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 .
Priority
It is noted that the current application (US 18/315,433) claims benefit as a continuation-in-part of US application 16/446,571 (US patent 11,649,548) and US application 16/771,597 (US patent 11,846,032). There is further claim benefit to provisional applications 62/431,964 and 62,597,242.
None of the specifications of the provisional applications of parent application provide support for claim 1, in specific that the cathode comprising an electrocatalytic metallopolymer coupled to an electrically conductive material. In all of these initial application, the metallopolymer (and thus electrocatalytic species) are put into the electrolyte to generate the hydrogen gas.
As such, the effective filing date of claims 1-14 is 5/10/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the non-elected invention uses the elected invention and thus would not be a search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because claim 15 does not require the specifics of claim 1. The cathode of claim 1 requires an electrocatalytic metallopolymer coupled to an electrically conductive material wherein the metallopolymer comprises an electrocatalytically active complex bonded to a polymer. This is not what is required in claim 15. Claim 15 requires a cathode comprising an electrocatalytic metallopolymer.
It is further noted that apparatus claims and method claims are very different inventions to examine. The apparatus of claim 1 is capable of performing many different methods, not just that of claim 15.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
It is not clear what pH encompasses “near-neutral.” A neutral pH is a pH of 7. It is not clear if near-neutral or higher means above a pH of 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5 etc. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zamader, A. et al “Electrode Integration of Synthetic Hydrogenase as Bioinspired and Noble Metal-Free Cathodes for Hydrogen Evolution” ACS Catalysis, 2023, 13, 1246-1256. Zamader, Supplemental Information, p. S1-S47.
As to claim 1, Zamader teaches of an electrolyzer for generating hydrogen comprising:
a cathode comprising an electrocatalytic metallopolymer coupled to an electrically conductive material, the metallopolymer comprising an electrocatalytically active complex bonded to a polymer (Zamader, p. 1249-1250, Electrochemical and Electrocatalytic Characterization of Metallopolymers 2a-2e, Fig. 1A and Supplemental Information S2.2 and S2.3);
an anode (Zamader, Supplemental Information, S1.2); and
an aqueous solution which can be in contact with both the anode and cathode (Zamader, p. 1249-1250, Electrochemical and Electrocatalytic Characterization of Metallopolymers 2a-2e, Fig. 2).
From Fig. 1A.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As discussed in Zamader, the metallopolymer is coupled to the electrically conductive material (MWNT film) of the surface of the cathode. There is an anode in the system and an aqueous solution such that the system generates hydrogen.
As to claims 2-4, Zamader teaches the metallopolymer has the desired structure (Zamader, Fig. 1A, 2b-2e).
As to claims 7 and 8-10, Zamader teaches the pH of the aqueous medium is 7 and that the aqueous medium comprises an electrolyte including a sodium phosphate buffer, thus comprising the protic co-catalyst) (Zamader, p. 1250 and Figs. 2C and 2D).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamader as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2019/0345618 of Pyun et al.
As to claim 5, Zamader teaches to the system of claim 2.
It is unclear if Zamader teaches the polymer as per the desired structure.
Pyun teaches of metallopolymer compositions as hydrogenase mimic compositions for hydrogen generation (Pyun, Abstract).
Pyun additionally teaches that the polymer composition includes formulas of compositions including that of the claimed invention such that the composition promote electron transfer, improve water solubility and improve the catalytic lifetime and stability of the metallopolymer (Pyun, [0059] – [0064] and [0070]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zamader as per Pyun so as to utilize the desired polymer structure in order to promote electron transfer, improve water solubility and improve the catalytic lifetime and stability of the metallopolymer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamader as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0064807 of Lewis.
As to claim 1, Zamader teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zamader teaches that the electrically conductive material comprises carbon (Zamader, Supplemental Information, S1.2).
Zamader does not teach the electrically conductive material is porous.
Lewis teaches to electrolyzer devices (Lewis, Abstract).
Lewis additionally teaches that the cathode structure can include gas diffusion layers to facilitate gas movement such that the gas diffusion layer is porous and comprises metal (Lewis, [0077]). If is further noted that the reduction catalyst (i.e. cathode catalyst) can comprise Fe-S complexes that resemble hydrogenase (Lewis, [0075]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zamader as per Lewis so as to utilize a porous material to facilitate gas movement from the cathode structure within the system.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamader as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0299848 of Lichtenberger et al.
As to claims 11-12, Zamader teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zamader does not teach the system includes a membrane.
Lichtenberger teaches of electrolytic system for hydrogen production (Lichtenberger, Abstract).
Lichtenberger further teaches that the system can comprise a membrane between the anode and cathode to separate the generated gases, the membrane comprising proton exchange membrane (Lichtenberger, [0021] and [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zamader as per Lichtenberger so as to utilize the desired membrane between the electrodes in order to allow for separation of the generated gases within the system.
As to claims 13 and 14, Zamader teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zamader does not specifically teach an energy supply, although it must be present given that the system performs electrolysis.
Lichtenberger teaches of electrolytic system for hydrogen production (Lichtenberger, Abstract).
Lichtenberger additionally teaches a renewable energy source (solar or wind) as an external power source to supply current to the electrodes to drive the water electrolysis and generate oxygen and hydrogen gases (Lichtenberger, [0021] and [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zamader as per Lichtenberger so as to utilize the desired power source to drive the electrolysis within the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759