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 1-16 are pending for this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
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, 3, 6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al (CN 115161701 A, Espacenet translation used for citations) in view of Kim et al (US 20230068334 A1).
Claim 1: Lei discloses a separator for an electrochemical device (see e.g. [0001]), comprising:
(b) a porous hydrogel, made of a first metal (see e.g. [n0007]) and an aqueous medium (see e.g. [0018]), present within the first of both largest sides and in at least part of the thickness (see e.g. [0018]).
Lei does not explicitly teach that the separator further comprises (a) a carrier having two, respectively a first and a second, largest parallel sides separated by a thickness with a metal oxide hydrogel present within. Lei teaches that it is desirable to have a separator with good flexibility, conductivity, and mechanical strength (see e.g. [0004]; [0024]). Kim teaches a separator for electrochemical devices comprising a hydrogel (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The separator of Kim comprises (a) a porous carrier (see e.g. [0013] and [0015]) having two, respectively a first and a second, largest parallel sides separated by a thickness (see e.g. Fig 12A) and (b) a hydrogel, made of a first metal oxide (see e.g. [0016]; [0021]) within the thickness of the porous carrier (see e.g. [0070]). According to Lei, “conventional hydrogel has a very low elastic modulus” which reduces its ability to function as a separator (see e.g. [0004]) and their invention hydrogel, with the porous carrier, has “excellent mechanical properties and conductivity” (see e.g. [0007]). 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 separator of Lei to include the carrier taught in Kim to improve the mechanical and conductive properties.
Claim 3: Lei in view of Kim teaches that inner spaces of the metal oxide hydrogel comprise an alkaline aqueous solution, having a pH close to 14.3 (6.0M KOH, see e.g. Lei - [0045]). MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)’.
Claim 6: Lei in view of Kim teaches that the thickness is from 50 to 300 µm (see e.g. Kim – [0173]).
Claim 8: Lei in view of Kim teaches that the porous carrier is not ionic (see e.g. Kim - [0023]).
Claim 9: Lei in view of Kim teaches an assembly comprising the separator according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), an anode at one side of the separator, and a cathode at another side of the separator, wherein each of the anode and the cathode is either in direct physical contact with the separator or is physically connected to the separator by a layer permeable to hydroxide ions (see e.g. [n0009]).
Claim 10: Lei in view of Kim teaches a water electrolyser (see e.g. [n0009]) comprising the separator or the assembly according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claim 11: Lei in view of Kim teaches the water electrolyser according to claim 10 comprising the assembly thereof (see rejection of claim 9 above), further comprising an inlet for allowing water to come into physical contact with the cathode and/or the anode, an outlet for allowing hydrogen to leave the electrolyser, and an outlet for allowing oxygen to leave the electrolyser (see e.g. [0048]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mues (US 20200181785 A1).
Claim 2: Lei in view of Kim does not explicitly teach that the first of both largest parallel sides has a lower porosity than the second of both largest parallel sides. Mues teaches a separator for alkaline electrolysis (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The separator of Mues has the first of both largest parallel sides with a lower porosity than the second of both largest parallel sides (see e.g. abstract), which creates an asymmetric separator that prevents “bubble trap” and gas crossover (see e.g. [0012]-[0013). 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 separator of Lei that the first of both largest parallel sides has a lower porosity than the second of both largest parallel sides as taught in Mues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 4 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the porous carrier comprises a polymeric mesh chemically resistant to a pH of 14, a polymeric matrix chemically resistant to a pH of 14 and particles of a second metal oxide dispersed in the polymeric matrix”. The closest prior art is Kim. However, Kim teaches that the porous carrier is just a “pre-gel” (see e.g. [0014]). Given the disclosure of Kim, it would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Kim to use a mesh without changing the principal design (see MPEP § 2143.01 VI).
Claim 7: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 7 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the first metal oxide is selected from TiO2 and CeO2”. The closest prior art is Lei and Kim. Lei teaches a titanium hydrogel (see e.g. [n0007]). However, it is a hydroxide, not an oxide. Kim teaches metal oxides in the hydrogel (see e.g. [0021]) and titanium (see e.g. [0017]). However, Kim does not teach titanium in the form of an oxide. Therefore, there is no reason to modify either reference to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 7.
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
