DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 18 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weissman et al. (US 2015/0119542).
Regarding claim 15, Weissman discloses an electrochemical apparatus (title) (= an electrochemical apparatus), comprising:
A first electrode comprising carbon powder loaded with Ni, Pt, etc. [0070] wherein the catalyst activates the methane to form CH3 fragments, a hydrogen ion and free electron [0004] (= a positive electrode comprising a catalyst-doped material formulated to accelerate reaction rates to produce CH3+, H+, and e- through non-oxidative deprotonation of CH4; the claimed “to accelerated reaction rates” is intrinsic to a catalyst material; the claimed through non-oxidative deprotonation of CH4 does not further structurally limit the claimed positive electrode);
A second electrode comprising carbon powder loaded with noble metals such as Pt and Ni [0071] and wherein the hydrogen ions transit the membrane and produce molecular hydrogen where oxygen is absent [0004] (= a negative electrode comprising another catalyst-doped material formulated to accelerate reaction rates to produce H2(g) from the produced H+ and e-); and
A membrane comprising polybenzimidazole [0072] (= a proton-conducting membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and comprising one or more of a perovskite material, a solid acid material, and a polybenzimidazole (PBI) material).
Regarding the claimed “exhibiting ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 10-2 S/cm at one or more temperatures within a range of from about 150℃ to about 600℃”, Weissman discloses the same material (e.g. polybenzimidazole) as claimed and therefore intrinsically discloses the claimed ionic conductivity. Additionally, the instant specification indicates that PBI has a conductivity greater than or equal to 10-2 S/cm within a range from about 150℃ to about 250℃ (instant specification [0038]) which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim does not appear to further structurally limit the claimed apparatus and catalyst-doped material. Moreover, Weissman discloses forming a hydrocarbon product with the use of catalyst containing electrode material [0003], [0005], [0008], [0070]-[0072].
Regarding claim 18, Weissman discloses the apparatus comprising PBI [0072], the catalyst doped material including Pd, Pt [0070] and the another catalyst doped material comprising Ni and Pt [0071].
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim does not appear to further structurally limit the claimed electrochemical apparatus since it is directed to the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. Moreover, Weissman discloses operating current densities including 0.1 A/cm2 with successful operation of the apparatus [0048].
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (US 2015/0119542) in view of Papandrew et al. (“Nickel catalysts for hydrogen evolution from CsH2PO4” J. Power Sources, 245, 2014, 171-174).
Regarding claim 17, Weissman discloses catalyst doped material including Ni and Ru [0070] and the another catalyst doped material comprising Pt [0071]. Weissman discloses a proton-conducting member [0072].
Weissman fails to disclose the claimed solid acid material of the membrane and CsH2PO4 as a catalyst electrode material.
Papandrew discloses in the area of molecular hydrogen production (pg. 171, Introduction, left column) the use of CsH2PO4 (CDP) as an emerging material used as an electrolyte material, electrode material and membrane material (pg. 171, Introduction, right column, 2. Experimental methods, each of the electrodes and membrane comprising CDP). Papandrew discloses that CDP is distinguished by a polymorphic phase transition that results in a large increase in proton conductivity and is an attractive material for electrochemical hydrogen pumping due to the impurity tolerance of catalysts in its operational temperature range (Introduction, right column). Papandrew discloses the use of CDP in the electrode material along with Pt or Ni and also as a material within the membrane electrode assembly (2. Experimental methods, 1st-3rd paragraphs, left column). Papandrew demonstrates that the combination of either Ni and Pt along with CDP is an effective catalyst material for electrolysis applications (4. Conclusions, p. 174).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a solid acid material of the membrane and a catalyst doped electrode material because Papandrew discloses the use of CDP along with Ni or Pt to be an effective catalyst electrode and membrane material within an electrochemical system. Papandrew discloses that CDP is distinguished by a polymorphic phase transition that results in a large increase in proton conductivity and is an attractive material for electrochemical hydrogen pumping due to the impurity tolerance of catalysts in its operational temperature range.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (US 2015/0119542), in view of Wachsman et al. (US 2011/0084237) and in view of Papandrew et al. (“Nickel catalysts for hydrogen evolution from CsH2PO4” J. Power Sources, 245, 2014, 171-174).
Regarding claim 19, Weissman discloses the catalyst doped material of the electrode comprising Ru and Ni [0070]. Weissman discloses the another catalyst material including Ni [0071].
Weissman fails to disclose the membrane comprising a perovskite material.
Wachsman discloses an apparatus for the conversion of hydrocarbon to hydrogen comprising a perovskite-type oxide membrane (abstract, [0009]). Wachsman discloses that perovskite type oxides have been shown to have high proton conductivities at elevated temperatures and that as hydrogen permeates through a membrane as a proton, separation selectivity for hydrogen is nearly absolute, allowing the collection of extremely pure hydrogen. Wachsman also discloses that the potential permeation flux rate of these materials is also extremely high if sufficient electronic conductivity can be achieved [0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a perovskite material because Wachsman discloses that perovskite type oxides have been shown to have high proton conductivities at elevated temperatures and that as hydrogen permeates through a membrane as a proton, separation selectivity for hydrogen is nearly absolute, allowing the collection of extremely pure hydrogen. It would have been obvious to substitute the membrane material of Weissman with the membrane material of Wachsman for producing the same or similar predictable result of a proton conducting membrane.
Weissman in view of Wachsman fail to disclose the another catalyst material comprising a cermet.
Papandrew discloses in the area of molecular hydrogen production (pg. 171, Introduction, left column) the use of CsH2PO4 (CDP) as an emerging material used as an electrolyte material, electrode material and membrane material (pg. 171, Introduction, right column, 2. Experimental methods, each of the electrodes and membrane comprising CDP). Papandrew discloses that CDP is distinguished by a polymorphic phase transition that results in a large increase in proton conductivity and is an attractive material for electrochemical hydrogen pumping due to the impurity tolerance of catalysts in its operational temperature range (Introduction, right column). Papandrew discloses the use of CDP in the electrode material along with Pt or Ni and also as a material within the membrane electrode assembly (2. Experimental methods, 1st-3rd paragraphs, left column). Papandrew demonstrates that the combination of either Ni and Pt along with CDP is an effective catalyst material for electrolysis applications (4. Conclusions, p. 174).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a cermet material the electrode material because Papandrew discloses the use of CDP along with Ni or Pt to be an effective catalyst electrode material within an electrochemical system. Papandrew discloses that CDP is distinguished by a polymorphic phase transition that results in a large increase in proton conductivity and is an attractive material for electrochemical hydrogen pumping due to the impurity tolerance of catalysts in its operational temperature range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki et al. “Geometrically asymmetric electrodes for probing electrochemical reaction kinetics: a case study of hydrogen at the Pt-CsH2PO4 interface” PCCP, 11, 8349-8357, 2009.
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