CTNF 18/461,657 CTNF 101883 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on October 3, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-159827 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt was made by the Office to electronically retrieve the priority document through the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program. The attempt failed on March 3, 2024. Specification The use of the terms KETJENBLACK, VULCANUM, NAFION, etc., which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 3, and 6 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. Regarding claims 2 and 3, the language of the claims is generally unclear as to what mathematical ratios are being described. In view of the specification, claim 2 will be interpreted as the ratio of average thickness of the intermediate layer to the average thickness of the catalyst layer (application para. 0031), and the range as 50:1 or more and 250:1 or less. Claim 3 will be interpreted as the product of the intermediate layer porosity and the ratio of claim 2 (application para. 0033), and the range as 20:1 or more and 200:1 or less. Regarding claim 6, it is unclear in view of the specification what measure “an average circumscribed circle diameter of the catalyst units” is referring to. The limitation of “50 [nm] or more and 5 [μm] or less” will be interpreted as referring to the average height of the catalyst units which make up the catalyst layer of claims 4 (and 1) from which it depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-07 AIA 07-07-aia The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gruver et al. (US 4,564,427) . Regarding claim 1, Gruver discloses a cathode (Col. 1, lines 47-50) comprising a substrate (Fig. 1, element 2), an intermediate layer including carbon particles and resin on the support (Col. 3, lines 7-52: intermediate layer as “electrode barrier layer,” resin as liquid dispersion of fluorocarbon polymer; Fig. 1, element 4), with a thickness between about 50.8 and 254 μm (Col. 3, lines 12-16: disclosed as 2-10 mils, 1 mil = 25.4 μm), and a catalyst layer on the intermediate layer (Col. 6, lines 28-40; Fig. 1, element 5: catalyst layer). A cathode is an intended use of an electrode, and the underlying structure as claimed is taught by Gruver. See MPEP §2114(II). Under 35 U.S.C. §102, the claimed range of intermediate layer thickness between 70 and 300 μm is substantially identical to the range of 50.8 to 254 μm taught by Gruver, as the disclosure uses the term “about” with regards to the thickness, given in mils with one significant figure. In the alternative, under §103, the claimed 70-300 μm range is obvious in view of the prior art due to the substantial overlap, and the 300 μm upper end of the range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to find the optimal or workable range. See MPEP §2144.05(II) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver et al. (US 4,564,427) . Regarding claim 7, Gruver teaches that it is well known in the art to use a cathode to produce hydrogen gas in electrolysis cells with sufficient voltage (Col. 1, lines 13-21). It is therefore obvious to use the disclosed cathode to produce hydrogen gas. The advantage of the Gruver cathode is increased stability against electrolyte leakage and reduced power requirement (Col. 7, lines 3-21). One skilled in the art will appreciate that both are favorable to long-term operations. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Gruver teaches the use of a cathode as previously taught in a sodium hydroxide cell with a NAFION membrane, equivalent to a membrane electrode assembly (hereinafter MEA) and an electrochemical cell comprising such (Col. 6, lines 56-60) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruver et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanai et al. (JP 2020-047446 A, using attached machine translation) . Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, Gruver does not teach an electrode with an average thickness of the intermediate layer relative to an average thickness of the catalyst layer between 50 and 250, nor with a product of an average thickness of the intermediate layer and a porosity of the intermediate layer to an average thickness of the catalyst layer between 20 and 200, nor with a catalyst layer thickness between 0.5 and 5 μm. However, Kanai teaches a layered electrode with average thickness of the catalyst layer between 0.5 and 2.5 μm, fully within the claimed range (para. 0024, as “500 nm or more and 2500 nm or less”). Applying the modified thickness of catalyst layer to the electrode taught by Gruver, the ratio of claim 2 may be 50.8 μ m i n t e r m e d i a t e l a y e r 0.5 μ m c a t a l y s t l a y e r = 101.6 , within the claimed 50-250 range. The ratio of claim 3 may be 60 % p o r o s i t y o f i n t e r m e d i a t e l a y e r × 50.8 μ m i n t e r m e d i a t e l a y e r 0.5 μ m c a t a l y s t l a y e r = 60.96 (Gruver Col. 3, lines 16-17: porosity of barrier layer between 60% and 80%), within the claimed range of 20-200. Regarding claims 4 and 6, Gruver teaches all limitations of claim 1 from which they depend. Gruver teaches porosity of the catalyst layer (Col. 4, lines 15-16), but does not teach a carrier-less catalyst layer. Kanai teaches that the catalyst layer of a layered electrode may be made of carrier-less porous catalyst units, i.e. catalyst units without a carrier or support (para. 0013). The height of the catalyst units, in Example 1, is 2100 nm (2.1 μm), within the claimed range of “50 [nm] or more and 100 [μm] or less” (Table 1: relevant machine translation follows as annotated image). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to use a carrier-less catalyst in the catalyst layers of the electrode taught by Gruver. One would do so in order to improve proton conduction through the catalyst and increase the active surface area for electrocatalytic reactions, enhancing power generation characteristics (Kanai paras. 0014, 0022). PNG media_image1.png 962 1257 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 10-13, Gruver does not teach a stack comprising the MEA of claim 8, a stack comprising the electrochemical cell of claim 9, nor an electrolyzer comprising a stack of an MEA or an electrochemical cell. However, Kanai teaches a stack of an MEA (Kanai Claim 9), a stack of an electrochemical cell which comprises an MEA (Kanai Claim 10), an electrolyzer comprising a stack of an MEA, and an electrolyzer comprising a stack of an electrochemical cell comprising an MEA (Kanai Claim 9; para. 0078: fuel cell teachings applicable to electrolysis cells, equivalent to an electrolyzer). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the previously taught electrode and MEA in this manner. One would be motivated to do so in order to implement the claimed invention into practical use for e.g. electrolysis reactions to make useful products such as sodium hydroxide (Gruver Col. 6, lines 15-17) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Erman et al. (WO 2020/217817 A1, using attached machine translation) teaches an electrically conductive substrate with multiple layers of catalytic material. Yoshinaga et al. (EP 3,453,785) teaches a membrane electrode assembly with a porous catalyst layer . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. /CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711 /MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 3 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/461,657 Page 8 Art Unit: 1711
Prosecution Insights