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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewinski et al (US 20200102660 A1) in view of Hirai et al (US 20200190233 A1).
Claim 1: Lewinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly for polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis (see e.g. abstract) which comprises a polymer electrolyte membrane (see e.g. #101 on Fig 1), an anode having a catalyst layer provided on one side of the polymer electrolyte membrane (see e.g. #130 on Fig 1), a cathode having a catalyst layer provided on the other side of the polymer electrolyte membrane (see e.g. #120 on Fig 1), wherein the polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a fluorinated polymer having ion exchange groups (see e.g. [0019]) and a platinum-containing substance (see e.g. [0015]).
Lewinski does not explicitly teach that the membrane has an ion exchange capacity of from 1.25 to 2.00 meq/g dry resin. Hirai discloses a polymer electrolyte membrane for use in a water electrolyzer (see e.g. abstract and [0024]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The membrane of Hirai comprises a fluorinated polymer having ion exchange groups (see e.g. abstract) with an ion exchange capacity of from 1.3 to 2.3 meq/g dry resin (see e.g. [0089]) that gives the membrane high ion conductivity, swelling suppression, and high mechanical strength (see e.g. [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the assembly of Lewinski by using the fluorinated polymer having ion exchange groups taught in Hirai so that the membrane has high ion conductivity, swelling suppression, and high mechanical strength. The ion exchange capacity of Hirai overlaps with the claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’.
Claim 2: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the platinum-containing substance in the polymer electrolyte membrane is present only within a distance of 20% of the thickness of the polymer electrolyte membrane from the anode side of the polymer electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Lewinski - #241 on Fig 2D; [0118]; “Layer 1” thickness in Table 3).
Claim 3: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the content of platinum atoms from the anode side of the polymer electrolyte membrane is at least 0.05 mg/cm2 (see e.g. Lewinski - [0031]), overlapping with the claimed range of 0.005 to 0.050 mg/cm2. MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’.
The limitation claiming “…platinum atoms measured by X ray fluorescence spectrometry” only limits how the content of platinum atoms is measured and does not structurally limit the invention.
Claim 4: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the platinum-containing substance is supported on a support (see e.g. Lewinski - [0037]).
Claim 5: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the polymer electrolyte membrane further comprises a reinforcing material (see e.g. Lewinski - [0022]).
Claim 6: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the fluorinated polymer comprises at least one species of units selected from the group consisting of units represented by the following formula (see e.g. Hirai - [0085]):
PNG
media_image1.png
290
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The formula corresponds to the claimed formula (1-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
448
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Rf1 is a perfluoroalkylene group (see e.g. Hirai - [0087] and [0037]), Rf2 is a single bond or a perfluoroalkylene group which may have an oxygen atom between carbon atoms (see e.g. Hirai - [0087] and [0037]), r is 1, and M is a hydrogen atom, an alkali metal or a quaternary ammonium cation (see e.g. Hirai - [0086]).
Claim 7: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the polymer electrolyte membrane has a multilayer structure comprising two or more electrolyte layers, and at least one of the electrolyte layers comprises the fluorinated polymer and the platinum-containing substance (see e.g. Lewinski - Fig 2B-2D; [0033] [0118]).
Claim 8: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that all the electrolyte layers comprise the platinum-containing substance (see e.g. Lewinski - [0035]: “In some embodiments, the at least one of metallic Pt or Pt oxide present in a region is distributed throughout the respective region”), and the content of the platinum-containing substance in an electrolyte layer close to the anode is higher than the platinum-containing substance in another electrolyte layer close to the cathode (see e.g. Lewinski - [0032]: “no greater than 0.001 mg/cm3”; [0118]).
Claim 10: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the electrolyte layers comprise an electrolyte layer which does not comprise the platinum-containing substance and an electrolyte layer which comprises the platinum-containing substance (see e.g. [0033]), and the ratio of the thickness of the electrolyte layer which comprises the platinum-containing substance to the thickness of the electrolyte layer which does not comprise the platinum-containing substance is 0.50, for example (see e.g. Lewinski - Table 3, Example 6 or Example 15).
Claim 11: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the polymer electrolyte membrane has a thickness up to 250 µm (see e.g. Lewinski - [0020]), overlapping with the claimed range of at least 30 µm and at most 400 µm. MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’.
Claim 12: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches that the mass ratio of the platinum-containing substance to the fluorinated polymer in the polymer electrolyte layer which comprises the platinum-containing substance is at least 0.005 (see e.g. [0120]), overlapping with the claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’.
Claim 13: Lewinski in view of Hirai teaches a water electrolyzer (see e.g. Lewinski - [0057]) comprising the membrane electrode assembly for polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis as defined in Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewinski in view of Hirai as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Yamaki et al (US 20170218526 A1).
Claim 9: Lewinski in view of Hirai does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte layers have different ion exchange capacities. Yamaki discloses a membrane electrode assembly for electrolysis (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Yamaki, a multilayer membrane electrode assembly should have a layer with an ion exchange capacity lower than the other layer to improve peeling resistance and reduce membrane resistance (see e.g. [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the assembly of Lewinksi in view of Hirai so that the electrolyte layers have different ion exchange capacities as taught in Yamaki to improve peeling resistance and reduce membrane resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights