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 1-21 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 20220162762 A1).
Claim 1: Wong discloses a product (see e.g. abstract), comprising: a gasket (see e.g. #402 on Fig 4) comprising a resiliently deformable (PTFE, which the instant specification states is a suitable material, see e.g. [0091]) electrically insulative portion (see e.g. #408 on Fig 4), and an electrically conductive layer formed directly on the electrically insulative portion (see e.g. #409 on Fig 4).
Claim 2: Wong discloses that the electrically conductive layer has physical characteristics of formation on the electrically insulative portion by physical vapor deposition (see e.g. [0155]).
Claim 3: Wong discloses that the electrically insulative portion comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 4: Wong discloses that the electrically conductive layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of copper, gold, or silver (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 5: Wong discloses that part of the electrically insulative portion can be hydrophilic (see e.g. [0082]; [0083]).
Claim 6: Wong discloses that the electrically insulative portion is hydrophobic (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 7: Wong discloses that the electrically conductive layer comprises a metal (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 8: Wong discloses that the metal is selected from the group consisting of copper, gold, or silver (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 9: Wong discloses that the gasket has an aperture therethrough (see e.g. #356 on Fig 3B).
Claim 10: Wong discloses a flow field (see e.g. #380 on Fig 3B) facing the electrically conductive layer of the gasket (see e.g. #358 on Fig 3B), a gas diffusion layer between the gasket and the flow field and adjacent the aperture (see e.g. #360 on Fig 3B), and a catalyst layer between the gas diffusion layer and the gasket (see e.g. #404 on Fig 4), wherein the catalyst layer overlies a portion of the electrically conductive layer along the aperture (see e.g. #404 and #409 on Fig 4; [0096]).
Claim 11: Wong discloses that an annular perimeter of the catalyst layer overlies the portion of the electrically conductive layer along the aperture (see e.g. [0096]).
Claim 12: Wong discloses that the product is an electrolyzer (see e.g. [0017]).
Claim 13: Wong discloses that the electrolyzer is a CO2 electrolyzer (see e.g. [0135]), wherein the electrically insulative portion comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. [0091]), and wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, and gold (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 14: Wong discloses that the catalyst layer and the electrically conductive layer comprise a same metal (see e.g. [0096]).
Claim 15: Wong discloses that the electrically conductive layer is carbonaceous (see e.g. [0038]).
Claim 16: Wong discloses a method for creating a product, the method comprising: forming an electrically conductive layer on a resiliently deformable (PTFE, which the instant specification states is a suitable material, see e.g. [0091]) electrically insulative portion (see e.g. #408 on Fig 4) via physical vapor deposition (see e.g. [0155]).
Claim 17: Wong discloses that the electrically insulative portion is formed of polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 18: Wong discloses that the electrically conductive layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of copper, gold, or silver (see e.g. [0091]).
Claim 19: Wong discloses assembling an electrolyzer that includes the gasket, wherein the electrolyzer includes a flow field (see e.g. #380 on Fig 3B) facing the electrically conductive layer of the gasket (see e.g. #358 on Fig 3B), a gas diffusion layer between the gasket and the flow field and adjacent the aperture (see e.g. #360 on Fig 3B), and a catalyst layer between the gas diffusion layer and the gasket (see e.g. #404 on Fig 4), wherein the catalyst layer overlies a portion of the electrically conductive layer along the aperture (see e.g. #404 and #409 on Fig 4; [0096]).
Claim 20: Wong discloses is a CO2 electrolyzer (see e.g. [0135], wherein the electrically insulative portion comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. [0091]), and wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of: a same metal as the catalyst layer (see e.g. [0096]).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Wang et al (US 20220372643 A1).
Claim 21: Wong does not specify the type of PVD done and therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find a suitable type of PVD for the product. Wong discloses that the electrically insulative portion comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. [0091]) and the electrically conductive layer can be copper (see e.g. [0091]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Wang teaches that sputtering is a suitable means of applying copper to PTFE (see e.g. [0163]). 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 method of Wong to use sputtering as the PVD process.
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