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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 6 April 2026. All previous prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims. New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, lines 20-25, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Takagi et al. (WO 2020235111 A1, as previously attached).
The remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110559853 A, as previously attached) in view of Takagi et al. (WO 2020235111 A1, as previously attached).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art Zhang discloses an electrochemical reactor ([0007]) comprising a power supply, anode, cathode, and proton exchange membrane between the anode and cathode, which are clamped together ([0033]). The anode and cathode are in gas flow channels, although these are not specified as inlet or outlet channels (Fig. 1, elements 30 and 40; [0032]). Furthermore, Zhang does not teach a gas-permeable proton exchange membrane.
However, Takagi teaches an electrochemical device using a pair of electrodes and a permeable membrane/filter to separate gases which are passed through the stack of electrodes and membrane ([0020]). The permeable membrane, disclosed as a conductive filter, may contain conductive particles such as NAFION ([0022]), which is well-known in the art to be proton-conductive. This inclusion results in a membrane conductive to protons, or a proton-exchange membrane. The anode and cathode are installed in the equivalent of a gas inlet and outlet channel, respectively ([0036]: counter electrode (3) may be placed on the upstream side and the working electrode (2) on the downstream side; [0047]: working electrode is a cathode, counter electrode is an anode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the anode of Zhang in a gas inlet channel and the cathode in a gas outlet channel, and to make the membrane gas-permeable as taught by Takagi. One would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to pass the contaminated gas through the proton exchange membrane, resulting in better separation of pollutants from air and reduced energy requirements compared to conventional molecular sieves or other methods of gas separation (Takagi [0081]-[0082]). Filtration of the polluted air through a membrane as opposed to across it would also be expected to yield greater filtration effectiveness, as the rate of molecular collisions would be expected to increase.
Regarding claim 2, the permeable membrane of Takagi contains pores which are 10 µm or less in diameter ([0022]). This range of 0-10 µm is substantially within the claimed 0.1 µm to 20,000 µm 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(I).
Regarding claim 3, one embodiment of Takagi contains a 10 µm thick polyamide resin film ([0089]). This lies within the claimed range of 5 µm to 3000 µm. Although the specific embodiment does not read on a proton exchange membrane, “the thickness of each component can be changed as appropriate” ([0037]). It is therefore within the teachings of Takagi for one skilled in the art to create a proton exchange membrane between 5 and 3000 µm through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches that the cathode is gas-permeable (Zhang [0007], as “porous”) and includes an oxygen reduction catalyst comprising Fe compounds ([0035], [0038]). The porous material of the electrode may be selected from a group including carbon paper ([0044]). A plurality of electrochemical reactors as described may be in series ([0047]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Zhang teaches applying a direct current of between 0.5V and 36V between the anode and cathode, wherein the humidity of the gas is between 5% and 95%, fully within the claimed ranges of 0.3 to 36 V and 2 to 100% relative humidity; and the temperature is -20°C to 120°C, which is prima facie obvious over the claimed range of -40°C to 70°C (Zhang [0018]). Zhang further teaches that the gas containing the gaseous organic pollutant is degraded at the anode ([0035]: anode contains “active oxygen species [which] react with gaseous pollutants to achieve effective removal of them”). The modifications from Takagi, as applied to Zhang in claim 1, teach passing the gas through the porous proton exchange membrane and cathode (Takagi [0046]-[0047]; positions of anode and cathode may be reversed per [0036]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110559853 A) and Takagi et al. (WO 2020235111 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amendola et al. (US 20120040254 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Zhang teaches all inherited limitations on which claim 4 depends. Zhang does not teach a titanium suboxide material coating on the anode with a thickness of 0.1 to 500 μm.
However, Amendola teaches a titanium electrode for a metal-air battery comprising a titanium suboxide layer ([0060], [0084]). This outer layer may have a thickness greater than, equal to, or less than the substrate’s thickness ([0046]). A titanium suboxide layer is known to improve the corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity of an electrode’s current collector compared to conventional TiO2 coatings ([0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode disclosed by Zhang in view Takagi by adding a titanium suboxide catalytic coating. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the anode's resistance to corrosion, as taught by Amendola ([0087]). It is also obvious to find the claimed range of titanium suboxide material coating thickness between 0.1 and 500 μm by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified by Takagi and Amendola teaches the limitations of claim 4 on which it depends. Amendola further teaches that the titanium component of the electrode may be a porous titanium substrate (Amendola [0062]), such as a foam ([0098]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode disclosed by Zhang by utilizing a porous titanium substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the operation of the cell due to titanium's oxidation resistance under anodic potentials, and the self-passivating nature of the metal to form TiO2 on surfaces exposed to air (Amendola [0036], [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights