POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL, POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MOLDED BODY USING SAME, ELECTROLYTIC MEMBRANE HAVING CATALYST LAYER ATTACHED THERETO, MEMBRANE-ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, SOLID POLYMER FUEL CELL, AND WATER-ELECTROLYSIS-TYPE HYDROGEN GENERATOR
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6/24/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-14 based upon Umeda as set forth in the last Office action because: see Response to Arguments below.
In response to communication filed on 6/24/2026:
Claims 1, 3, and 7-9 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: Umeda does not anticipate the amended claims. With respect to the recited condition, Umeda discloses only broad, independent ranges for IEC and heat of crystallization. Specifically, Umeda discloses an IEC range of 0.1 to 5 meq/g and a heat-of-crystallization range of 0.1 to 500 J/g. Umeda does not disclose the specific combination of parameters required by amended claim 1, namely: (i) an IEC of 1.8 to 3.0 meq/g, and (ii) a product of IEC and heat of crystallization of 35.0 to 47.0.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. First, the Applicant does not show data to support criticality for these two values being shown simultaneously in their specification. Second, Umeda may not disclose these two values simultaneously in their table but that does not necessarily mean that Umeda does not teach these values at all. MPEP 2123 I clearly discloses: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
In addition, MPEP 2123 II discloses: “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)”.
Umeda still teaches the ion exchange capacity (IEC) of said polymer electrolyte material is 1.8 meq/g or more and 3.0 meq/g or less (paragraph 0088), and the product of the IEC (meq/g) of said polymer electrolyte material and the heat of crystallization (J/g) of said polymer electrolyte material, as measured by differential scanning calorimetry analysis, is 35.0 or more and 47.0 or less (paragraph 0040).
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 (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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umeda et al. (US 2014/0322628 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Umeda et al. teach a polymer electrolyte material composed of a block copolymer containing a segment containing an ionic group (hereinafter referred to as an "ionic segment") and a segment containing no ionic group (hereinafter referred to as a "nonionic segment") (Abstract discloses the polymer electrolyte membrane includes a block copolymer containing each one or more of: a segment (A1) containing anionic group; and a segment (A2) not containing an ionic group.) , wherein said polymer electrolyte material has a phase-separation structure (Abstract discloses the polymer membrane forms a co-continuous (M1) or lamellar phase-separated (M2) structure.), and satisfies the following
an ion exchange capacity (IEC) of said polymer electrolyte material is 1.8 meq/g or more and 3.0 meq/g or less (Paragraph 0088 discloses an ion-exchange capacity of 0.1 to 5 meq/q.), and a product of the IEC (meq/g) of said polymer electrolyte material and a heat of crystallization (J/g) of said polymer electrolyte material, as measured by differential scanning calorimetry analysis, is 35.0 or more and 47.0 or less (Paragraph 0040 discloses a heat of crystallization being 0.1-500 J/g as measured by DSC.).
Regarding claim 3, Umeda et al. the polymer electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein said phase-separation structure has an average period size of 15nm to 100 nm (Paragraph 0054 discloses the cycle length of the phase-separated structure is in a range of 2 to 200 nm.).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Umeda et al. teach the polymer electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein said block copolymer is an aromatic polyether copolymer (Paragraph 0078); wherein said block copolymer is an aromatic polyether ketone copolymer (Paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 6, Umeda et al. teach the polymer electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein said block copolymer comprises a linker site that links the ionic segment with the nonionic segment (Paragraph 0057 discloses the polymer electrolyte membrane according to the present invention, the block copolymer preferably further contains one or more of linker moiety connecting the segment (A1) with the segment (A2). The term "linker" referred to herein is defined as a moiety which connects the segment (A1) containing an ionic group with the segment (A2) not containing an ionic group.).
Regarding claim 7, Umeda et al. teach the polymer electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein said nonionic segment comprises a structure represented by the following general formula (S3):
PNG
media_image1.png
54
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(wherein, in the general formula (S3), Ar5 to Ar8 independently represent a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group with the proviso that none of Ar5 to Ar8 has an ionic group; Y3 and Y4 independently represent a ketone group or a protective group that may be induced to a ketone group; and the symbol * represents a bond with the general formula (S3) or with another constituent unit.) (Paragraph 0082 discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
122
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where, in the general formula (S2), Ar5 to Ar8 are each an arbitrary divalent arylene group, which can each be arbitrarily substituted, and which do not contain ionic group; Ar5 to Ar8 can independently use two or more kinds of arylene group; and the symbol * signifies a bond moiety with the general formula (S2) or with other constituent unit.).
Regarding claim 8, the polymer electrolyte material according to claim 7, wherein said structure represented by the general formula (S3) is a structure represented by the following general formula (S4):
PNG
media_image3.png
66
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(wherein, in the general formula (S4), Y3 and Y4 independently represent a ketone group or a protective group that may be induced to a ketone group; and the symbol * represents a bond with the general formula (S4) or with another constituent unit.)(Example 1 discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
126
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claim.)
Regarding claim 9, Umeda et al. teach the polymer electrode according to claim 1, wherein a number-average molecular weight of said nonionic segment is 15,000 or more (Example 1; paragraph 0228 discloses an average molecular weight of 16,000.).
Regarding claim 10, Umeda et al. teach a molded polymer electrolyte product comprising said polymer electrolyte material according to claim 1 (Claim 1 discloses a polymer electrolyte membrane.).
Regarding claim 11, Umeda et al. teach a catalyst coated membrane constituted using said molded polymer electrolyte product according to claim 10 (Claim 12).
Regarding claim 12, Umeda et al. teach a membrane electrode assembly constituted using said molded polymer electrolyte product according to claim 10 (Claim 13).
Regarding claim 13, Umeda et al. teach a polymer electrolyte fuel cell constituted using said molded polymer electrolyte product according to claim 10 (Claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, Umeda et al. teach a water electrolysis hydrogen generator constituted using said molded polymer electrolyte product according to claim 10 (Paragraph 0124).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 15th, 2026
Prosecution Insights