Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/299,318

High Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell and Method for Manufacturing Same

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 12, 2023
Examiner
CREPEAU, JONATHAN
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Research & Business Foundation Sungkyunkwan University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
667 granted / 913 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN115763917. The reference teaches a high temperature proton exchange membrane comprising a polymer of intrinsic microporosity (PIM-1) and a base polymer (abstract). The membrane is doped with phosphoric acid (abstract); therefore the polymer of intrinsic microporosity is doped with phosphoric acid as claimed. The membrane is used in a fuel cell (abstract, also claim 7) which inherently comprises an anode and a cathode as claimed. Thus, claim 1 is anticipated. Note: This rejection can be overcome by filing a verified translation of the instant priority document that supports the claimed subject matter. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al (US 20230369625). The reference is directed to a fuel cell comprising a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane with an anode on one side and a cathode on the other ([0048], claim 1). The electrolyte membrane comprises a polymer of intrinsic microporosity ([0036], claim 1). The electrolyte membrane (and thus the polymer of intrinsic microporosity) is doped with phosphoric acid ([0038]). Thus, claim 1 is anticipated. The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘917. The reference is applied for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the membrane has a thickness of 30-100 microns as recited in claim 4. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the thickness of the electrolyte membrane is a parameter that can be routinely optimized to affect, among other things, internal resistance and structural integrity. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. The reference is applied for the reasons stated above. Further, regarding claim 2, the reference teaches that the polymer of intrinsic microporosity may comprise: PNG media_image1.png 204 263 media_image1.png Greyscale However, the reference does not expressly teach that the membrane has a thickness of 30-100 microns as recited in claims 3 and 4, nor that the above polymer has H2PO4 anions associated with the cations (claim 2). However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the thickness of the electrolyte membrane is a parameter that can be routinely optimized to affect, among other things, internal resistance and structural integrity. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). With regard to claim 2, the position is taken that the above polymer [Formula 4 in Kwak], in contact with (doped with) phosphoric acid, at least in part, would contain units having the claimed PNG media_image2.png 171 162 media_image2.png Greyscale structure. The polymer is otherwise the same and it is submitted that the acid would be likely to bind to the positively charged groups, resulting in the claimed structure. Accordingly, claim 2 would be rendered obvious. Conclusion The following references are made of record but not relied upon herein: Tang et al (Nature Communications) and Sun et al (ACS Central Science), which are both are directed to electrode binder polymers comprising PIMs that prevent phosphoric acid catalyst poisoning. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Jonathan Crepeau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 February 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603315
HYDROGEN PUMPING PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL WITH CARBON MONOXIDE TOLERANT ANODE AND METHOD OF MAKING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603300
PULSED ELECTROCHEMICAL DEPOSITION OF ORDERED INTERMETALLIC CARBON COMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603345
BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592397
TUBULAR POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE FUEL CELL STACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586803
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 913 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month