DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous grounds of rejection stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers (US 5,141,604).
Regarding claim 1, Ayers discloses an electrochemical reactor (Figure 3) (= an electrochemical cell) comprising:
A reaction compartment (111) (Col. 10 line 48) (= a first reaction chamber);
A hydrogen source compartment (113) (Col. 11 lines 19-20) (= an anode chamber);
A counter electrode (131) (Col. 11 line 11) (= an anode exposed in the anode chamber);
A palladium membrane/hydrogen pump material (5) (Col. 3 lines 56-65, Col. 9 lines 11-31) (= a first membrane having a non-porous hydrogen selective layer between the first reaction chamber and the anode chamber, the first membrane being adapted to electrochemically reduce a hydrogen ion to a hydrogen atom and to block the hydrogen ion from diffusing through the first membrane and to selectively allow passage of the hydrogen atom to react with a first reactant in the first reaction chamber); and
A permionic membrane (135) (Col. 11 lines 21-29) (Figure 3) (= an ion exchange membrane separating the first membrane and the anode chamber, wherein the ion exchange membrane is arranged to selectively allow passage of hydrogen ions to reach the first membrane from the anode chamber). Ayers discloses the palladium membrane as a 5-50 micron thick material (Col. 16 lines 27-28). Ayers discloses the membrane as a solid membrane (Col. 12 lines 17-18). Ayers does not explicitly disclose that the palladium is non-porous, however, given the teachings of Ayers including the thickness and a solid, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and/or expect that a 50 micron thick palladium solid would be non-porous. Regarding the phrase “wherein the ion exchange membrane is arranged to selectively allow passage of hydrogen ions to reach the first membrane from the anode chamber”, it is noted that the “is arranged” does not particularly limit the positioning of the claimed ion exchange member. The permionic membrane is positioned such that hydrogen ions reach the first membrane from the anode chamber. It is further noted that the anode is positioned in an area (e.g. left hand side of Figures 2-3) and therefore the area that encompasses the anode reads on the claimed anode chamber. Additionally, the phrase does not indicate what species is moving or not moving through the actual ion exchange membrane.
Regarding claims 2-5, Ayers discloses that the membrane may be any material including palladium, titanium, nickel and their alloys and that is permeable to hydrogen (Col. 9 lines 21-24, Col. 7 lines 40-55). Regarding the ‘dense’ metallic layer, Ayers discloses the same material as claimed therefore reads on the claimed dense. Further the term is relative and there is no degree of density required.
Regarding claim 6, Ayers discloses the membrane may include vanadium (Col. 10 lines 24-42).
Regarding claim 7, Ayers discloses the use of a catalyst on the hydrogen source compartment side (113, Col. 3 lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Ayers discloses the compartment (111) comprising aqueous or non-aqueous liquid containing a reactant (Col. 12 line 64- Col. 13 line 1) (Figures 4-6).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Ayers discloses the use of a catalyst on the compartment side (111, Col. 3 lines 12-14, title).
Regarding claims 10-11, the instant claims are directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and do not further structurally limit the claimed device (MPEP § 2114 II). Moreover, Ayers discloses various reactants (Figures 4-6) and oxidizing (Col. 7 lines 46-56, Col. 19 lines 8-24). Ayers discloses aqueous solvents as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, in the instant claim the membrane (5) is the first membrane as described above with the transmissive biasing surface (7 or 9) as the ion exchange membrane (Col. 9 lines 32-39).
Regarding claim 14, Ayers discloses that the membrane (135) separates the compartment (Col. 11 lines 24-29). The area to the right hand side of membrane (135) is interpreted as an intermediate chamber, the area to the left of the membrane being the anode chamber (Figure 3). The instant claim does not appear to require further distinct spacing.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim requires a solvent which is the electrolyte (Figure 3). Since the instant claim does not indicate that the second and third solvents are different, Ayers discloses the claimed third solvent being an aqueous electrolyte (Col. 11 lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 16, the bath chemistries of the electrolyte compartment (133) and the electrolyte compartment (113) are different with chlorine being discharged at the anode for example and the third solvent including a protic solvent (Figure 3) (Col. 11 lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 17, Ayers discloses wherein the surfaces maybe be porous (Col. 10 lines 55-64).
Regarding claim 18, Ayers discloses the surface catalyst as optional (Col. 8 lines 64-66).
Regarding claims 19-20, Ayers discloses unsaturated organic compounds (Col. 6 line 56- Col. 7 line 2, Col. 7 lines 57-65, Col. 19 lines 25-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 5-7 of the response, the argument states that Ayer does not disclose the amended claim language including “wherein the ion exchange membrane is arranged to selectively allow passage of hydrogen ions to reach the first membrane from the anode chamber”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Regarding the phrase “wherein the ion exchange membrane is arranged to selectively allow passage of hydrogen ions to reach the first membrane from the anode chamber”, it is noted that the “is arranged” does not particularly limit the positioning of the claimed ion exchange member. The permionic membrane of Ayer is positioned such that hydrogen ions reach the first membrane from the anode chamber. It is further noted that the anode (131) is positioned in an area (e.g. left hand side of Figures 2-3) and therefore the area that encompasses the anode reads on the claimed anode chamber. Additionally, the phrase does not indicate what species is moving or not moving through the actual ion exchange membrane.
On page 6 of the response the argument states that “Hydrogen ions are not produced at the anode 131 in Ayer”. The argument is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims do not appear to require this phrasing.
On page 6 the argument states that the anode 131 of Ayer is connected with the cathode current lead (93). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The anode (131) of Ayer is connected to (137) of the current controller (91) not cathodic current lead (93) (see Figure 3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights