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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 10 June 2026. Claims 1, 6, 7 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 1-13 and 17-23 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer.
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]).
Haug fails to teach that the ionomer particles are present in the range 10 wt% to 40 wt% of the electrode.
Limmer teaches that a typical concentration by weight of ionomer in a fuel cell catalyst layer (“electrode”) of the type taught by Haug is in the range up to 30 wt% (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a total concentration of the ionomer particles in Haug’s electrode within the range up to 30 wt% as this is a customary range in the art for electrodes of the type taught by Haug.
The optimum range for the total ionomer concentration in the combination of Haug and Limmer overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10 wt% to 40 wt%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
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).
Haug fails to teach that the ionomer particles are present in the range 10 wt% to 40 wt% of the first electrode.
Limmer teaches that a typical concentration by weight of ionomer in a fuel cell catalyst layer (“electrode”) of the type taught by Haug is in the range up to 30 wt% (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a total concentration of the ionomer particles in Haug’s first electrode within the range up to 30 wt% as this is a customary range in the art for electrodes of the type taught by Haug.
The optimum range for the total ionomer concentration in the combination of Haug and Limmer overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10 wt% to 40 wt%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer 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 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer, 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009503, hereinafter Haug in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer 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 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0040045, hereinafter Limmer 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Haug and Limmer references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights