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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: in Fig. 1, 214, 216 and 218; in Fig. 2, 126 and 127. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 108 of the Specification the elements of Fig. 1 are addressed. However, the first mention of the gasket refers to gaskets 102, but the same paragraph then later refers to the gaskets as gaskets 202. Since Fig. 1 does not include anything labels 102, it would appear that the 102 is typographical error and should instead be amended to refer to 202.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the gasket" in line 2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 19 sets forth a gasket, claim 1 sets forth a first gasket (see claim 1 at line 3). As such, the reference to “the gasket” is unclear as to whether the first gasket is being referred to or if, what is the second gasket first mentioned in claim 19, is the gasket that is really being referred to.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the gasket as referring to the second gasket first set forth in claim 19. Claim 20 is only included herein as a result of its dependency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,963,795 to Nakagawa et al., (hereinafter referred to as “NAKAGAWA”) in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0022332 to Chung et al., (hereinafter referred to as “CHUNG”).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAGAWA teaches an electrolyzer (see generally NAKAGAWA at Abstract and Fig. 1 & 2; see also NAKAGAWA at col. lines 46-66), comprising:
an electrolyzer cell comprising a first spacer frame, a second spacer frame, and a first gasket having a first surface contacting the first spacer frame and a second and opposing surface contacting the second spacer frame (see NAKAGAWA at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 depicting gaskets 13 sandwiched between electrolytic cell units 15, any one gasket 13, i.e. the first gasket, of which when encompassed on either side by an electrolytic cell unit – one of which would comprise the first spacer frame and the second one of which would comprise the second spacer frame),
wherein the first gasket comprises a rubber material (see NAKAGAWA at col. 6 lines 6-16 teaching gasket 13 being made from a range of different rubber materials).
While NAKAGAWA teaches the first gasket comprising a host of different kinds of rubber (see NAKAGAWA at col. 6 lines 6-16), NAKAGAWA fails to explicitly teach the material being a thermoplastic vulcanizate (“TPV”) comprising a thermoplastic resin and an at least partially cured elastomer wherein the thermoplastic vulcanizate exhibits a Shore A hardness of from 35 to 100 as claimed.
However, CHUNG teaches a TPV comprising both a thermoplastic resin and an at least partially cured vulcanized rubber, i.e. an elastomer, as claimed (see CHUNG at Abstract). CHUNG additionally teaches the TPV material having a Shore Hardness of from 30 to 100 (see CHUNG at ¶100). Moreover, CHUNG teaches the TPV materials being useful for a variety of articles including gaskets (see CHUNG at ¶105). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the gasket of NAKAGAWA could be made of materials other than just the rubber materials taught by NAKAGAWA. Additionally, NAKAGAWA taught not just the use of a natural or synthetic rubber, but also any like material (see NAKAGAWA at col. 6 lines 8-16). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the TPV material for making the gasket or at a minimum recognized it as alternative material that could be used to make the gasket.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the rubber gasket of NAKAGAWA with a TPV gasket of CHUNG in order to provide the gasket in the electrolyzer having the properties as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the TPV exhibits a Shore harness of from 40 to 70 (see CHUNG at ¶100).
Regarding claims 3-6, while NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches some of the claimed TPV properties (see discussion that follows), NAKAGAWA as modified by CHUNG fails to explicitly teach the 100% modulus or the coefficient of friction values as claimed. As to properties of claims 5 and 6, NAKAGAWA as modified by CHUNG teaches the tensile stress being between 0.5 MPa and 20 MPa as claimed (see CHUNG at ¶101) and also teaches the elongation at break of 200% or more to 1000% or less (see CHUNG at ¶102).
Additionally to the properties of claims 5 and 6 being taught by CHUNG, CHUNG also teaches the relative amounts of the thermoplastic resin to elastomer/rubber being within ranges disclosed by the application (see CHUNG at ¶40 and ¶42 teaching the rubber/elastomer being 15 wt% to 95 wt% and the thermoplastic resin being 5 wt% to 85 wt%; compared with the ranges of claim 15 of the application). Additionally, the polymers used as the thermoplastic resin (see CHUNG at ¶43-¶46; compared with the compositions claimed in claims 7-9) and the polymers used as the rubber/elastomer component (CHUNG at ¶31, ¶36-¶38; compared with the compositions claimed in claims 10-12 and 14), substantially overlap.
As such, the types of polymers and their amounts are substantially similar. Additionally, as noted with respect to claims 2, 5 and 6 as set forth above, there is overlap in other properties. Consequently, the properties of claims 3 and 4 would be additionally reasonably expected to result from the disclosed TPV compositions as disclosed in NAKAGAWA as modified by CHUNG.
Regarding claim 7, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the thermoplastic resin comprises a polyimide, a polyester, a polyamide, a poly(phenylene ether), a polycarbonate, a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, a polyethylene terephthalate, a polybutylene terephthalate, a polystyrene or a derivative thereof, a polyphenylene oxide, a polyoxymethylene, a fluorine-containing thermoplastic resin, or a mixture thereof (see CHUNG at ¶44).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the thermoplastic resin comprises a polyolefin in which the polyolefin is polypropylene (see CHUNG at ¶44).
Regarding claim 10, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the elastomer comprises natural rubber, styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber, butadiene rubber, acrylonitrile rubber, halogenated rubber, butadiene-styrene-viny pyridine rubber, urethane rubber, polyisoprene rubber, epichlolorohydrin terpolymer rubber, polychloroprene, or a mixture thereof (see CHUNG at ¶31, ¶36-¶39).
Regarding claim 11, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the elastomer comprises a polyolefin elastomer copolymer (see CHUNG at ¶31-¶33).
