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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the electrochemical cell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how an electrochemical cell itself can be part of an electrochemical cell component.
As to claims 16-20, the claims recite “The material of claim 14”. However, claim 14 does not refer to a material but “The cell”.
As to claim 18, the claim recites options for the limitation “B”; however, B itself is not described.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the limitation "the second oxide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 20, the claim recites “a third oxide”; however, there is no second oxide claimed, rendering the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9-11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Manufacturing of a LaNiO3 composite electrode for oxygen evolution in commercial alkaline water electrolysis” to Egelund et al. (Egelund).
As to claims 1, 2, 3 and 7 Silva teaches a gas diffusion anode component for use in an alkaline membrane (nafion) electrolysis cell, thus a cell capable of operating with a pH greater than 7, the gas diffusion anode component having a bulk portion, nickel foam, and a surface portion including a conductive electrochemically and chemically stable material comprising LiNiO3 (Abstract; Experimental).
As to claim 5, Silva teaches the component of claim 1. Silva further teaches that the surface portion is not fully continuous (Figure 10) thus that surface portions are free of the material.
As to claim 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 Silva teaches an alkaline membrane (nafion) electrolysis cell, thus a cell capable of operating with a pH greater than 7, the cell comprising a gas diffusion anode component having a bulk portion, nickel foam, and a surface portion including a conductive electrochemically and chemically stable material comprising LiNiO3 (Abstract; Experimental). The material inherently having an electrical conductivity of at least 10-1 S/cm (MPEP 2112).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Bi-Functional Oxygen Electrodes Using LaMnO3/LaNiO3 for Rechargeable Metal-Air Batteries” to Yuasa et al. (Yuasa).
As to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, Yuasa teaches a gas diffusion anode layer for use in an alkaline water electrolysis cell, thus capable of use in an electrochemical cell with an alkaline exchange membrane and having a pH greater than 7, the gas diffusion anode layer having a bulk portion comprising a porous nickel and a surface portion including a conductive electrochemically and chemically stable material comprising a mixture of LaMnO3 and LaNiO3 (Page A605, Column 2, Second Paragraph; Page A606 Column 2, First Paragraph).
As to claims 9, 11, 12, 14 and 17, Yuasa teaches an alkaline water electrolysis cell, thus a cell with a pH greater than 7, having a gas diffusion anode layer having a bulk portion comprising a porous nickel and a surface portion including a conductive electrochemically and chemically stable material comprising a mixture of LaMnO3 and LaNiO3 (Page A605, Column 2, Second Paragraph; Page A606 Column 2, First Paragraph). The mixture inherently having alkaline corrosion resistance and an electrical conductivity of at least 10-1 S/cm (MPEP 2112).
As to claim 15, Yuasa teaches a gas diffusion anode layer for use in an alkaline water electrolysis cell, the gas diffusion anode layer having a surface portion including a conductive electrochemically and chemically stable material comprising a mixture of LaMnO3 and LaNiO3 (Page A605, Column 2, Second Paragraph; Page A606 Column 2, First Paragraph). The mixture inherently having alkaline corrosion resistance and an electrical conductivity of at least 10-1 S/cm (MPEP 2112).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2014/060417 A1 to Iacopetti et al. (Iacopetti).
As to claim 6, Silva teaches the component of claim 1. However, Silva teaches that the bulk material comprises nickel and not steel. However, Iacopetti also discusses anode oxygen evolution materials comprises perovskites and teaches that the base onto which the perovskite can be applied comprises both nickel or steel (Page 3, Lines 18-20; Page 5, Lines 15-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize steel in place of nickel for the bulk material as a known equivalent as taught by Iacopetti.
Claims 8, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva as applied to claim 1, 11 and 14 above, and further in view of “Impact of Surface Defects on the LaNiO3 Perovskite Electrocatalyst for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction” to Arandiyan et al. (Arandiyan).
As to claim 8, Silva teaches the component of claim 1. However, Silva fails to specifically teach that the material comprises oxygen vacancies. However, Arandiyan also discusses LiNiO3 oxygen evolution materials and teaches that oxygen vacancies should be introduced in order to increase the electronic conductivity and enhance OER activity (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to introduce oxygen vacancies into the material of Silva in order to increase the electronic conductivity and enhance OER activity as taught by Arandiyan.
As to claims 13 and 16, Silva teaches the cell of claims 11 and 14. However, Silva fails to specifically teach that the material comprises oxygen vacancies. However, Arandiyan also discusses LiNiO3 oxygen evolution materials and teaches that oxygen vacancies should be introduced in order to increase the electronic conductivity and enhance OER activity (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to introduce oxygen vacancies into the material of Silva in order to increase the electronic conductivity and enhance OER activity as taught by Arandiyan.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2013/0020207 A1 to Shao-Horn et al. (Shao-Horn).
As to claim 18, Yuasa teaches the cell of claim 14. As discussed above, Yuasa teaches that the second material comprises LiMnO3, thus failing to teach Cr, Zr, Al, or Ti. However, Shao-Horn also discusses catalysts for use in water electrolysis and teaches that a known equivalent to LaMnO3 is LaCrO3 (Paragraphs 0028 and 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the LaMnO3 of Yuasa with LaCrO3 as a known equivalent with the expectation of effectively providing the material as taught by Shao-Horn.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2013/0130103 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim).
As to claim 19, Yuasa teaches the cell of claim 14. As discussed above, Yuasa teaches that the second material comprises LiMnO3, thus failing to teach magnesium. However, Kim also discusses perovskite catalyst and teaches that a known equivalent to LaMnO3 is LaMgO3 (Paragraph 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the LaMnO3 of Yuasa with LaMgO3 as a known equivalent with the expectation of effectively providing the material as taught by Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached at 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights