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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 4, 16, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Holler (WO 2020/020467 see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Holler is directed to a method of forming a porous transport layer (4) made of sintered titanium power that is roughened to improve the porosity in the surface area and ensure contact with the catalyst (pg 4, [23] of the translation).
Holler teachers a method comprising: providing a porous transport layer (4, fig. 1), the porous transport layer to be a component in an electrolyzer cell (pg. 1 of translation);
and creating features in a first surface of the porous transport layer by removing portions of the first surface of the porous transport layer, the features serving to increase a surface area of the first surface of the porous transport layer (pg. 4, [23] of translation).
Regarding claim 3, Holler teaches the porous transport layer comprises a sintered titanium powder-based porous transport layer, a titanium fiber-based porous transport layer, a nickel fiber-based porous transport layer, or a stainless-steel fiber-based porous transport layer (pg. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Holler teaches the porous transport layer is about 100 microns to 400 microns thick [24].
Regarding claim 16, Holler teaches after creating features in the first surface of the porous transport layer, depositing a catalyst on the first surface (6, fig. 1, [27]).
Regarding claim 19, Holler teaches the catalyst comprises iridium, platinum, ruthenium, or mixtures thereof [27].
Regarding claim 21, Holler teaches the porous transport layer provided is a sintered metal porous transport layer [23].
Regarding claim 22, Holler teaches the features in the first surface of the porous transport layer do not pass through the porous transport layer (Fig. 1).
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabarirajan (WO 2023/129549) in view of Holler (WO 2020/020467).
Regarding claim 1, Sabarirajan teaches a method comprising:
providing a porous transport layer, the porous transport layer to be a component in an electrolyzer cell [0022];
Sabarirajan teaches using various techniques to regain or reveal the porous structure or the PTL by removal of an intermediate layer by etching or heat [0053-0055] to create a porous network of catalyst combined with the PTL.
Sabarirajan does not teach creating features in a first surface of the porous transport layer by removing portions of the first surface of the porous transport layer.
Holler is directed to a method of forming a porous transport layer made of sintered titanium power that is roughened to improve the porosity in the surface area and ensure contact with the catalyst (pg 4, [23] of the translation).
Holler teachers a method comprising: providing a porous transport layer (8, fig. 1), the porous transport layer to be a component in an electrolyzer cell (pg. 1 of translation);
and creating features in a first surface of the porous transport layer by removing portions of the first surface of the porous transport layer, the features serving to increase a surface area of the first surface of the porous transport layer (pg. 4, [23] of translation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of the porous transport layer of Sabarirajan by creating features in a first surface of the porous transport layer by removing portions of the first surface of the porous transport layer, as taught by Holler, because it would improve the porosity in the surface area and ensure contact with the catalyst (pg 4, [23] of the translation).
Regarding claim 3, Sabarirajan teaches the porous transport layer comprises a sintered titanium powder-based porous transport layer [0026], a titanium fiber-based porous transport layer [0027], a nickel fiber-based porous transport layer, or a stainless-steel fiber-based porous transport layer.
Regarding claim 4, Sabarirajan teaches the porous transport layer is about 100 microns to 400 microns thick [0029].
Regarding claim 5, Sabarirajan teaches additive carbon nanotube features are provided on top of the porous transport layer at a height of 10-100 microns [0050]. Therefore the prior art gives guidance as to a depth that would facilitate increased surface area for the porous transport layer. Combining this teaching with that of Holler’s creation of features by removing material [23] would allow the skilled artisan to provide remove material to provide features with a depth of about 50 microns to 100 microns in the first surface of the porous transport layer.
Regarding claim 16, Sabarirajan teaches after creating features in the first surface of the porous transport layer, depositing a catalyst on the first surface [0049-0052].
Regarding claim 17, Sabarirajan teaches the catalyst is deposited on the first surface using a physical vapor deposition process (pg. 10, [0052]).
Regarding claim 19 Sabarirajan teaches the catalyst comprises iridium, platinum, ruthenium, or mixtures thereof [0052].
Regarding claim 21, Sabarirajan teaches the porous transport layer provided is a sintered metal porous transport layer [0026].
Regarding claim 22, Sabarirajan does not teach the features in the first surface of the porous transport layer do not pass through the porous transport layer.
Holler teaches the features in the first surface of the porous transport layer do not pass through the porous transport layer [23].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the porous transport layer of Sabarirajan by providing the features in the first surface of the porous transport layer do not pass through the porous transport layer, as taught by Holler, because it ensure electrical contact when the surface is in contact with the catalyst [23].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabarirajan and Holler as applied to claim 1 above in view of Gorokhovsky (US 2015/0376804).
Regarding claim 2, Sabarirajan is directed to increasing surface area of the pass through layer because it will allow the use of very low catalyst loadings while maintaining or improving cell performance [0049]. It does not teach creating the features is performed using laser ablation.
Gorokhovsky teaches a cell for gas transport that teaches features are created on a layer by laser ablation to create a precisely controlled surface profile[0052].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing the features is performed using laser ablation, as taught by Gorokhovsky, because it would provide a precisely controlled surface profile [0052].
Claim 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabarirajan and Holler as applied to claim 1 above in view of Zhang (US 2023/0047374).
Regarding claim 6, Sabarirajan does not teach the features comprise a plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface.
Zhang the features comprise a plurality of substantially parallel channels (125, fig. 5c, [0009]) in the first surface (Fig. 5c, [0033-0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing a plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface, as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Regarding claim 7, Sabarirajan does not teach a spacing between a first channel and a second channel of the substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, and wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel.
Zhang teaches a spacing (channel wall thickness) between a first channel and a second channel of the substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns(25-300 microns, d4, fig. 8b), and wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel [0041].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing a spacing between a first channel and a second channel of the substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, and wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel, as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Regarding claim 8, Sabarirajan does not teach each of the plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide.
Zhang teach each of the plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide ([0041], d1 0 – 200 um).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing each of the plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide, as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Regarding claim 9, Sabarirajan does not teach the features comprise a first plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface and a second plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface, and wherein the second plurality of substantially parallel channels are substantially perpendicular to the first plurality of substantially parallel channels.
Zhang teaches the features comprise a first plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface and a second plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface, and wherein the second plurality of substantially parallel channels are substantially perpendicular to the first plurality of substantially parallel channels [0042, fig. 8d-8g).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing the features comprise a first plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface and a second plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface, and wherein the second plurality of substantially parallel channels are substantially perpendicular to the first plurality of substantially parallel channels, as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Regarding claim 10, Sabarirajan does not teach a spacing between a first channel and a second channel of the first plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel, wherein a spacing between a third channel and a fourth channel of the second plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, and wherein the third channel is adjacent to the fourth channel.
Zhang teaches a spacing between a first channel and a second channel of the first plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel, wherein a spacing between a third channel and a fourth channel of the second plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, and wherein the third channel is adjacent to the fourth channel [0041].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing a spacing between a first channel and a second channel of the first plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, wherein the first channel is adjacent to the second channel, wherein a spacing between a third channel and a fourth channel of the second plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 1 micron to 130 microns, and wherein the third channel is adjacent to the fourth channel as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Regarding claim 11, Sabarirajan does not teach each of the first plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide, and wherein each of the second plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide.
Zhang teach each of the first plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide, and wherein each of the second plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide [0041].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing each of the first plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide, and wherein each of the second plurality of plurality of substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide as taught by Zhang, because it would enhance water and gas transport in both in plane and through plane directions [0009].
Claim 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabarirajan and Holler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (WO 2023/227717).
Regarding claim 12, Sabarirajan does not teach creating a plurality of indentations in a second surface of the porous transport layer. However it does teach a gas transport layer within the porous transport layer.
Schmidt is directed to a gas permeable electronically conductive plate for use as porous transport layer. Schmidt teaches its plate (20, 51a, fig. 3d) creating a plurality of indentations (dimples 55a) in a second surface (20)of the porous transport layer (30, 40, 50), wherein the indentations do not pass from the second surface to the first surface, and wherein the plurality of indentations serve to improve gas transport through the porous transport layer (Fig. 3d, 4 pg. 7, ln. 18-35)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas transport layer of the porous transport layer of Sabarirajan by creating a plurality of indentations in a second surface of the porous transport layer, wherein the indentations do not pass from the second surface to the first surface, and wherein the plurality of indentations serve to improve gas transport through the porous transport layer, as taught by Schmidt, because it would allow for one dimensional mass transport along the thickness direction of the gas permeable electronically conductive plate optimizing the mass transport of oxygen (pg. 7, ln. 25-30).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teach each indentation of the plurality of the indentations passes about half-way from the second surface (52a, fig 3d) to the first surface (30, Fig. 3d).
Regarding claim 15. Schmidt teaches a center-to-center distance between two adjacent dimples is about 450 microns (300 um between margins of neighboring dimples + 150 microns radius of the dimple). This is about 0.5 mm. Therefore Schmidt teaches indentations of the plurality of indentations is about 0.5 millimeters to 1.5 millimeters (pg. 37, ln. 27-30).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabarirajan, Holler and Schmidt as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gorokhovsky (US 2015/0376804).
Regarding claim 13, neither Sabarirajan nor Schmidt teaches the plurality of indentations are created using laser ablation.
Gorokhovsky teaches a cell for gas transport that teaches features are created on a layer by laser ablation to create a precisely controlled surface profile [0052].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the features of Sabarirajan by providing the plurality of indentations are created using laser ablation, as taught by Gorokhovsky, because it would provide a precisely controlled surface profile [0052].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the new grounds of rejection set out above.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights