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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 33 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. Claim 33 recites the limitation "the separator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of further examination, the Office will assume that claim 33 depends from claim 32 instead of claim 30. Such change in dependency would correct this antecedent basis problem. 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. 2453005 404495 0 0 Claims 1, 9, 11, 14-16, 18, 21, 28-32, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Martin (GB 2178223 A ) . See fig. 1, page 1, lines 33-37, page 2, lines 16-39, and page 6, lines 10-15. T he frames of Martin were constructed of a polyarylene sulfide (60wt%) mixed with glass fiber filler (40 wt%) and the frames included curved walls (see annotated copy of fig. 1 of Martin at right) that defined a flow cha n nel having a curved wall . Regarding claims 29-32 and 34-36, per fig. 2 of Martin, the frames (161) surrounded a component, such as a bipolar plate/current collector (233), separator (225) or electrode (213, 223). The system of fig. 2 of Martin included a stack of cells and the spacer frame was adjacent to both ends of the cell stack. 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 2-8, 22, 24-27 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 [000 4 ] and [0015] ) improvements for polyphenylene sulfide resin s 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 2-5, Tu et al teach (see paragraph s [00 34 ]) the impact modifier being an ethylene- (meth) acrylic acid copolymer with the methacrylic monomer being epoxy-functionalized . Regarding claims 6-8, Tu et al teach (see paragraph [0037] and [0043]) using a metal carboxylate as the crosslinking agent and also optionally using aromatic dicarboxylic acids as an additional crosslinking agent. Regarding claims 22, 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 24 and 25, 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, tensile strength as high as 50 MPa, tensile break strain as high as 90%. Regarding claim 26, 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 27, Tu et al teach (see the Table at paragraph [0090]) that the improved polyphenylene sulfide exhibited flexural strength as high as 68 MPa. Claim s 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claims 9 and 16, respectively, above and further in view of Hirai et al (US 5,795,450) . Martin fails to teach a curved wall that forms a seal channel. Hirai et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2, and col. 5, lines 23-46) providing sealing grooves ( 36e, 36f) in the face of a spacer frame for holding O-rings that seal between the faces to avoid fluids leaking from the cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have also added curved walls that formed seal channels as taught by Hirai et al in the spacer frame of Martin for the purpose of sealing between the faces of adjacent spacer frames to avoid fluid leaks. Claim s 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claims 11 and 16, respectively, above and further in view of Grimes et al (US 4,718,997) . The wall defining a curved flow channel in Martin did not extend from an inlet or outlet defined in the spacer frame to a component that is surrounded by the spacer frame. Grimes et al teach (see abstract, figs. 3a-3c) a spacer frame (11 – , 11’ or 11”) for an electrolysis system having curved flow channels (13, 13’, or 13”) extending from an inlet or outlet (e.g. manifolds 14, 14’ or 14”) to a component (16, 16’, or 16”) that was surrounded by the spacer frame. Per col. 1, lines 45-62 and col. 2, lines 30-54, that t he curved flow channels provided for minimization of shunt currents that led to inefficiencies in electrolyzer stacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the spacer frame of Martin to use the curved flow channels of Grimes et al for the purpose of minimizing shunt currents in the electrolyzer as taught by Grimes et al. Claim s 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (GB 2178223 A) as applied to claims 9 and 15, respectively, above and further in view of Faita et al (US 5,482,792) . Marin fails to teach the dimensions of the curved wall of the spacer frame. Faita et al teach (see fig. 3, col. 5, lines , 15-26, col. 6, lines 19-31, and col. 12, lines 22-40) spacer frames made from plastic for surrounding components of an electrolysis cell wherein channels are made within the surface of the frame with depths of 0.5 mm or 0.1 mm (i.e. 100-500 micrometers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the curved walls of Martin to be very thin, such as less than 500 micrometers as taught by Faita et al, as was understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as benefiting construction of the cells by making the frames as thin as possible to reduce the overall size of the electrolysis cell. Claim 23 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, paragraph s [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 33 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 Masel (US 11,339,483) . Martin fails to teach the separator 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. 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 1-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of copending Application No. 18/307,840 in view of Martin (GB 2178223) and further in view of Tu et al (US 2017/0166747) (for claims 2-8, 22, 24-27), Hirai et al (US 5,795,450) (for claims 10 and 17), Grimes et al (US 4,718,997) (for claims 12 and 19), Faita et al (US 5,482,792) (for claims 13 and 20), Luo et al (US 2013/0072630) (for claim 23), and Masel (US 11,339,483) (for claim 33) . The claims of the ‘840 application recite an electrolyzer system comprising an electrochemical cell and an “electrolyzer fluidic member” comprising a polymer composition that included a polyarylene sulfide (claim 1) and a filler (impact modifier, claim 12). The claims of the ‘840 application do not recite that the “electrolyzer fluidic member” was a spacer frame as required by the instant claims. However, use of polyarylene sulfide polymers for spacer frames was shown as known in the prior art by Martin and these spacer frames were utilized to convey fluids to and from the electrodes of the electrochemical cell. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrolyzer fluidic member of the claims of the ‘840 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, 9, 11, 14-16, 18, 21, 28-32, 34-36, Martin alone in combination with the claims of the ‘840 application are suitable to reject these claims. See rejection grounds above citing Martin for further explanation. Regarding claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22-27, and 33, 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 ‘840 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