Regarding claim 12, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the elastomer comprises an ethylene/propylene/non-conjugated diene copolymer rubber (“EPDM”) (see CHUNG at ¶31)
Regarding claim 14, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the elastomer comprises a butyl rubber (see CHUNG at ¶36).
Regarding claim 15, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the TPV comprises from about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% of the elastomer and from about 10 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the thermoplastic resin wherein the wt.% is based on the weight of the TPV (see CHUNG at ¶40 and ¶42 teaching the rubber/elastomer being 15 wt% to 95 wt% and the thermoplastic resin being 5 wt% to 85 wt%).
Regarding claim 16, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the gasket defines a first passage hole and a second passage hole for passage of a first gas and a second gas, respectively, (see NAKAGAWA at Fig. 1 depicting passage holes 36 and 38 for the anolyte and catholyte gases respectively) and a third passage hole for passage of a liquid (see NAKAGAWA at Fig. 1 depicting either of holes 32 or 34).
Regarding claim 17, NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the first spacer frame surrounds a first electrode and the second spacer frame surrounds a second electrode (see NAKAGAWA at Fig. 1 depicting gasket 13 to the right-hand side of electrolytic cell unit 15 which as depicted in Fig. 2 would comprise multiple electrolytic cell units 15 each separated by a gasket 13 such that the two consecutive electrolytic cell units comprising the first and second spacer frames would each have a side facing the same gasket 13 and which would each surround an electrode as shown in the electrolytic cell unit 15 of Fig. 1 with frame 15a surrounding the PE, i.e. positive electrode, on the right-hand side and which after the gasket 13 would be on the left-hand side of the 2nd electrolytic cell unit and have its own frame 15a surrounding a NE, i.e. negative electrode).
Claim(s) 1 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0305794 to Wallevik et al., (hereinafter referred to as “WALLEVIK”) in view of CHUNG.
Regarding claim 1, WALLEVIK teaches an electrolyzer (see generally WALLEVIK at ¶47 and Fig. 1), comprising:
an electrolyzer cell comprising a first spacer frame, a second spacer frame, and a first gasket having a first surface contacting the first spacer frame and a second and opposing surface contacting the second spacer frame (see WALLEVIK at Fig. 1 depicting electrodes at either end having carrier plate, i.e. a frame that carries the electrode plate, either one of which would be the first frame and also depicting diaphragm frame in the middle between the two gaskets which is the second spacer frame, see also gaskets either one of which could be the first gasket with surfaces contacting the first and second frames depending on which electrode frame is being considered the first spacer frame),
wherein the first gasket comprises a material for sealing purposes (see WALLEVIK at ¶47).
WALLEVIK fails to explicitly teach the material being a TPV material comprising a thermoplastic resin and an at least partially cured elastomer wherein the thermoplastic vulcanizate exhibits a Shore A hardness of from 35 to 100 as claimed.
However, while WALLEVIK is silent as to the type of material used to make up the gasket, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the disclosure of WALLEVIK would have recognized that any known gasket material could be used. Additionally, CHUNG teaches a TPV material comprising both a thermoplastic resin and an at least partially cured vulcanized rubber, i.e. an elastomer, as claimed (see CHUNG at Abstract). CHUNG additionally teaches the TPV material having a Shore Hardness of from 30 to 100 (see CHUNG at ¶100). Moreover, CHUNG teaches the TPV materials being useful for a variety of articles including gaskets (see CHUNG at ¶105). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the gasket of WALLEVIK could be made of the TPV material of CHUNG for making the gasket.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the rubber gasket of WALLEVIK with a TPV gasket of CHUNG in order to provide the gasket in the electrolyzer having the properties as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, WALLEVIK in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the first spacer frame surrounds a first electrode and the second spacer frame surrounds a diaphragm (see WALLEVIK at Fig. 1 depicting electrode carrier plate and electrode with the diaphragm frame and diaphragm in the middle of the electrolyzer).
Regarding claim 19, WALLEVIK in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer further comprising a third spacer frame and a second gasket comprising a second TPV wherein the second gasket has a first surface contacting the second spacer frame and a second and opposing surface contacting the third spacer frame (see WALLEVIK at Fig. 1 depicting the two electrode carrier plates or frames each with an electrode on either side of the diaphragm frame and diaphragm with gaskets in between the diaphragm and electrodes on either sides so as to have a second gasket with one contacting the first and second frames and the second of which is in contact with the second and third frames as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, WALLEVIK in view of CHUNG teaches the electrolyzer wherein the third spacer frame surround a second electrode (see WALLEVIK at Fig. 1 depicting the two electrode carrier plates with each carrier or frame holding an electrode and in which one of which would be the first spacer frame surrounding an electrode and the other of which would be the third spacer frame surrounding an electrode as claimed).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either NAKAGAWA in view of CHUNG; or, alternatively, WALLEVIK in view of CHUNG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0273496 to Lourido et al., (hereinafter referred to as “LOURIDO”).
Regarding claim 13, NAKAGAWA or WALLEVIK as modified by CHUNG fails to explicitly teach the elastomer being an ethylene acrylic copolymer. However, LOURIDO teaches that it is known to form TPV using an ethylene acrylic rubber elastomer (see LOURIDO at ¶10 and ¶16 teaching amongst many potential rubbers the use of ethylene acrylic rubber). Moreover, LOURIDO teaches the present invention being useful for sealing gaskets (see LOURIDO at ¶93).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that in addition to the rubbers disclosed by CHUNG that an ethylene acrylic copolymer rubber could also be used as taught by LOURIDO.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used as the elastomer/rubber component in the TPV compound of CHUNG the ethylene acrylic copolymer rubber, as taught by LOURIDO, as the material for the gasket of the electrolyzer of either NAKAGAWA or WALLEVIK.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights