Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/384,172

JIG FOR LAMINATE PRODUCTION, METHOD FOR LAMINATE PRODUCTION, PACKAGE, LAMINATE, ELECTROLYZER, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYZER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Priority
Sep 21, 2018 — JP 2018-177213 +5 more
Examiner
MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Asahi Kasei Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
626 granted / 949 resolved
+6.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
981
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
62.4%
+22.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 949 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites, in part, “an anode frame that supports an the anode”. The word “an” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required. 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funakawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2015/0027878) in view of Funakawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0102662 – referred to as Funakawa’662 hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Funakawa teaches a method for producing an electrolyzer by arranging an electrode for electrolysis and a membrane in an existing electrolyzer (figure 4 shows assembly of an electrolysis tank) comprising an anode (11), a cathode (21) that is opposed to the anode (11), a membrane/partition wall (30) arranged between the anode (11) and the cathode (21 – shown in figures 1-2; paragraph 46); and an electrolytic cell frame comprising an anode frame that supports the anode (11; paragraph 111) and a cathode frame that supports the cathode (21; paragraph 66), the electrolytic cell frame storing the anode (11), the cathode (21), and the membrane/partition wall (30) by integrating the anode frame and the cathode frame (as shown in figures 1-2; paragraphs 66, 111), the method comprising: a releasing process of releasing the integration of the anode frame and the cathode frame to expose the membrane (figure 4 shows that during assembly of the cell, the electrolytic frame can be detached to expose a membrane - 2; paragraph 47); and an integrating process of integrating the anode frame and the cathode frame to store the anode (11), the cathode (21), the membrane (2; 30), and the electrode for electrolysis into the electrolytic cell frame (as shown in figures 1-3; paragraph 47). Funakawa fails to teach a removing process (B2) of removing the membrane after the releasing process and arranging the electrode for electrolysis and a new membrane on the anode or cathode. Funakawa’662 teaches a method for producing an electrolyzer comprising an anode frame that supports an anode (paragraph 63), a cathode frame that supports a cathode (paragraph 66), a laminate of a membrane arranged between the anode side and the cathode side (paragraph 68), the method comprising a step of releasing a fixing of the membrane in the electrolyzer frame and replacing the membrane and electrode for electrolysis in the existing electrolyzer (paragraphs 112, 117-118). By this method, it is possible to make transport and handling easier, as well as to markedly simplify work when a new electrolyzer is started or a degraded element is renewed which in turn, also maintains or improves the electrolytic performance (paragraph 125). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to add a step of removing the membrane and arranging a new one in the existing electrolyzer of Funakawa, as taught by Funakawa’662, in order to simplify work when a new electrolyzer is started or a degraded element is renewed which in turn, maintains or improves the electrolytic performance. Regarding claim 2, Funakawa’662 further teaches wherein, in the removing process, the electrode for electrolysis is mounted on the anode or cathode, the new membrane is mounted on the electrode for electrolysis, and the new membrane is flattened/pressed (paragraphs 112, 116-130 – the membrane is fixed in the electrolyzer frame by pressing from the anode and the cathode). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p. 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. /ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12691409
COMPOSITE FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL GAS SEPARATION
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692605
CELL CONCEPT FOR USING NON-IONICALLY CONDUCTIVE EXTRACTION MEDIA
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12680184
OZONE GENERATOR FOR A FAUCET
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680174
ELECTROSYNTHESIS SYSTEM
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679750
Electrochlorination System Configurations for the Generation of High Product Strength Solutions
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+22.0%)
3y 2m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 949 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month