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 .
Claims 1-22 are pending for this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-18 are under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-13 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.
Claim 5: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said third electrolyte membrane” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said third electrolyte membrane” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said third electrolyte membrane” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13: The claim has been amended to depend only on claim 1. Therefore, the claimed “said second interlayer” lacks antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woo et al (US 20210151777 A1).
Claim 1: Woo discloses an electrolyte membrane laminate (see e.g. abstract; Fig 3) comprising:
a first electrolyte membrane having a first main surface and a second main surface (see e.g. 222 on Fig 3); and
a first interlayer (see e.g. 212 on Fig 3) and a second electrolyte membrane (see e.g. 211 on Fig 3) in this order on said first main surface of said first electrolyte membrane;
wherein said first electrolyte membrane contains a hydrocarbon-based polymer electrolyte (see e.g. [0054]), said first interlayer contains a polymer electrolyte and particles (see e.g. [0048]; #133 on Fig 1), and said second electrolyte membrane contains a polymer electrolyte and particles containing a transition metal element (see e.g. [0044]-[0045]).
Claim 2: Woo discloses a third electrolyte membrane on said second main surface of said first electrolyte membrane (see e.g. #231 on Fig 3).
Claim 3: Woo discloses a second interlayer between said second main surface of said first electrolyte membrane and said third electrolyte membrane (see e.g. #232 on Fig 3), wherein said second interlayer contains a polymer electrolyte and particles (see e.g. [0048]).
Claim 4: Woo discloses that said polymer electrolyte(s) contained in said second electrolyte membrane and/or in said third electrolyte membrane contain(s) a fluorine-based polymer electrolyte (see e.g. [0054]).
Claim 5: Woo discloses that said particles containing a transition metal element and contained in said second electrolyte membrane are particles containing at least one transition metal element selected from platinum, gold, palladium, ruthenium, and rhodium (see e.g. [0045]).
Claim 6: Woo discloses that said particles containing a transition metal element and contained in said second electrolyte membrane contain particles of at least one kind selected from zerovalent metal particles, (see e.g. [0045]).
Claim 7: Woo discloses that the mass ratio (the mass of said particles containing a transition metal element / the mass of said polymer electrolyte) of said particles containing a transition metal element to said polymer electrolyte contained in said second electrolyte membrane is ~0.01 to 0.20 (see e.g. [0017]).
Claim 8: Woo discloses that particles contained in said first interlayer are inorganic particles (see e.g. [0048]).
Claim 9: Woo discloses that said particles contained in said first interlayer are particles containing a carbon atom (see e.g. [0046]).
Claim 10: Woo discloses that said particles contained in said first interlayer are carbon particles and/or metal-supporting carbon particles (see e.g. [0046]).
Claim 11: Woo discloses that said particles contained in said first interlayer are carbon particles (see e.g. [0046]).
Claim 12: Woo discloses that said polymer electrolyte(s) contained in said first interlayer contain(s) a fluorine-based polymer electrolyte (see e.g. [0047]).
Claim 13: Woo discloses that the mass ratio (the mass of said particles / the mass of said polymer electrolyte) of said particles to said polymer electrolyte contained in said first interlayer is 0.5 (see e.g. [0068]).
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 (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 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Nakagawa (JP 2015117417 A, Espacenet translation used for citations, cited in previous action)
Claim 14: Woo does not explicitly teach that said hydrocarbon-based polymer electrolyte contained in said first electrolyte membrane contains an aromatic polyether-based polymer electrolyte. Nakagawa discloses an electrolyte membrane laminate (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Nakagawa, polyetherimide is a suitable hydrocarbon-based polymer electrode for these types of membranes (see e.g. [0050]). MPEP § 2144.07 states that ‘The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)’. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the polyetherimide of Nakagawa as the hydrocarbon-based polymer electrolyte.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 15 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “a first catalyst layer is on said first main surface side of said first electrolyte membrane of said electrolyte membrane laminate, and a second catalyst layer is on said second main surface side of said first electrolyte membrane”. The closest prior art is Woo. However, the membrane of Woo cannot be modified to further include a first catalyst layer and second catalyst layer because it has already taught those features are in other layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights