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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/7/2023, 12/3/2024, 12/31/2024, 5/19/2025, 5/19/2025, and 12/3/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-8, without traverse in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (JPS 5723080 A, cited in IDS 12/3/2024) in view of Watanabe et al. ("Self‐humidifying polymer electrolyte membranes for fuel cells." Journal of the electrochemical Society 143.12 (1996): 3847-3852; cited in IDS 9/7/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura et al. teaches a manufacturing method for electrolyte membrane including noble-metal particles comprising:
impregnating cationic noble metal complex ions with a first region of a surface of a cation exchange membrane by spraying solution (page 3, first line) containing the cationic noble metal complex ions on the cation exchange membrane (page 2, lines 26-35; inorganic salts or organic complexes of noble metals are embedded in the membrane surface) and drying the sprayed member (page 3, line 13 from the top).
Matsuura et al. teaches reducing the noble metal salt by thermal decomposition. The “reducing treatment” is interpreted as a separate step and thus in interest of compact prosecution it is assumed that Matsuura et al. does not explicitly teach applying a reducing treatment to the cation exchange membrane impregnated with the cationic noble metal complex ions.
Watanabe et al. teaches self-humidifying polymer electrolyte membranes for fuel cells (Title). Watanabe teaches applying a reducing treatment to the cation exchange membrane impregnated with the cationic noble metal complex ions, specifically by dispersing platinum nanocrystallites in the polymer electrolyte membranes (PEMs) by a cation exchange treatment with a platinum complex solution followed by reducing the exchanged Pt2+ with hydrazine (Page 3848, left column, Experimental section).
The references are analogous because both relate to the preparation of polymer electrolyte membranes containing dispersed noble metal catalysts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Matsuura to include the chemical reducing treatment taught by Watanabe because doing so provides an effective and established method for reducing the noble metal complex ions into dispersed noble metal particles within the membrane. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding with claims 2 and 3, Matsuura et al. teaches wherein the cationic noble metal complex includes noble metals platinum, iridium, palladium, etc. (page 2, lines 26-27). Matsuura et al. does not explicitly teach that the ligand is a neutral molecule when the neutral molecule is NH3 or amine (claim 3).
Watanabe teaches that platinum nanocrystallites can be dispersed in polymer electrolyte membranes by a cation exchange treatment with a [Pt(NH₃)₄]Cl₂ solution (Page 3848, left column, Experimental section). This reads on a cationic noble metal complex where the neutral molecule is ammonia (NH₃).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the cationic noble metal complex, such as [Pt(NH₃)₄]Cl₂, taught by Watanabe into the method of Matsuura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a suitable noble metal complex as an effective noble metal complex for incorporating in a membrane.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuura et al. teaches successively repeating the operation multiple times (page 3, line 23).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuura et al. teaches subjecting the ion exchange membrane to a gas stream at 100°C (page 4, line 22). This broadly reads on hot air.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuura et al. teaches using 2% by weight of the solution containing the noble metal ion (page 5, line 6).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe et al. teaches applying a reducing treatment to the cation exchange membrane impregnated with the cationic noble metal complex ions by a cation exchange treatment with a platinum complex solution followed by reducing the exchanged Pt2+ with hydrazine (Page 3848, left column, Experimental section).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches reducing the noble metal salt in a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen (page 3, line 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure. YASUNORI (CA 2637391A1) teaches a similar method of reducing hydrogen gas permeating through an electrode membrane by incorporating noble metal particles in an electrolyte layer of a membrane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights