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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted May 30, 2023 and August 7, 2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words and is written as two paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 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 18.7 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 63.5 to 81.3 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 18.7 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 63.5 to 81.3 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 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 18.7 mol % to 29.9 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 70.1 to 81.3 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 18.7 mol % to 29.9 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 70.1 to 81.3 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 9, Kaneko discloses the electrolyte material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kaneko further discloses a precursor of the electrolyte material of aforementioned claim 1, comprising a polymer 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 [0004], [0012], 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 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 18.7 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene being from 63.5 to 81.3 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 18.7 mol % to 36.5 mol % and a content of the units based on tetrafluoroethylene to be from 63.5 to 81.3 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
124
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Formula of Kaneko
PNG
media_image4.png
424
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Formula of Instant Application
Kaneko further 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]), and
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]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kaneko discloses the precursor according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 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 precursor according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above). Kaneko further discloses a method for producing the precursor of the aforementioned claim 9, 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]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kaneko discloses the method for producing the precursor according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Kaneko further discloses a method for producing an electrolyte material, the method comprising:
obtaining a polymer by the method of the aforementioned claim 11, and converting -SO2F groups of the polymer into ion exchange groups according to formula U1 (correlating to claimed formula u1) (see comparison of polymer formulas below) (see paragraphs [0002], [0052]-[0054], and [0056]):
PNG
media_image1.png
225
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Formula of Kaneko
PNG
media_image2.png
684
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Formula of Instant Application
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]).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Honmura et al. US-20090042067-A1 discloses a proton conductive fluoropolymer with a proton conductivity at 80° C under a relative humidity of 40% of at least 0.08 S/cm to achieve high power generation (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0013]-[0017], [0034], and [0107] and Tables 2-3).
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