DETAILED ACTION
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 17-23 in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 3, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on April 14, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the ionomer is an anion conductor”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a first ionomer” and “a second ionomer”.
It is thus unclear whether claim 6 refers to the “first ionomer” or the “second ionomer”.
For the purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the ionomer is a cation conductor”.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a first ionomer” and “a second ionomer”.
It is thus unclear whether claim 7 refers to the “first ionomer” or the “second ionomer”.
For the purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered to meet the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug.
Regarding claim 1, Haug teaches a fuel cell electrode. The fuel cell electrode comprises ionomer particles (paragraphs [0004, 0005]).
Haug teaches that a majority of the ionomer particles have diameters in the range 1 µm to 15 µm (paragraph [0005] and figure 6). Among the ionomer particles, one might arbitrarily select a group of particles whose average diameter is greater than 5 µm. Given the range of diameters, any group of particles would have an average diameter of less than 15 µm. Thus, there would necessarily be “first polymeric particles” with an average diameter in the claimed range.
Similarly, a second group of ionomer particles could be selected – e.g., those particles with diameters smaller than 5 µm. These “second polymeric particles” would have an average diameter that is smaller than the average diameter of the “first polymeric particles”.
Further, in specific embodiments, Haug teaches including additional ionomer particles with diameters smaller than 50 nm (paragraphs [0074, 0080]). These particles may also be considered the “second polymeric particles” whose average diameter is smaller than the average diameter of the “first polymeric particles”.
The electrode further comprises catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) (paragraphs [0006, 0069, 0091] and figures 2F, 2H, 2J, 3B). The catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) are in ionic communication with the “first polymeric particles” and the “second polymeric particles” (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Haug teaches “second polymeric particles” with diameters smaller than 50 nm (paragraphs [0074, 0080]). Such particles would necessarily have an average diameter of less than 1 µm.
Regarding claim 3, Haug teaches that the ionomer of the “first polymeric particles” and the ionomer of the “second polymeric particles” may be the same ionomer (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Haug teaches perfluorinated sulfonic acid (PFSA) or perfluorinated imide acid (PFIA) (paragraph [0005]) – fully fluorinated ionomers.
Regarding claim 7, Haug teaches PFSA or PFIA (paragraph [0005]) – cation conductors.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Haug teaches that the catalyst particles comprise catalyst particles on the surface of an electronic conductor (“carrier”) (paragraph [0069]). The catalyst particles comprise platinum (Pt) or palladium (Pd). The electronic conductor (“carrier”) comprises carbon (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Haug teaches a fuel cell. The fuel cell comprises a first electrode (paragraphs [0059-0062]). The first electrode comprises ionomer particles (paragraphs [0004, 0005]).
Haug teaches that a majority of the ionomer particles have diameters in the range 1 µm to 15 µm (paragraph [0005] and figure 6). Among the ionomer particles, one might arbitrarily select a group of particles whose average diameter is greater than 5 µm. Given the range of diameters, any group of particles would have an average diameter of less than 15 µm. Thus, there would necessarily be “first polymeric particles” with an average diameter in the claimed range.
Similarly, a second group of ionomer particles could be selected – e.g., those particles with diameters smaller than 5 µm. These “second polymeric particles” would have an average diameter that is smaller than the average diameter of the “first polymeric particles”.
Further, in specific embodiments, Haug teaches including additional ionomer particles with diameters smaller than 50 nm (paragraphs [0074, 0080]). These particles may also be considered the “second polymeric particles” whose average diameter is smaller than the average diameter of the “first polymeric particles”.
The electrode further comprises catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) (paragraphs [0006, 0069, 0091] and figures 2F, 2H, 2J, 3B). The catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) are in ionic communication with the “first polymeric particles” and the “second polymeric particles” (paragraph [0062]).
The fuel cell includes a second electrode and an ion conducting membrane (“electrolyte”). The first electrode and the second electrode are in ionic communication with the ion conducting membrane (“electrolyte”). The first electrode and the second electrode are configured for electrical communication with an electric circuit (paragraphs [0002, 0003, 0059-0062] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Haug teaches that the second electrode comprises ionomer particles (paragraphs [0004, 0005]).
Haug teaches that a majority of the ionomer particles have diameters in the range 1 µm to 15 µm (paragraph [0005] and figure 6). Among the ionomer particles, one might arbitrarily select a group of particles whose average diameter is greater than 5 µm. Given the range of diameters, any group of particles would have an average diameter of less than 15 µm. Thus, there would necessarily be “third polymeric particles” with an average diameter in the claimed range.
Similarly, another group of ionomer particles could be selected – e.g., those particles with diameters smaller than 5 µm. These “fourth polymeric particles” would have an average diameter that is smaller than the average diameter of the “third polymeric particles”.
Further, in specific embodiments, Haug teaches including additional ionomer particles with diameters smaller than 50 nm (paragraphs [0074, 0080]). These particles may also be considered the “fourth polymeric particles” whose average diameter is smaller than the average diameter of the “third polymeric particles”.
The electrode further comprises catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) (paragraphs [0006, 0069, 0091] and figures 2F, 2H, 2J, 3B). The catalyst particles (“electrode active particles”) are in ionic communication with the “third polymeric particles” and the “fourth polymeric particles” (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Haug teaches that the ion conducting membrane (“electrolyte”) is a proton exchange polymer electrolyte membrane (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Haug teaches a hydrogen fuel cell (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Haug teaches a fuel cell, which produces water. A fuel cell is capable of being run in reverse as a water electrolyzer.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug, with evidence from U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0233183, hereinafter Hampden-Smith.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Haug teaches that the electrode comprises PFSA particles (paragraph [0005]).
It is known in the art that PFSA acts as both an ionomer and binder – see, e.g. Hampden-Smith (paragraph [0169]).
Thus, a subset of the PFSA ionomer particles may be designated as “binder particles” present in addition to the “first polymer particles” and the “second polymer particles”.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0101918, hereinafter Yandrasits.
Regarding claim 4, Haug teaches that the ionomer may be a hydrocarbon (paragraph [0005]).
Haug does not specify the identity of the hydrocarbon.
The Yandrasits reference is commonly owned with and shares inventors with Haug. Yandrasits teaches hydrocarbon ionomers, which include a polyphenylene backbone (paragraph [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an ionomer with a polyphenylene backbone as the hydrocarbon ionomer without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0369626, hereinafter Azra.
Regarding claim 6, Haug teaches an electrode for a fuel cell with a proton exchange membrane (PEM). The electrode includes catalyst and a proton conductive ionomer.
Haug fails to teach an anion conductive ionomer.
Fuel cells with anion exchange membranes (AEM) are well-known in the art – see, e.g. Azra. Such fuel cells include electrode formulations that are analogous to the electrodes in PEM implementations, but with anion conductive ionomers – see, Azra (paragraphs [0025, 0028, 0035-0037, 0045] and figures 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an anion conductive ionomer in Haug’s electrode for the purpose of constructing an AEM fuel cell.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0274849, hereinafter Bhattacharyya.
Regarding claim 12, Haug teaches a fuel cell electrode comprising ionomer particles and catalyst.
Haug fails to teach a binder polymer covalently bonded to the ionomer particles and/or catalyst.
Bhattacharyya teaches a fuel cell catalyst layer (“electrode”) comprising ionomer and catalyst. Bhattacharya teaches a linker polymer (302) covalently bonded to the ionomer (202) of the catalyst layer for the purpose of e.g. bonding the catalyst layer to the PEM membrane (102) of the fuel cell (paragraphs [0059, 0060, 0036] and figure 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a linker polymer covalently bonded to the ionomer particles for the purpose of bonding the catalyst layer to the PEM membrane.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0281200, hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 13, Haug teaches a fuel cell electrode.
Haug fails to teach that the electrode comprises one of the enumerated compounds.
It is well-known in the art to include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) to fuel cell cathodes for the purpose of providing hydrophobicity – see, e.g. Choi (paragraph [0007]).
Alternatively, the enumerated compounds are standard binders used in fuel cell electrodes – see, e.g. Choi (paragraph [0108]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include PTFE for the purpose of providing hydrophobicity at the cathode and/or to include one of the enumerated polymers for the purpose of improving the cohesion of the particles in Haug’s electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724