It is unclear in claim 5 if “one ionomeric separation layer” (narrow limitation) is a requirement of claim 1 since claim 1 also includes “two ionomeric separation layers” (broad limitation). The use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible (MPEP 2173.05(c)).
Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The Examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
3. In claim 6, the limitation “the respective separation layers” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hunegnaw et al. (US20200216968).
5. Regarding claims 1-4, 6-12, Hunegnaw teaches a membrane assembly for an electrochemical device (see Figs. below), the membrane assembly comprising at least one separation layer that includes surface-charged particles, wherein the surface-charged particles have a surface excess of charges, imparting ion conductivity along that surface when hydrated (see Figs. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. Regarding claim 3, Hunegnaw teaches wherein (i) the at least one separation layer comprises one separation layer that includes surface-charged particles and has a thickness of at least 30 µm (cathode buffer layer is less than 50 μm [0260]).
7. Regarding claim 6, Hunegnaw wherein a weight % of surface-charged particles in the respective separation layers with surface-charged particles is at least 60% (ion-conducting polymer makes up somewhere in the range between 30 and 70 wt % [0200]) and the respective separation layer is thinner than 1 µm (In general, the thickness of the cathode buffer layer is…200 nm [0259]).
8. Regarding claim 12, Hunegnaw teaches a membrane assembly for an electrochemical device (see Fig. below), the membrane assembly comprising: at least one ionomeric separation layer having a total thickness larger than 1 µm, and at least one protective layer comprising nanoparticles, set adjacent to an anode and/or a cathode of the electrochemical device, and being less than 10 µm thick, wherein the at least one protective layer is configured to separate the at least one ionomeric separation layer from respective anode and/or cathode, and has an ion- conductivity that is smaller than 10 mS/cm (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee et al. (US20160064770).
10. Regarding claims 12-15, Lee teaches a membrane assembly for an electrochemical device (see Fig. below), the membrane assembly comprising: at least one ionomeric separation layer having a total thickness larger than 1 µm, and at least one protective layer comprising nanoparticles, set adjacent to an anode and/or a cathode of the electrochemical device, and being less than 10 µm thick or less than 5 µm thick, wherein the at least one protective layer is configured to separate the at least one ionomeric separation layer from respective anode and/or cathode, and has an ion- conductivity that is smaller than 10 mS/cm (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
712
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
11. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunegnaw et al. (US20200216968) in view of Lee et al. (US20160064770).
12. Hunegnaw is silent about claims 13-15.
13. Lee teaches components (see Fig. below) for the benefit of an electrochemical device that operates at a high voltage [0043]
PNG
media_image3.png
712
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
14. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunegnaw with Lee’s electrochemical device that operates at a high voltage [0043].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights