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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gath, in view of Takaai (US20100221644A1).
Takaai recognizes that platinum is an expensive noble metal catalyst [0006] and further recognizes that immobilization of enzymes in electrodes stabilizes the enzyme reaction system, efficiently captures electrical signal produced during the enzyme reaction phenomenon, and maintains and improves current value [0098, 0093 Takaai]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added immobilized enzymes as catalysts in the electrodes, with a reasonable expectation to stabilize enzyme reaction system and improve current value (2143 (A)). See rejection below.
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.
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) 1-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gath (US20170309921A1, previously cited), in view of Takaai (US20100221644A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, Gath discloses an electrochemical fuel cell (fuel cell 10 in Fig 1), comprising:
bipolar plate layers (bipolar plates 24 in Fig 1) comprising an anode plate and a cathode plate (anode 12, cathode 16);
a fuel supply to the anode plate (“pressurized fuel” [0021]);
an oxidant supply to the cathode plate (i.e., hydrogen [0021-0022]);
gas diffusion layers (gas diffusion layers (GDL) 22 in Fig 1) proximate to a respective bipolar plate layer;
an electrolyte membrane layer (polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) 18)
Gath further discloses wherein the electrode (i.e., anode 12 and cathode 16) includes a substrate 38 and a network 40 of electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42, wherein the substrate 38 may be any base material capable of providing support for the electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42 and suitable for a fuel cell [0028], such as a three-dimensional graphene material having periodic and nonperiodic honeycomb-like portions [0028] (claim 3).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the three-dimensional graphene material having honeycomb-like portions as the electrode substrate between the gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane layer, with a reasonable expectation to provide support for the electrocatalyst [0028].
As such, Gath envisages the claimed limitation of “a graphite honeycomb structure positioned between a gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane layer”.
Gath further discloses wherein the electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42 on substrate 38 serves as an oxygen reduction reaction catalyst, comprising about 5% to 100% platinum, 15% to 70% platinum, or 20% to 50% platinum alloyed with transitional metals such as cobalt, gold, titanium, manganese [0032]. Thus, Gath envisages a de-alloyed platinum coupled to the graphite honeycomb structure {claim 4}.
However, Gath does not disclose wherein the de-alloyed platinum is “with immobilized enzymes coupled to the graphite honeycomb”, as claimed.
In this regard, Takaai teaches a fuel cell having an enzyme immobilized on at least one of a positive electrode and a negative electrode (abstract), wherein immobilization of enzymes in electrodes stabilizes the enzyme reaction system, efficiently captures electrical signal produced during the enzyme reaction phenomenon, and maintains and improves current value [0098, 0093 Takaai]. Takaai further recognizes that platinum is expensive noble metal catalyst [0006].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added immobilized enzymes in addition to the de-alloyed platinum as catalysts of the electrodes, with a reasonable expectation to stabilize enzyme reaction system and improve current value (2143 (A)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1, comprising graphite honeycomb structure (see rejection for claim 1). Gath does not explicitly disclose an example wherein “the graphite honeycomb structure comprises a hexagonal lattice” as claimed.
However, Gath discloses that the substrate may include carbon nanotubes having hollow hexagonal lattice [0028-0029]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the graphite honeycomb structure of Gath, such that it comprises carbon nanotubes having hexagonal lattice, with a reasonable expectation to provide support for the electrocatalyst [Gath 0028].
Regarding claim 5, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1, comprising immobilized enzymes (see rejection for claim 1).
However, Gath does not disclose wherein the immobilized enzymes comprise “a glucose oxidase-catalyzed present at the anode plate and a laccase-catalyzed cathode present at the cathode plate” as claimed.
In this regard, Takaai teaches wherein the enzyme present at the anode plate may be glucose with an oxidase (i.e., glucose oxidase) [0022 Takaai] and the enzyme present at the cathode plate may be laccase [0027 Takaai]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected glucose oxidase and laccase as the enzymes for the anode plate and the cathode plate, respectively, with a reasonable expectation to with a reasonable expectation to reduce cost, and effectively improve output and current value [0006, 0097-0098, 0197, 0024-Takaai]
Regarding claim 6, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1, wherein platinum remains immobilized in the cathode (i.e., as the electrocatalyst nanoparticles [0023, 0032]). Examiner notes that the limitation “to not contaminate the electrolyte membrane layer” is intended use that does not impart additional structure to the claimed electrochemical fuel cell. Since Gath discloses a platinum immobilized in the cathode, the limitation is considered met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1. Gath further discloses wherein the bipolar plate layers (bipolar plates 24) correspond (note: interpreted as communicating) to a graphite plate (i.e., substrate 38 of the electrode 36 which is a graphite composite support [0028]; See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte membrane layer comprises perfluorsulfonic membrane [0036 Gath], such as the claimed Nafion.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gath (US20170309921A1, previously cited), in view of Takaai (US20100221644A1) and Jeong (US20160344040A1, previously cited).
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1 comprising the bipolar plate layers (bipolar plates 24), but does not disclose “wherein the bipolar plate layers are ingrained with a flow field pattern to distribute gases uniformly across a surface area of the gas diffusion layers” as claimed.
In this regard, Jeong teaches a fuel cell comprising bipolar plates, wherein the bipolar plates have flow field pattern having a serpentine flow field pattern (see Fig 5A; claim 9) and a parallel pattern (see Fig 5B; claim 10). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bipolar plate layers of Gath such that they are ingrained with a flow field pattern such as a serpentine flow field pattern (claim 9) or a parallel pattern (claim 10) with a reasonable expectation to provide a path for transferring reactant gases to the GDL, a path for the pass of coolant, and a path for discharging water produced by the electrochemical reaction to the outside [Jeong 0010].
Examiner further notes that the limitation “to distribute gases uniformly across a surface area of the gas diffusion layers” is intended use limitation and does not impart additional structure to the claimed electrochemical fuel cell. Since modified Gath teaches a fuel cell comprising bipolar plates with flow field pattern, the limitation is considered met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gath (US20170309921A1), in view of Takaai (US20100221644A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gath discloses a catalyst layer (a substrate 38 with a network 50 of electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42), comprising:
a substrate 38 and a network 40 of electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42, wherein the substrate 38 may be any base material capable of providing support for the electrocatalyst 42 and suitable for a fuel cell [0028], such as a three-dimensional graphene material having periodic and nonperiodic honeycomb-like portions [0028].
Thus, Gath envisages “a graphite honeycomb structure positioned between a gas diffusion layer (gas diffusion layers (GDL) and an electrolyte membrane layer” as claimed.
Gath further discloses the electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42 on substrate 38 serving as an oxygen reduction reaction catalyst, such as about 5% to 100% platinum, 15% to 70% platinum, or 20% to 50% platinum alloyed with transitional metals such as cobalt, gold, titanium, manganese [0032]. Thus, Gath further envisages a de-alloyed platinum coupled to the graphite honeycomb structure, as claimed.
However, Gath does not disclose wherein the de-alloyed platinum is with immobilized enzymes. In this regard, Takaai teaches a fuel cell having an enzyme immobilized on at least one of a positive electrode and a negative electrode (abstract), wherein immobilization of enzymes in electrodes stabilizes the enzyme reaction system, efficiently captures electrical signal produced during the enzyme reaction phenomenon, and maintains and improves current value [0098, 0093 Takaai]. Takaai further recognizes that platinum is expensive noble metal catalyst [0006].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added immobilized enzymes in addition to the de-alloyed platinum as catalysts of the electrodes, with a reasonable expectation to stabilize enzyme reaction system and improve current value (2143 (A)) .
Regarding claim 13, modified Gath discloses the catalyst layer of claim 12, comprising graphite honeycomb structure (see rejection for claim 12). Gath does not explicitly disclose an example wherein the graphite honeycomb structure comprises a hexagonal lattice. However, Gath discloses that the substrate may include carbon nanotubes having hollow hexagonal lattice [0028-0029]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the graphite honeycomb structure of Gath, such that it comprises carbon nanotubes having hexagonal lattice, with a reasonable expectation to provide support for the electrocatalyst [Gath 0028].
Regarding claim 14, modified Gath discloses the catalyst layer of claim 12, wherein the platinum may be about 5% to 100% platinum, 15% to 70% platinum, or 20% to 50% platinum alloyed with transitional metals such as cobalt, gold, titanium, manganese [0032], which envisages the claimed limitation of “the de-alloyed platinum is platinum alloyed with a transitional metal”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have alloyed the platinum with a transitional metal, with a reasonable expectation to provide an electrocatalyst that serves as an oxygen reduction reaction catalyst [Gath 0032].
Regarding claim 15, modified Gath discloses the catalyst layer of claim 12. Gath does not disclose “wherein the immobilized enzymes comprise a glucose oxidase-catalyzed present at an anode plate and a laccase-catalyzed cathode present at a cathode plate” as claimed.
In this regard, Takaai teaches wherein the enzyme present at the anode plate may be glucose with an oxidase (i.e., glucose oxidase) [0022 Takaai] and the enzyme present at the cathode plate may be laccase [0027 Takaai].
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected glucose oxidase and laccase as the enzymes for the anode plate and the cathode plate, respectively, with a reasonable expectation to with a reasonable expectation to reduce cost, and effectively improve output and current value [0006, 0097-0098, 0197, 0024-Takaai]
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gath (US20170309921A1, previously cited), in view of Takaai (US-20100221644-A1).
Regarding claims 16, 18, 19, Gath discloses a system (fuel cell 10 in Fig 1), comprising:
bipolar plate layers (bipolar plates 24 in Fig 1) comprising an anode plate and a cathode plate (anode 12, cathode 16);
a fuel supply to the anode plate (“pressurized fuel” [0021]);
an oxidant supply to the cathode plate (i.e., hydrogen [0021-0022]);
gas diffusion layers (gas diffusion layers (GDL) 22 in Fig 1) proximate to a respective bipolar plate layer;
an electrolyte membrane layer (polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) 18)
Gath further discloses wherein the electrode (i.e., anode 12 and cathode 16) includes a substrate 38 and a network 40 of electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42, wherein the substrate 38 may be any base material capable of providing support for the electrocatalyst 42 and suitable for a fuel cell [0028], such as a three-dimensional graphene material having periodic and nonperiodic honeycomb-like portions [0028] (claim 18). As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the three-dimensional graphene material having honeycomb-like portions as the electrode substrate between the gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane layer, with a reasonable expectation to provide support for the electrocatalyst [0028]. As such, Gath envisages the claimed limitation of “a graphite honeycomb structure positioned between a gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane layer”.
Gath further discloses wherein the electrocatalyst nanoparticles 42 on substrate 38 serving as an oxygen reduction reaction catalyst, such as about 5% to 100% platinum, 15% to 70% platinum, or 20% to 50% platinum alloyed with transitional metals such as cobalt, gold, titanium, manganese [0032]. Thus, Gath further envisages a de-alloyed platinum coupled to the graphite honeycomb structure (claim 19).
However, Gath does not disclose wherein the de-alloyed platinum is with immobilized enzymes, as claimed.
In this regard, Takaai teaches a fuel cell having an enzyme immobilized on at least one of a positive electrode and a negative electrode (abstract), wherein immobilization of enzymes in electrodes stabilizes the enzyme reaction system, efficiently captures electrical signal produced during the enzyme reaction phenomenon, and maintains and improves current value [0098, 0093 Takaai]. Takaai further recognizes that platinum is expensive noble metal catalyst [0006].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added immobilized enzymes in addition to the de-alloyed platinum as catalysts of the electrodes, with a reasonable expectation to stabilize enzyme reaction system and improve current value (2143 (A)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Gath teaches the electrochemical fuel cell of claim 1, comprising graphite honeycomb structure (see rejection for claim 16). Gath does not explicitly disclose an example wherein the graphite honeycomb structure comprises a hexagonal lattice. However, Gath discloses that the substrate may include carbon nanotubes having hollow hexagonal lattice [Gath 0028-0029]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the graphite honeycomb structure of Gath, such that it comprises carbon nanotubes having hexagonal lattice, with a reasonable expectation to provide support for the electrocatalyst [Gath 0028].
Regarding claim 20, modified Gath teaches the system of claim 16, comprising immobilized enzymes (see rejection for claim 16).
However, Gath does not disclose wherein the immobilized enzymes comprises “a glucose oxidase-catalyzed present at the anode plate and a laccase-catalyzed cathode present at the cathode plate” as claimed.
In this regard, Takaai teaches wherein the enzyme present at the anode plate may be glucose with an oxidase (i.e., glucose oxidase) [0022 Takaai] and the enzyme present at the cathode plate may be laccase [0027 Takaai]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected glucose oxidase and laccase as the enzymes for the anode plate and the cathode plate, respectively, with a reasonable expectation to with a reasonable expectation to reduce cost, and effectively improve output and current value [0006, 0097-0098, 0197, 0024-Takaai]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights