DETAILED ACTION N otice 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. 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, 10, 11 , 29, 30, 32, 33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin ( GB 2178223) . 2514600 -76200 0 0 Martin teaches (see fig. 1, page 1, lines 33-37, and page 6, lines 10-15) making spacer frames for electrolyzers from polyphenylene sulfide resin, wherein the spacer frames included channels (169, 170, 171, 172) that assisted with moving liquid to and from the electrochemical cell contained within the spacer frames. While the spacer frames are not a pipe, tube, hose, fitting, or connector, per se , the full scope of the claim term “ electrolyzer fluidic member” includes any component that is utilized in conveying a fluid. Since the spacer frame of Martin conveyed fluid from a manifold area (107) to the interior of the electrolyzer cell, it is considered to fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches (see page 2, lines 16-39) that the polyphenylene sulfide resin was present at either 100 wt % or 60 wt % (where the other 40 wt % was glass filler). Regarding claims 29 , 30, 32, and 3 3 , in the alkaline water electrolyzer embodiment of Martin, at least some of the channels would have been used to transport liquid water into the cell and to transport gases including either hydrogen or oxygen out of the cell. Regarding claim 37, as seen in fig. 1 above, the fluidic member of Martin included multiple outlets. 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 s 4- 9 , 12-18, 23, 24, 34 ,35, and 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) in view of Ruby et al (US 2017/0166747) . Martin teaches that the polyphenylene sulfide resin was reinforced with glass fibers as filler. Martin fails to teach adding an impact modifier to the resin or the resin having various claimed mechanical characteristics or the electrolyzer fluidic member being a pipe, tube or hose. Ruby et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0002] -[ 0007] and [0009]) improvements for polyphenylene sulfide resins used as the interior barrier layer of pipes comprising addition of an impact agent and a crosslinking agent to the polyphenylene sulfide resin composition that improves the strength and flexibility of the resin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the impact agent taught by Ruby et al to the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Martin for the purpose of improving the strength and flexibility of the resin composition as taught by Ruby et al. Regarding claim s 4 and 5 , Ruby et al teach (see Table 5 in paragraph [024 5 ]) that the impact modifier improved the notched Charpy Impact strength at 23°C o to be in the range of 12.5-39.9 kJ/m 2 and at -30°C in the range of 7-10.8 kJ/m 2 . Regarding claim 6, Ruby et al teach (see Table 5 in paragraph [0245]) that the impact modifier improved the tensile strength to be in the range of 45.4-51.71 MPa, a tensile break strain in the range of 25-63.85%, and a tensile modulus in the range of 1845-2800 MPa. Regarding claim 7, Ruby et al teach (see Table 11 in paragraph [0258]) that the impact modifier improved the flexural strength to be in the range of 48.30-68.55 MPa and a flexural modulus in the range of 1935-2408 MPa. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Martin and Ruby et al are silent with respect to the hydrogen or oxygen permeation of the polyphenylene sulfide material. However, per MPEP 2112.I, it has been held that discovery of a new property that is inherently present in the material of the prior art is not inventive. Here, the instant specification shows that the gas permeation is achieved using the same material taught by Ruby et al, and therefore, the prior art is considered to inherently possess the claimed gas permeation. Regarding claims 12 and 14-17, Ruby et al teach (see paragraphs [0097]) the impact modifier being an ethylene-(meth)acrylic acid copolymer with the methacrylic monomer being epoxy-functionalized, such as glycidyl methacrylate. Regarding claim 13, Ruby et al teach (see paragraph [0096]) including the impact modifier at 0.01 to 0.5 mole fraction (i.e. 1 wt %-50wt%). Regarding claims 18, 23, and 24, Ruby et al teach (see paragraphs [0110] -[ 0111]) that the crosslinking system was added to the impact modifier, wherein the crosslinking agent included a multi-functional aromatic dicarboxylic acid (e.g. 4,4’-dicarboxyldiphenyl ether). Regarding claim s 34 and 35, Ruby et al teach (see abstract) using the polyarylene sulfide resin to form pipes that were resistant to degradation due to extreme temperatures and (see paragraph [0045]) chemical attack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the pipes necessary for the electrolyzer system of Martin from the polyarylene sulfide resin as taught by Ruby et al because the material was already known to be chemically resistant to the conditions of electrolysis as shown by Martin and possessed the necessary mechanical properties to function as pipes as shown by Ruby et al. Pipes were known to be present in electrolyzer system for transferring reactants (e.g. water) or products (e.g. hydrogen gas or oxygen gas) to and/or from a secondary component to the electrolytic cell. Regarding claim 37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged multiple electrolyzers in parallel, and to have used a single pipe with multiple outlets to feed and/or remove the reactants/products through a single manifold pipe . Regarding claim 38, in the context of a chemical plant, adding multiple bends (elbows) in a pipe is often unavoidable due to space constraints. Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that pipes in the electrolyzer system of Martin would have possessed multiple angular displacements (i.e. bends). Regarding claim 39, it would have been well within the ordinary level of skill of those in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine a suitable size for pipes for moving fluids around the electrolyzer system of Ruby et al. Regarding claims 40-44, Ruby et al teach (see abstract) using the polyarylene sulfide resin to form pipes that were resistant to degradation due to extreme temperatures and (see paragraph [0045]) chemical attack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the pipes necessary for the electrolyzer system of Martin from the polyarylene sulfide resin as taught by Ruby et al because the material was already known to be chemically resistant to the conditions of electrolysis as shown by Martin and possessed the necessary mechanical properties to function as pipes as shown by Ruby et al. Pipes were known to be present in electrolyzer system for transferring reactants (e.g. water) or products (e.g. hydrogen gas or oxygen gas) to and/or from a secondary component to the electrolytic cell. Further, Ruby et al teach the pipes being multi-layered, with the polyarylene sulfide comprising at least one layer, such as the inner layer ( hollow body 102 is inner layer and may be made from polyarylene sulfide, see paragraph [0052] ) or outlet layer (paragraph [0194] ) . Ruby et al additionally teach (see paragraph [0052]) that one or more layers may be made from a fluoropolymer or a thermoplastic polymer. Claim s 2, 4- 9 , and 12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) in view of Tu et al (US 2017/0166747) . Martin teaches that the polyphenylene sulfide resin was reinforced with glass fibers as filler. Martin fails to teach adding an impact modifier to the resin or the resin having various claimed mechanical characteristics. Tu et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0004] and [0015]) improvements for polyphenylene sulfide resins comprising addition of an impact agent and a crosslinking agent to the resin composition that improves the strength and flexibility of the resin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the impact agent taught by Tu et al to the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Martin for the purpose of improving the strength and flexibility of the resin composition as taught by Tu et al. Regarding claims 2, Tu et al teach (see paragraph [0051]) that the melt viscosity of the improved polyphenylene sulfide was below 1500 Pa-s at 310°C at a shear rate of 1200 seconds -1 . Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tu et al teach (see the Table at paragraph [0090]) that the improved polyphenylene sulfide exhibited Charpy impact strengths as high as 65 kJ/m 2 at 23°C and as high as 48 kJ/m 2 at -30°C. Regarding claim 6, Tu et al teach (see the Table at paragraph [0090]) that the improved polyphenylene sulfide exhibited tensile strength as high as 50 MPa and tensile break strain as high as 90%. Regarding claim 7, Tu et al teach (see the Table at paragraph [0090]) that the improved polyphenylene sulfide exhibited flexural strength as high as 68 MPa. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Martin and Tu et al are silent with respect to the hydrogen or oxygen permeation of the polyphenylene sulfide material. However, per MPEP 2112.I, it has been held that discovery of a new property that is inherently present in the material of the prior art is not inventive. Here, the instant specification shows that the gas permeation is achieved using the same material taught by Tu et al, and therefore, the prior art is considered to inherently possess the claimed gas permeation. Regarding claims 1 2- 17 , Tu et al teach (see paragraphs [0034]) the impact modifier being an ethylene-(meth)acrylic acid copolymer with the methacrylic monomer being epoxy-functionalized , such as glycidyl met h acrylate . Regarding claims 18-22 , Tu et al teach (see paragraph [0037] -[ 0040] ) using a metal carboxylate as the crosslinking agent , such as a divalent metal salt of a fatty acid having 10-18 carbons . Regarding claims 18 and 23-24, Tu et al teach (see paragraphs [0037] and [0042] -[ 0043]) using a multi-functional crosslinking agent, such as an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, e.g. 4,4’-dicarboxydiphenyl ether. Regarding claim 25, see claim 19 of Tu et al. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo et al (US 2013/0072630) . Martin fails to address the chlorine content of the polyphenylene sulfide resin. Luo et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0014], and [0025]) that low chlorine content was desired for polyarylene sulfide resins due to environmental concerns and that a polyarylene sulfide resin having low chlorine content below 1000 ppm that also possessed good processability and mechanical characteristics was achievable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have ensured that the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Martin possessed a low chlorine content below 1000 ppm as suggested by Luo et al due to environmental concerns. Claim s 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masel (US 11,339,483) . Regarding claim 26, Martin fails to teach the separator (membrane) being an anion exchange membrane. Masel teaches (see abstract, fig. 5, col. 9, lines 5-23, Background section spanning cols. 1 and 2 and col. 2, lines 17-39) utilizing an AEM (anion exchange membrane) for performing alkaline water electrolysis wherein the AEM was surrounded by a plastic frame (365). Note that the membrane cannot be seen in fig. 5, it is located behind the anode GDL (375) as shown (see fig. 2, col. 6, lines 47-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized an anion exchange membrane as taught by Masel for the separator of Martin when using the spacer frame to perform alkaline water electrolysis because Masel teaches that anion exchange membranes possessed the required material properties to act as a separator in alkaline water electrolysis. Regarding claim 27, Martin fails to teach the system including a tank configured to retain liquid. Masel teaches (see abstract, Background section spanning cols. 1 and 2, fig. 1, col. 6, lines 15-40) that electrolyzer systems for perform ing alkaline water electrolysis may include tanks (e.g. 110. 120) that were inherently capable of retaining the liquid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added one or more of the known prior art tanks capable of retaining the liquid electrolyte as shown by Masel to the electrolysis system of Martin utilizing known techniques to achieve a predictable result of storing the liquid electrolyte within the system. Claim s 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newkirk (US 2009/0325014) and Ruby et al (US 2016/0109040) . Martin teaches the electrolysis system being used for alkaline water electrolysis. Martin fails to teach the electrolysis system using a solid oxide electrolyte or using steam (water vapor) as a reactant. Newkirk teach (see fig. 1, paragraphs [0018] -[ 0019]) that hydrogen and oxygen may be produced by electrolysis of steam using a solid oxide electrolyte membrane (solid oxide electrolysis cell or SOEC). Ruby et al teach (see paragraph [0067]) that polyphenylene sulfide polymers were heat resistant at temperatures up to 165°C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the elements of the prior art according to known techniques to arrive at the presently claimed invention. The prior art contained all claim elements (polyphenylene sulfide used in electrolysis system, SOEC electrolysis of steam , high temperature resistance of polyphenylene sulfide) and each element continues to perform the expected function. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al (US 6,505,866) . Martin teaches constructing spacer frames from the polyphenylene sulfide. Thus, Martin fails to teach constructing fittings and/or connectors in the system from the polyphenylene sulfide. Nakamura et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1-2) that polyphenylene sulfide may be utilized, when blended with a thermoplastic elastomer, as fittings or connectors for pipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized polyphenylene sulfide as the material of any fittings or connectors in the electrolysis system of Martin because Nakamura et al shown that such polyphenylene sulfide fittings and connectors were known and conventional in the prior art and Martin shows that the polyphenylene sulfide had the correct material properties to be used within an electrolysis system. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-44 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of copending Application No. 18/317,137 in view of Martin (GB 2178223) and further in view of Ruby et al (US 2017/0166747) (for claims 4- 9 , 12-18, 23, 24, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 37-44), Tu et al (US 2017/0166747) (for claims 2, 4- 9 , and 12-25), Luo et al (US 2013/0072630) (for claim 3), Masel (US 11,339,483) (for claims 26 and 27), Newkirk (US 2009/0325014) (for claims 28 and 31) , and Nakamura et al (US 6,505,866) (for claim 36) . The claims of the ‘137 application recite an electrolyzer system comprising an electrochemical cell and an spacer frame comprising a polymer composition that included a polyarylene sulfide (claim 1) and a filler (impact modifier, claim 2). The claims of the ‘137 application do not recite that the spacer frame was an “ electrolyzer fluidic member” as required by the instant claims. However, the ability of spacer frames to function as fluidic members was shown as known in the prior art by Martin. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the spacer of the claims of the ‘137 application according to the teachings of Martin by using the polyarylene sulfide material as a spacer frame which functioned to help convey fluids to and from the electrodes of the electrochemical cell. Regarding instant claims 1, 10, 11, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 37, Martin alone in combination with the claims of the ‘137 application are suitable to reject these claims. See rejection grounds above citing Martin for further explanation. Regarding claims 2-9, 12-28, 31, 34-36, and 38-44, see the rejection grounds above for an explanation of why the features of these claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing in combination with the claims of the ‘137 application and Martin. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1251 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30am -6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . 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. /HARRY D WILKINS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794