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 statements filed January 29, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
The term “high surface materials” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high surface materials” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what size qualifies as a “high surface materials”. An appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 & 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBE JP-S6276157-A.
With respect to claim 11, ISHIBE teaches a porous transport electrode (the electrode material 1 referred to herein means one or both of an anode electrode and a cathode electrode; See “〔 Example 〕”, paragraph 3) to be assembled between a bipolar plate and a membrane of an electrochemical cell (orientation is relative; Rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), the porous transport electrode comprising: a plurality of sintered porous layers with different particle geometries (nickel powder is scattered within the fibers 4 at the boundary portion 6 provided on one side of the fiber layer 5; See Page 3, description of Fig. 2B; Examiner Note: the second layer is the boundary portion 6) and an electrochemically active top layer having a permeability for gaseous and liquid substances in the electrochemical cell (powder layer 3; See Page 3 ); a) at least a first support porous layer and a second intermediate porous layer including fibers and non-defined shaped particles of a conductive material (first support porous layer is fiber layer 5; Page 3; second intermediate porous layer is boundary portion 6; Page 3; both made of nickel material; Pages 2-3 ), having a mean particle size decreasing from layer to layer in a direction from the bipolar plate towards the membrane (powder diameter is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm, and the short fibrous powder has a fiber diameter of 30 μm or less and an aspect ratio of 2 to 50; orientation of the plate is relative; Page 3; claim 11); b) said first porous layer being made from fibers of said conductive material (first support porous layer is fiber layer 5; Page 3; made of nickel material; Pages 2-3 ) and said second porous layer being made from non-defined shaped particles of a conductive material (second intermediate porous layer is boundary portion 6; Page 3; both made of a mixed layer in which nickel powder scattered within the fibers 4 nickel material; Pages 2-3), and c) said electrochemically active top layer including an electrochemically active material or mixtures thereof being deposited on said second porous layer (nickel powder layer 3 on second porous layer boundary layer 6; Fig. 2B; Page 3) .
PNG
media_image1.png
260
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ISHIBE does not teach or suggest: said first porous layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the bipolar plate having a bigger pore size than said second porous layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the membrane (claim 11); said electrochemically active top layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the membrane and having a smaller pore size than said second porous layer and said first porous layer (claim 11); at least one of said first porous layer has a mean particle size in a range from 5 µm to 50 pm or said second porous layer has a mean particle size in a range from 0.5 to 50 µm, and said electrochemically active top layer has a mean particle size of 0.005 to 2.5 µm (claim 12); said first porous layer has a thickness in a range from 10 to 300 µm, said second porous layer has a thickness in a range from 10 to 200 µm, and said electrochemically active top layer has a thickness in a range from 0.1 to 50 µm (claim 13); further comprising at least one additional porous layer disposed between said first porous layer and said second porous layer, said at least one additional porous layer having a mean particle size smaller than said first porous layer and larger than said second porous layer and including fibers (claim 20); further comprising a third porous layer, and at least one additional porous layer disposed between said second porous layer and said electrochemically active top layer, said at least one additional porous layer having a mean particle size smaller than said second porous layer and larger than said third porous layer and including non-defined shaped particles (claim 21); wherein said at least one additional porous layer is disposed on said third porous layer, and said additional porous layer has a different pore size than said electrochemically active top porous layer and includes electrochemically active materials (claim 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ said first porous layer having a bigger pore size than said second porous layer of the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. With respect to claim said first porous layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the bipolar plate and said second porous layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the membrane; it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, because rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to said electrochemically active top layer having a contact surface configured to be oriented towards the membrane and having a smaller pore size than said second porous layer and said first porous layer (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. Lastly, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to at least one of said first porous layer having a mean particle size in a range from 5 µm to 50 pm or said second porous layer having a mean particle size in a range from 0.5 to 50 µm, and said electrochemically active top layer having a mean particle size of 0.005 to 2.5 µm (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. Lastly, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to said first porous layer having a thickness in a range from 10 to 300 µm, said second porous layer has a thickness in a range from 10 to 200 µm, and said electrochemically active top layer has a thickness in a range from 0.1 to 50 µm (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. ISHIBE teaches the thickness adjustment of each type may be freely set. See Page 3. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to at least one additional porous layer disposed between said first porous layer and said second porous layer, said at least one additional porous layer having a mean particle size smaller than said first porous layer and larger than said second porous layer and including fibers (claim 20); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Lastly, the orientation would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, because rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to a third porous layer, and at least one additional porous layer disposed between said second porous layer and said electrochemically active top layer, said at least one additional porous layer having a mean particle size smaller than said second porous layer and larger than said third porous layer and including non-defined shaped particles (claim 21); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Lastly, the orientation would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, because rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to said at least one additional porous layer is disposed on said third porous layer, and said additional porous layer has a different pore size than said electrochemically active top porous layer and includes electrochemically active materials (claim 22); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. Additionally, ISHIBE teaches it is preferable that the pore diameter is 10 to 25 μm in the cathode electrode and 1 to 20 μm in the 17-node electrode. See Page 3. The fiber diameter can be within the above range, but can be freely set as long as it is not drastically different from the diameter of the nickel powder used and has sufficient flexibility during sintering. See Page 3. Therefore, the reference contemplates a variation of sizes throughout the electrode layers. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Lastly, the orientation would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, because rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 14-19 & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBE JP-S6276157-A in view of LEGZDINS WO-2012167375-A1.
ISHIBE teaches a porous transport electrode as described in he rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to the electrochemically active top layer being based on an electrochemically active material including but not limited to a metal or an alloy or oxides (nickel powder layer 3; Fig. 2B; Page 3; claim 14).
ISHIBE does not teach or suggest: conductive material of said first porous layer and said second porous layer is at least one of titanium or stainless steel having at least one of a protective layer or a valve metal (claim 14); electrochemically active material is one of or a combination of platinum group metals (claim 15); electrochemically active material is supported on high surface materials (claim 16); second porous layer at least partially includes a conductive coating including an inert metal or an alloy (claim 17); conductive coating is one of or a combination of Au, Pt and Ir (claim 18); conductive coating has a thickness in a range from 0.01 to 1 pm (claim 19); at least one additional conductivity coating deposited between said second porous layer and said electrochemically active top layer (claim 23).
LEGZDINS teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: conductive material of said first porous layer and said second porous layer is at least one of titanium or stainless steel having at least one of a protective layer or a valve metal (anode can comprise a fluid distribution layer and a microporous. The fluid distribution layer can comprise one or more sintered fiber media, stainless steel, nickel. The microporous sublayer can comprise particles of valve metals and metal alloys. Further, the microporous sublayer can comprise sintered particles of Ti and its alloys, stainless steel, nickel; Summary of the invention, paragraph 6; Examiner’s Note: the teaching suggests the equivalence of nickel, titanium and stainless steel in layers of fluid distribution layers of electrodes; claim 14); electrochemically active material is one of or a combination of platinum group metals (anode catalyst layer may desirably comprise high surface area carbon and/or graphite particles and Nb, Pd; Summary of the invention, paragraph 7; claim 15); electrochemically active material is supported on high surface materials (anode catalyst layer may desirably comprise high surface area carbon; Summary of the invention, paragraph 7; claim 16); second porous layer at least partially includes a conductive coating including an inert metal or an alloy (The preceding materials have corrosion resistant coatings applied thereto [e.g. carbides, nitrides, borides, noble & valve metals & metal alloys, metal oxides]. Sublayers can be applied incorporating corrosion resistant and electrically conductive particles [e.g. carbides, nitrides, borides, noble & valve metals & metal alloys, metal oxides]; See Disclosure; claim 17); conductive coating is one of or a combination of Au, Pt and Ir (Pt is a noble metal; See Disclosure; claim 18); at least one additional conductivity coating deposited between said second porous layer and said electrochemically active top layer (The preceding materials have corrosion resistant coatings applied thereto [e.g. carbides, nitrides, borides, noble & valve metals & metal alloys, metal oxides]. Sublayers can be applied incorporating corrosion resistant and electrically conductive particles [e.g. carbides, nitrides, borides, noble & valve metals & metal alloys, metal oxides]; See Disclosure; claim 23).
ISHIBE and LEGZDINS are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating fluid distribution electrode layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the conductive material of said first porous layer and said second porous layer being at least one of titanium or stainless steel having a valve metal of LEGZDINS, in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE, to increase conductivity.
With respect to a conductive coating has a thickness in a range from 0.01 to 1 µm (claim 19); it would have been obvious in the porous transport electrode of ISHIBE in view of LEGZDINS, to control flow of fluid through the electrode. ISHIBE teaches the thickness adjustment of each type may be freely set. See Page 3. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights