ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL, ITS PRODUCTION METHOD AND ITS USE

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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on 6/16/2026: Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4, and 10-11 are amended and Claims 9 and 12 are canceled. The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained and reworded only to reflect amended claim limitations. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Claim Interpretation All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments and the affidavit have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the relationship between the TQ value and the hot water resistance is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art and therefore the claims are rendered novel over the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The affidavit demonstrates a relationship between the TQ value of the precursor polymer and the mass reduction ratio, and that a TQ value falling within the claimed range results in good hot water resistance. However, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Further, mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (see MPEP 2145, II). Since Kaneko discloses the precursor polymer having a TQ value of 237° C. and 270° C. (falling in the claimed range) (see paragraph [0083] and Table 1), it is substantially the same composition as the claimed precursor polymer and would also have good hot water resistance. Where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Furthermore, if a composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP 2112.01). It has not been demonstrated that the polymer disclosed in the prior art would not have the same properties. The examiner notes that if the relative amounts of u1 are shown to have different properties than those in the range disclosed by Kaneko, the rejection may be able to be overcome. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. US-20080138685-A1 (hereinafter “Kaneko”) in view of Naoto et al. JP-2002352819-A (hereinafter “Naoto”). Regarding Claim 1, Kaneko discloses an electrolyte material, comprising: a polymer (see comparison of polymer formulas below) consisting of copolymerized units represented by formula U1 (correlating to claimed formula u1) (see comparison of polymer formulas below) and units based on tetrafluoroethylene (see paragraphs [0004], [0012]-[0013], [0021]-[0030], and [0035]). Kaneko also discloses a content of tetrafluoroethylene is at least 40 mol %, so a content of the units according to formula U1 may be 60 mol % or less, and Kaneko further discloses the content of U1 being approximately 17.8 mol % (thus making a content of tetrafluoroethylene 82.2 mol %) in Example 1 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0107]-[0109] and Tables 1, 2, 3, and 7). These values are substantially close and the ranges substantially overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges of a content of the units of formula U1 being from 19.5 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 63.5 to 80.5 mol %. Additionally, Kaneko discloses the appropriate amount of tetrafluoroethylene maintains the membrane strength and obtains a constant performance over a long period of time. As such, the content of tetrafluoroethylene is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the content of units according to formula U1 to be from 19.5 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 63.5 to 80.5 mol % in order to optimize the membrane strength and performance over a long period of time. PNG media_image1.png 225 768 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1. Formula of Kaneko PNG media_image2.png 684 667 media_image2.png Greyscale Figure 2. Formula of Instant Application Kaneko also discloses wherein Q1 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom (at least one of Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where both Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom), Y is a fluorine atom or a monovalent perfluoroorganic group (a perfluroualkyl group), n is 0 (n may be 0 or 1, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where n is 0), Rf1 is a perfluoroalkyl group, X is an oxygen atom, a nitrogen atom or a carbon atom, a is 0 when X1 is an oxygen atom, 1 when X1 is a nitrogen atom, and 2 when X is a carbon atom, and Z+ is H+ (see paragraphs [0013] and [0021]-[0030]). Kaneko further discloses the ion exchange capacity is preferably 0.5 to 2.5 meq/g dry polymer (see Table 1 and paragraph [0041]). This substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of an ion exchange capacity, expressed as, milliequivalent of ion exchange groups per 1 g of the polymer of about 2.00 to 1.81 (since EW ranges from 498 to 550 g/eq, AR would range from about 2.00 to 1.81 according to formula 1 (EW=1000/AR (1))), and therefore substantially overlaps the claimed range of EW of 498 to 550 g/eq. Further, Kaneko discloses if the ion exchange capacity of the electrolyte material is too small, the water content of the electrolyte material tends to be low, and the ion conductivity tends to be low resulting in difficulty obtaining sufficient cell output and if the ion exchange capacity of the electrolyte material is too large, preparation of the polymer having a high molecular weight is not easy, and the polymer tends to be excessively swelled with water, whereby it tends to be difficult to maintain the strength. As such, the ion exchange capacity is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kaneko wherein the EW (resulting from the disclosed preferred ion exchange capacity) ranges from 498 to 550 g/eq in order to avoid insufficient cell output and difficulty maintaining the strength. Kaneko further discloses wherein the polymer H is obtained by converting -SO2F groups of a polymer F into ion exchange groups according to formula U1 (correlating to claimed formula u1) (see comparison of polymer formulas above) (see paragraphs [0004], [0012], and [0035]), the polymer F consisting of units of formula u1 (correlating to claimed formula u’1) (see comparison of polymer formulas below) and units based on tetrafluoroethylene (see paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0085], and [0107]-[0109]). PNG media_image3.png 124 528 media_image3.png Greyscale Figure 3. Formula of Kaneko PNG media_image4.png 90 454 media_image4.png Greyscale Figure 4. Formula of Instant Application Kaneko additionally discloses wherein Q1 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom (at least one of Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where both Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom), Y is a fluorine atom or a monovalent perfluoroorganic group (a perfluroualkyl group), n is 0 (n may be 0 or 1, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where n is 0) (see paragraphs [0013] and [0021]-[0032]). Kaneko also discloses a content of tetrafluoroethylene is at least 40 mol %, so a content of the units according to formula u1 may be 60 mol % or less, and Kaneko discloses the content of U1 being approximately 17.8 mol % (thus making a content of tetrafluoroethylene 82.2 mol %) in Example 1 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0107]-[0109] and Tables 1, 2, 3, and 7). These values are substantially close and the ranges substantially overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges of a content of the units of formula U1 being from 19.5 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 63.5 to 80.5 mol %. Additionally, Kaneko discloses the appropriate amount of tetrafluoroethylene maintains the membrane strength and obtains a constant performance over a long period of time. As such, the content of tetrafluoroethylene is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the content of units according to formula U1 to be from 19.5 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 63.5 to 80.5 mol % in order to optimize the membrane strength and performance over a long period of time. Kaneko further discloses the polymer has a TQ of 237° C. and 270° C. (see paragraph [0083] and Table 1). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the polymer F having a TQ of from 220 to 300° C. Kaneko also discloses wherein TQ is a temperature at which the extrusion amount becomes 100 mm3/sec, when the polymer F is melted and the molten polymer F is extruded from a nozzle having a length of 1 mm and an inner diameter of 1 mm, under 2.94 MPa (see paragraph [0083]). Kaneko further discloses the polymer has excellent heat resistance (see paragraph [0035]). Kaneko is silent on wherein a mass reduction ratio when immersed in hot water at 120° C. for 24 hours is at most 13 mass %. However, in the same field of endeavor of fluorine-based polymers (see paragraphs [0001] and [0005]), Naoto discloses a fluorine-containing ion-exchange resin membrane preferably has a weight loss of 1 wt% or less when subjected to a boiling treatment (see paragraphs [0005]-[0007], [0021], and [0024] and Table 1). Naoto additionally discloses achieving a low weight loss results in improved durability (see paragraph [0007]). Naoto discloses the boiling treatment is carried out for 8 hours in boiling water but a skilled artisan is capable of ensuring a low weight loss over a 24 hour period through routine experimentation to ensure durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte disclosed by Kaneko wherein a mass reduction ratio when immersed in hot water at 120° C. for 24 hours is at most 13 mass %, as disclosed by Naoto, in order to achieve improved durability. Regarding Claim 3, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses wherein the polymer comprises no unit having only one ion exchange group (Kaneko’s disclosed polymer has two ion exchange groups, correlating to the claimed ion exchange groups, see comparisons of polymer formulas in claim 1 above) (see paragraphs [0013] and [0021]-[0030]). Regarding Claim 4, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses a content of tetrafluoroethylene is at least 40 mol %, so a content of the units according to formula U1 may be 60 mol % or less, and Kaneko discloses the content of U1 being approximately 17.8 mol % (thus making a content of tetrafluoroethylene 82.2 mol %) in Example 1 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0107]-[0109] and Tables 1, 2, 3, and 7). These values are substantially close and the ranges substantially overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges of a content of the units of formula U1 being from 19.5 mol % to 29.9 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 70.1 to 80.5 mol %. Additionally, Kaneko discloses the appropriate amount of tetrafluoroethylene maintains the membrane strength and obtains a constant performance over a long period of time. As such, the content of tetrafluoroethylene is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the content of units according to formula U1 to be from 19.5 mol % to 29.9 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 70.1 to 80.5 mol % in order to optimize the membrane strength and performance over a long period of time. Regarding Claim 5, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses a liquid composition, comprising: the electrolyte material of the aforementioned claim 1, and a dispersion medium (see paragraphs [0049], [0062], and [0065]). Regarding Claim 6, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses a polymer electrolyte membrane, comprising: the aforementioned electrolyte material of claim 1 (see paragraphs [0001] and [0016]). Regarding Claim 7, Kaneko discloses the polymer electrolyte membrane according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above). Kaneko further discloses a membrane/electrode assembly, comprising: an anode having a catalyst layer, a cathode having a catalyst layer, and the polymer electrolyte membrane of claim 6 disposed between the anode and the cathode (see paragraphs [0001] and [0016]-[0017]). Regarding Claim 8, Kaneko discloses the membrane/electrode assembly according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above). Kaneko further discloses a polymer electrolyte fuel cell, comprising: the membrane/electrode assembly of the aforementioned claim 7 (see paragraphs [0001] and [0016]-[0017]). Regarding Claim 10, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses wherein the polymer has a TQ of 237° C. and 270° C. (see paragraph [0083] and Table 1). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the polymer F having a TQ of from 220 to 270° C. Regarding Claim 11, Kaneko discloses the polymer F according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses a method for producing the polymer F of claim 1, comprising: polymerizing a monomer component consisting of a compound of formula u1 (correlating to claimed formula m1) and tetrafluoroethylene by solution polymerization method to obtain the polymer (see comparison of polymer formulas below) (see paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0085], and [0107]-[0109]). PNG media_image3.png 124 528 media_image3.png Greyscale Figure 5. Formula of Kaneko PNG media_image5.png 418 676 media_image5.png Greyscale Figure 6. Formula of Instant Application Kaneko additionally discloses wherein Q1 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom (at least one of Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where both Q1 or Q2 is a perfluoroalkylene group having an etheric oxygen atom), Y is a fluorine atom or a monovalent perfluoroorganic group (a perfluroualkyl group), n is 0 (n may be 0 or 1, so a skilled artisan is capable of envisioning a formula where n is 0) (see paragraphs [0013] and [0021]-[0032]). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tetsuji et al. EP-1927601-A1 (“Tetsuji”). Regarding Claim 2, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses the electrolyte material maintains excellent performance and durability even under a high temperature and low humidity environment and also discloses measuring a specific resistivity (the reciprocal measurement of conductivity) at a temperature of 80° C under a relative humidity of 50% RH (see paragraphs [0012], [0087], and [0125] and Tables 4-6). Kaneko is silent on wherein the electrolyte material has a proton conductivity at a temperature of 80° C under a relative humidity of 50% RH of at least 0.15 S/cm. However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolyte materials (see abstract), Tetsuji discloses a polymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene and a repeating unit U1, with a content of tetrafluoroethylene in an amount of at least 40 mol% to at most 87 mol% in order to achieve appropriate mechanical strength and chemical durability (correlating to the polymer disclosed by Kaneko) (see paragraphs [0022]-[0036], [0042]-[0044], and [0133]-[0136] and Tables 1-3). Tetsuji also discloses calculating proton conductivity ranging from 0.10-0.14 S/cm at a temperature of 80°C with a relative humidity of 50% (see paragraphs [0022]-[0036], [0042]-[0044], and [0133]-[0136] and Tables 1-3). This range is substantially close to and renders obvious the claimed range of a proton conductivity at a temperature of 80° C under a relative humidity of 50% RH of at least 0.15 S/cm. Additionally, Tetsuji discloses high proton conductivity achieves sufficient cell output (see paragraphs [0047] and [0093]). As such, proton conductivity is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte material of Kaneko wherein the electrolyte material has a proton conductivity at a temperature of 80° C under a relative humidity of 50% RH of at least 0.15 S/cm, as disclosed by Tetsuji, in order to achieve high power generation. 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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. /S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729