Detailed Action
This is a Non-Final Office action based on application 18/384,737 filed on 27 October 2023. The application is a continuation of application 17/025,493, with priority to US provisional application 62/903,299 filed 20 September 2019.
Claims 1-15 are pending, claims 1-8 are withdrawn, and claims 9-15 have been fully considered.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group II, claims 9-15, in the reply filed on 24 November 2025, is acknowledged. Applicant’s reply does not explicitly state whether the election is being made with traverse or without. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Bahar” (US 2019/0264341 A1 to Bahar et al).
Regarding claim 9, Bahar discloses a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (para [0117], figure 1, humidity control device 10 electrolyzes H2O molecules from steam channel 21 at anode 20 yielding O2 and gas and protons, then combines protons with O2 at cathode 40 to regenerate H2O molecules, which humidify the air stream exiting the device at 50. This device reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “steam electrolyzer” as claimed, because it is a device that electrolyzes water vapor) that includes an anode (figure 1 anode 20), a cathode (figure 1 cathode 40), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (figure 1 electrolyte 30,
wherein the polymer electrolyte includes a repeating plurality of styrene monomers (para [0147]-[0148], the polymer electrolyte comprises a styrene-butadiene block copolymer backbone functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups); and
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (figure 1, a water vapor source (unlabeled) introduces water vapor into chamber 21 via the inlet at the bottom).
Regarding claim 10, Bahar discloses the system of claim 9 and further discloses the anode comprises iridium (claim 18, “the anode catalyst is selected from the group consisting of: iridium, iridium oxides ...”).
Regarding claim 15, Bahar discloses a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (para [0117], figure 1, humidity control device 10 electrolyzes H2O molecules from steam channel 21 at anode 20 yielding O2 and gas and protons, then combines protons with O2 at cathode 40 to regenerate H2O molecules, which humidify the air stream exiting the device at 50. This device reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “steam electrolyzer” as claimed, because it is a device that electrolyzes water vapor) that includes an anode (figure 1 anode 20), a cathode (figure 1 cathode 40), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (figure 1 electrolyte 30,
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a stable acid-doped quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer (para [0147]-[0148], the polymer electrolyte comprises a styrene-butadiene block copolymer backbone functionalized with quaternary ammonium hydroxide groups);
wherein the anode comprises iridium (claim 18, “the anode catalyst is selected from the group consisting of: iridium, iridium oxides ...”); and
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (figure 1, a water vapor source (unlabeled) introduces water vapor into chamber 21 via the inlet at the bottom).
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.
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 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Hansen” (Hansen et al, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 37, 10992-11000 (2012)) in view of “Atanasov” (Atanasov et al, J. Power Sources, 343, 364-372 (2017)).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (pg 10992 abstract, “Steam electrolysis test with a phosphoric acid doped AquivionTM membrane was successfully conducted”; pg 10994 §2.5 para 1, “... in an in-house designed test cell”) that includes an anode (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ...”), a cathode (pg 10994, §2.3 para 2, “cathodes ...”), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (pg 10994 §2.4, “Commercially available AquivionTM ... membranes ... doped in 85 wt% PA” (phosphoric acid); per pg 10993 left column para 4, the trade name “Aquivion” refers to a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer electrolyte), and a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (pg 10994 §2.5 para 3, “Water was fed ... through an evaporator”).
However, Hansen’s polymer electrolyte is a perfluorosulfonic acid membrane doped with phosphoric acid (pg 10994 §2.4). Hansen does not teach wherein the polymer electrolyte includes a repeating plurality of styrene monomers.
Atanasov discloses a polymer electrolyte including a repeating plurality of fluorinated styrene monomers with phosphonic acid groups attached thereto (pg 364 abstract, “In this paper we introduce polyelectrolyte membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS)”). Atanasov teaches, while that prior art polymer electrolyte membranes that are doped with phosphoric acid are effective at temperatures over 100°C, those prior art membranes are prone to the leaching away of phosphoric acid during operation, and that the performance stability of such membranes is improved by attaching the acid group to the polymer as a phosphonic acid group (pg 365 left column para 2). Atanasov teaches that their disclosed membrane material is stable to high temperatures (pg 367 left column para 3 – right column para 2), a good proton conductor at above 100 °C (pg 369 figure 3), and is effective as a PEM fuel cell electrolyte (pg 369-372 §3.3, “fuel cell performances ...”; pg 370 figure 6, pg 371 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s PEM steam electrolysis system by selecting, as the polymer electrolyte material, the polyelectrolyte of Atanasov which comprises a fluorinated styrene monomer with a phosphonic acid group attached thereto, because Hansen’s disclosed system uses as its electrolyte a phosphoric-acid doped polymer, and Atanasov teaches that polymers like theirs, which attach the acid group to the polymer, improve upon a known shortcoming of phosphoric-acid-doped polymer membranes (pg 365 left column para 2). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one ion-selective membrane for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., improved retention of acid groups when the membrane is put into service) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 10, Hansen in view of Atanasov renders the system of claim 9 obvious. Hansen further discloses that the anode comprises iridium (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ... consisted of IrO2 ... and ... ionomer binder”).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, the system of Hansen, modified to use the styrene-containing polymer taught by Atanasov as its polymer electrolyte membrane, renders obvious the system of claims 9 and 10 respectively. Atanasov further teaches that the polymer electrolyte comprises phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (abstract, “polyelectrolyte membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS)”; pg 372 §4 para 1, “we obtained partially phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrenes) with degree of phosphonation varying between 17 and 66%”).
Regarding claim 13, Hansen and Atanasov render the system of claim 12 obvious and Atanasov further teaches the phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) comprises a polymer backbone (as illustrated in pg 368 figure 1) that includes
(i) a first styrene monomer that includes benzene functionalized with fluorine at all carbons except the carbon attached to the polymer backbone and the para-carbon, wherein the para-carbon is functionalized with phosphonic acid (pg 368 figure 1, the phosphonated monomer drawn on the left part of the depicted polymer chain), and
(ii) a second styrene monomer includes benzene functionalized with fluorine at all carbons except the carbon attached to the polymer backbone (pg 368 figure 1, the non-phosphonated monomer drawn on the right part of the depicted polymer chain; pg 372 §4 para 1, “we obtained partially phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrenes) with degree of phosphonation varying between 17 and 66%”).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (pg 10992 abstract, “Steam electrolysis test with a phosphoric acid doped AquivionTM membrane was successfully conducted”; pg 10994 §2.5 para 1, “...in an in-house designed test cell”) that includes an anode (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ...”), a cathode (pg 10994, §2.3 para 2, “cathodes ...”), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (pg 10994 §2.4, “Commercially available AquivionTM ... membranes ... doped in 85 wt% PA” (phosphoric acid); per pg 10993 left column para 4, “Aquivion” is the trade name of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer electrolyte), wherein the anode comprises iridium (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ... consisted of IrO2 ... and ... ionomer binder”); and
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (pg 10994 §2.5 para 3, “Water was fed ... through an evaporator”).
However, Hansen’s polymer electrolyte is a perfluorosulfonic acid membrane doped with phosphoric acid (pg 10994 §2.4). Hansen does not teach wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a stable acid-doped quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer or a phosphonic acid functionalized polymer
Atanasov discloses a polymer electrolyte including a repeating plurality of fluorinated styrene monomers functionalized with phosphonic acid groups (pg 364 abstract, “In this paper we introduce polyelectrolyte membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS)”). Atanasov teaches, while that prior art polymer electrolyte membranes that are doped with phosphoric acid are effective at temperatures over 100°C, those prior art membranes are prone to the leaching away of phosphoric acid during operation, and that the performance stability of such membranes is improved by attaching the acid group to the polymer as a phosphonic acid group (pg 365 left column para 2). Atanasov teaches that their disclosed membrane material is stable to high temperatures (pg 367 left column para 3 – right column para 2), a good proton conductor at above 100 °C (pg 369 figure 3), and is effective as a PEM fuel cell electrolyte (pg 369-372 §3.3, “fuel cell performances ...”; pg 370 figure 6, pg 371 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s PEM steam electrolysis system by selecting, as the polymer electrolyte material, the polyelectrolyte of Atanasov which comprises a fluorinated styrene monomer with a phosphonic acid group attached thereto, because Hansen’s disclosed system uses as its electrolyte a phosphoric-acid doped polymer, and Atanasov teaches that polymers like theirs, which attach the acid group to the polymer, improve upon a known shortcoming of phosphoric-acid-doped polymer membranes (pg 365 left column para 2). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one ion-selective membrane for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., improved retention of acid groups when the membrane is put into service) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen and Atanasov as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of “Jang” (US 2019/0161868 A1 to Jang et al).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen in view of Atanasov renders the system of claim 9 obvious. Hansen further discloses that the steam electrolyzer further comprises a steam channel for the steam feed (“flow plates” as described at pg 10993 §2.1, pg 10994 §2.5 para 1-3, pg 10994 figure 1, pg 10995 Table 1), and a porous metal mesh positioned between the anode and the steam channel (pg 10993 §2.1, “anode GDL was made from 316L stainless steel felt ... coated with tantalum; pg 10995-10996 §3.1, pg 10996 figure 2).
Hansen does not teach that the porous metal mesh is made of titanium.
Jang discloses an anode for use in a PEM water electrolysis device (para [0065], “layer of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis apparatus serving as both a diffusion layer and an oxygen electrode”), said anode comprising a titanium mesh with an iridium oxide coating (para [0065], “a porous titanium (Ti) layer; and an electrodeposited iridium oxide (IrO2) layer on the porous Ti layer”; para [0069], “the Ti layer may be a Ti layer in the form of mesh”). Jang teaches that the combination of a titanium mesh layer with iridium oxide OER catalyst coating is particularly suited for a PEM water electrolysis cell operating at temperatures above the boiling point of water, because of titanium’s durability and resistance to corrosion (para [0065]-[0066], [0090], [0115]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in assembling the system of modified Hansen, to use, as the anode diffusion layer onto which the IrO2 anode catalyst is deposited, a titanium mesh as taught in Jang, because Hansen is directed to polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis of water vapor at a temperature of about 130 °C (Hansen at pg 10994 §2.5 para 3), and Jang teaches that a titanium anode mesh coated with IrO2 anode electrocatalyst is suitable for PEM water electrolysis at such elevated temperatures by virtue of titanium’s durability and corrosion resistance under these conditions (Jang at para [0065]-[0066]). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., a titanium mesh anode GDL of Jang in place of the tantalum-coated steel felt of Hansen) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., durability of the GDL mesh toward the reaction conditions employed in the base reference) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795