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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2026 has been entered.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 21, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Trivedi (WO 2023/167859).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Trivedi teaches a method comprising:
providing a porous transport layer (pg. 9-12), the porous transport layer to be a component in an electrolyzer cell [0004-0005];
and creating features (perforations) in a first surface of the porous transport layer by removing portions of the first surface of the porous transport layer using laser ablation (pg. 11[0059]-pg. 12 [0066]),
the features having a depth of about 50 microns to 100 microns in the first surface of the porous transport layer ([0058], [0066]), the features serving to increase a surface area of the first surface of the porous transport layer (increased porosity [0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Trivedi teaches the porous transport layer comprises a sintered titanium powder-based porous transport layer, a titanium fiber-based porous transport layer (pg. 9-10).
Regarding claim 4, Trivedi teaches the porous transport layer is about 100 microns to 400 microns thick [0058].
Regarding claim 21, Trivedi teaches the porous transport layer provided is a sintered metal porous transport layer (pg. 9-10).
Regarding claim 22, Trivedi teaches the features in the first surface of the porous transport layer do not pass through the porous transport layer (certain depth [0066]).
Regarding claim 23, Trivedi teaches each indentation of the plurality of the indentations has a circular cross section (diameter, [0036], 504, fig. 5).
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Zhang (US 2023/0047374).
Regarding claim 6, Trivedi does not teach the features comprise a plurality of substantially parallel channels in the first surface.
Zhang teaches 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 Trivedi 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, Trivedi 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 Trivedi 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, Trivedi 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 Trivedi 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, Trivedi 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 Trivedi 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, Trivedi 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 Trivedi 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, Trivedi 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 substantially parallel channels is about 200 nanometers to 50 microns wide, and wherein each of the second 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 Trivedi 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].
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (WO 2023/227717).
Regarding claim 12, Trivedi 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 Trivedi 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 13, Trivedi a plurality of indentations are created using laser ablation (pg. 11-12).
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).
Claims 16-17, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sabarirajan (WO 2023/129549).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 19, Trevide does not teach after creating features in the first surface of the porous transport layer, depositing a catalyst on the first surface. Nor does it teach the catalyst is deposited on the first surface using a physical vapor deposition process. Trevide teaches a catalyst comprises platinum and iridium [0087].
Sabarirajan teaches after creating features in the first surface of the porous transport layer, depositing a catalyst on the first surface [0049-0052]. Sabarirajan teaches the catalyst is deposited on the first surface using a physical vapor deposition process (pg. 10, [0052]). Sabarirajan teaches the catalyst comprises iridium, platinum, ruthenium, or mixtures thereof [0052].
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 Trivedi by providing after creating features in the first surface of the porous transport layer, depositing a catalyst on the first surface, the catalyst is deposited on the first surface using a physical vapor deposition process, as taught by Sabarirajan, because it would provide a catalyst layer that covers and conforms to the porous structure of the PTL and reducing defects on the PTL [0041].
Regarding claim 24, Trivedi teaches after the creating the features, chemically etching the porous transport layer.
Sabarirajan teaches after the creating the features, chemically etching the porous transport layer [0066] because it would regain or reveal the porosity of the PTL and create a porous network of catalyst combined with PTL [0066].
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 Trivedi by providing after the creating the features, chemically etching the porous transport layer because it would regain or reveal the porosity of the PTL and create a porous network of catalyst combined with PTL [0066].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant is directed to the new grounds of rejection set out above.
Conclusion
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