DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 15-27 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn.
Claims 9-14 are cancelled.
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
All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Creeth discloses an electrolytic cell (abstract) (= an electrochemical apparatus), comprising:
A composite anode formed of zeolite particles [0039] and ruthenium or nickel [0020], [0039] (= a positive electrode comprising a catalyst-doped material the catalyst-doped material comprising composite particles comprising: one of silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, and zeolite and at least one of Ru, Rh, Ni, Ir, Mo, Zn, and Fe);
A cathode comprising an electrocatalytic material [0007], [0012] (= a negative electrode comprising another catalyst-doped material); and
An ion selective polymer electrolyte membrane such as polybenzimidazole (abstract), [0036] (= a proton-conducting membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode).
Regarding the claimed “formulated to accelerate reaction rates to produce CH3+, H+, and e- through non-oxidative deprotonation of CH4” and “formulated to accelerate reaction rates to produce H2(g) from the produced H+ and e-“ the phrases are directed to functional claim language. The phrasing does not further structural limit the claimed electrodes. 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 ℃”, Creeth discloses polybenzimidazole which the instant specification indicates satisfies the claimed phrasing [0038].
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim does not appear to further structurally limit the claimed apparatus and catalyst-doped material.
Regarding claim 18, Creeth discloses the membrane comprising PBI and the cathode comprising an electrocatalytic material including noble metals (e.g. platinum) [0007].
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.
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 Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152) in view of Papandrew et al. (“Nickel catalysts for hydrogen evolution from CsH2PO4” J. Power Sources, 245, 2014, 171-174).
Regarding claim 17, Creeth discloses an acid-doped polybenzimidazole [0036]. Creeth fails to disclose the another catalyst-doped material of the negative electrode comprises a cermet material comprising Pt and CsH2PO4.
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 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 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152) in view of Wachsman et al. (US 2011/0084237).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, Creeth discloses the cathode comprising an electrocatalytic material [0007], [0012].
Creeth fails to disclose the membrane and/or negative electrode 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]. Wachsman discloses that an electrode may comprise a perovskite material [0010].
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 Creeth with the membrane material of Wachsman for producing the same or similar predictable result of a proton conducting membrane. Since Wachsman discloses an electrode may be formed of a perovskite material, it would have been obvious to produce the cathode of Creeth with a perovskite material of Wachsman. Selecting any of the perovskite materials of Wachsman would have been obvious to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152) in view of Brooks et al. (US 2009/0253002).
Regarding claim 22, Creeth discloses Ru, Ni and SiO2. Creeth fails to disclose silicon carbide.
In the same or similar field of electrolytic devices, Brooks discloses that SiO2 and SiC are known equivalents as catalyst [0301].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the device comprising SiC because Brooks discloses that SiO2 and SiC are known equivalents. It would have been obvious to simply substitute one material for another to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152) in view of Eastman et al. (WO 2008/134871).
Regarding claim 23, Creeth discloses SiO2 as described above.
Creeth fails to disclose iron as a catalyst.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Eastman discloses a Fe/SiO2 catalyst [0456]. Eastman discloses that iron on silica catalyst is an order of magnitude more active than conventional supported iron at similar loadings and dispersions. Eastman additionally discloses that the silica supported nanostructure iron catalyst exhibits high activity at low temperature.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising Fe and SiO2 because Eastman discloses that iron on silica catalyst is an order of magnitude more active than conventional supported iron at similar loadings and dispersions. Eastman additionally discloses that the silica supported nanostructure iron catalyst exhibits high activity at low temperature. It would have been obvious to substitute one known catalyst with another to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152), in view of Wachsman et al. (US 2011/0084237) and in view of Park et al. (KR 20160135098).
Regarding claim 24, Creeth discloses the cathode comprising a catalyst including a transition metal as described above.
Creeth fails to disclose the claimed one or more perovskite materials.
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]. Wachsman discloses that an electrode may comprise a perovskite material [0010].
Creeth in view of Wachsman fails to disclose the claimed yttrium or ytterbium.
Park discloses an electrochemical device comprising a solid oxide electrolyte layer including ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate [0062]. Park discloses the electrolyte layer comprising an oxygen ion-conducting metal oxide, a proton conducting metal oxide or a mixture thereof [0019].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a perovskite material as claimed because Wachsman discloses that an electrode may be formed of a perovskite material and because Park discloses ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate as a perovskite material.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152), in view of Wachsman et al. (US 2011/0084237) and in further view of Park et al. (KR 20160135098).
Regarding claims 25-26, Creeth fails to disclose the claimed perovskite membrane composition including the yttrium-based material.
Park discloses an electrochemical device comprising a solid oxide electrolyte layer including ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate [0062]. Park discloses the electrolyte layer comprising an oxygen ion-conducting metal oxide, a proton conducting metal oxide or a mixture thereof [0019].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate because Park discloses a similar device comprising a solid electrolyte including ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate. It would have been obvious to simply substitute one known solid electrolyte (e.g. membrane) with another to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creeth et al. (US 2013/0256152), in view of Park et al. (KR 20160135098) and in further view of Eastman et al. (WO 2008/134871).
Regarding claim 27, Creeth discloses SiO2 as described above. As described above, Park discloses an electrochemical device comprising a solid oxide electrolyte layer including ytterbium co-doped barium zirconate cerate [0062]. Park discloses the electrolyte layer comprising an oxygen ion-conducting metal oxide, a proton conducting metal oxide or a mixture thereof [0019].
Creeth in view of Park fails to disclose an iron catalyst.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Eastman discloses a Fe/SiO2 catalyst [0456]. Eastman discloses that iron on silica catalyst is an order of magnitude more active than conventional supported iron at similar loadings and dispersions. Eastman additionally discloses that the silica supported nanostructure iron catalyst exhibits high activity at low temperature.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising Fe and SiO2 because Eastman discloses that iron on silica catalyst is an order of magnitude more active than conventional supported iron at similar loadings and dispersions. Eastman additionally discloses that the silica supported nanostructure iron catalyst exhibits high activity at low temperature. It would have been obvious to substitute one known catalyst with another to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks on pages 8-12 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection which are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time.
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 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