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 1-32 are pending for this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 14-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-13 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, 3-10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose et al (“Membrane Interlayer with Pt Recombination Particles for Reduction of the Anodic Hydrogen Content in PEM Water Electrolysis”, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 165, 16, F1271-F1277, 2018) in view of Briguglio et al (“Enhanced performance of a PtCo recombination catalyst for reducing the H2 concentration in the O2 stream of a PEM electrolysis cell in the presence of a thin membrane and a high differential pressure”, Electrochimica Acta, 344 (2020) 136153).
Claim 1: Klose discloses a recombination layer (see e.g. abstract) comprising:
an ionomer (Nafion, see e.g. page F1272, col 1, paragraph starting with “In order”);
a nano catalyst disposed in the ionomer (Pt nanoparticles, see e.g. page F1272, col 1, paragraph starting with “In order”).
Klose does not explicitly teach that the nanoparticles are nanocrystal. Briguglio teaches a recombination layer for an electrolytic cell (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The recombination layer of Briguglio comprises platinum (see e.g. abstract), like Klose, in a nanocrystal form (see e.g. page 4, col 2: “Fig. 2 shows the occurrence of a face-centered cubic crystallographic structure of Platinum”). The crystallite form is “optimised to provide enhanced activity through tailoring the catalytic recombiner surface chemistry, electronic effects and mean crystallite size.” 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 recombination layer of Klose to use a crystalline form of the Pt nanoparticle.
Claim 3: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches that the nanocrystal catalyst comprises platinum crystal (see e.g. abstract of Klose).
Claim 4: The limitation claiming “the nanocrystal catalyst is based on tetraamine platinum hydroxide, tetraammineplatinum(II) chloride, and/or platinum diamino dinitro nitrate” is referring to precursors used to make the nanocrystal catalyst. Therefore, these limitations are similar to a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 I states ‘"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)’. The resulting structure of the precursors of claim 4 is a platinum nanocrystal. Therefore, Klose in view of Briguglio anticipates/renders obvious the claim (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 5: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches that the recombination layer comprises a thickness of 26 ± 1 µm (see e.g. page F1273, col 1, “Pt interlayer”), overlaps with the claimed value of 1 mil. MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’.
Claim 6: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches a substrate; and the recombination layer is disposed on the substrate (see e.g. page F1272, Fig 1).
Claim 7: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches a proton exchange membrane (see e.g. abstract) comprising:
the recombination layer of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) having a thickness (see e.g. page F1273, col 1, “Pt interlayer” paragraph);
a membrane layer (“NR 212”, see e.g. page F1273, Fig 2);
a catalyst content in the recombination layer being greater than a catalyst content in the membrane layer (see e.g. F1272, col 1, paragraph starting with “In order to prepare”); and
the exchange membrane having an interface between the recombination layer and the membrane layer (see e.g. page F1273, Fig 2).
Claim 8: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches that the recombination layer comprises a thickness of 26 ± 1 (see e.g. page F1273, col 1, “Pt interlayer”), that overlaps with the claimed value of 1 mil, and the membrane layer comprises a thickness of 51 µm (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2, “NR-212”), which is close to the claimed value of 2 mil (~2.01 mil). MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… 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 9: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches that the membrane layer comprises the membrane layer without a catalyst (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2, “NR-212”).
Claim 10: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches a substrate (titanium fibers, see e.g. page F1272, col 2, paragraph starting with “Sintered”); an anode electrode disposed on the substrate (see e.g. page F1272, col 2, paragraph starting with “Sintered” and page 1273, Fig 2, “Ir”); and the proton exchange membrane disposed on the anode electrode (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2).
Claim 12: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches a membrane electrode assembly (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2) comprising
the proton exchange membrane of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1);
an anode electrode disposed on the recombination layer; and a cathode electrode disposed on the membrane layer (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2, “anode” and “cathode”).
Claim 13: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches that the recombination layer comprises a thickness of 26 ± 1 (see e.g. page F1273, col 1, “Pt interlayer”), that overlaps with the claimed value of 1 mil, and the proton exchange membrane comprises a thickness of 77 µm (see e.g. page 1273, Fig 2, “NR-212” and the “Pt interlayer”), which is close to the claimed value of 3 mil (~2.03 mil). MPEP § 2144.05 I states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…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(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Briguglio as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Capuano et al (US 20180062192 A1).
Claim 2: Klose does not explicitly teach that the nanocrystal catalyst is greater in the channels of the ionomer compared to in the side chains of the ionomer. The instant specification discloses the following regarding this limitation in [0045]:
As will be appreciated from the description below, the forming of the recombination layer may operably tailor and preferentially distribute the platinum catalyst in the channels in an ionomer. For example, a technique of the present disclosure is directed to introducing platinum ions into a PFSA (Nafion®, 3M™, Aquivion™, FORBLUE™, Donyue™, Hyproof™, Thinkre™, etc.) polymer network and reducing them to form Pt nanocrystals. A goal is to predominantly distribute these Pt nanocrystals in the hydrogen channel of the PFSA (Nafion®, 3M™, Aquivion™, FORBLUE™, Donyue™, Hyproof™, Thinkre™, etc.) polymer network to increase the utility of the recombination layer.
Klose discloses that “One disadvantage of the interlayer of this work is the increase of ohmic losses (HFR). However, as seen on the example of fuel cells where despite Pt additives no increase in HFR was detected, this could be solved by improving the interlayer morphology and the membrane-membrane interface, e.g. by hot pressing prior to assembly or increasing the clamping pressure” (see e.g. page F1275, col 1, paragraph starting with “One”).
Capuano teaches a recombination layer (see e.g. [0010]) for an electrolytic cell (see e.g. [0003]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The recombination layer comprises platinum nanoparticles (see e.g. [0030]), just like in Klose. However, the platinum nanoparticle is formed by reducing a platinum precursor (see e.g. [0039]; [0020]: “The recombination layer applied is reduced, which converts the platinum in solution to a metal”). According to Capuano in [0050] and [0051], “The wet transfer process included hot pressing…The present dry deposition methods eliminate manufacturing steps and reduce catalyst metal content loading, as compared to the conventional wet transfer process, thereby saving cost and time.” 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 recombination layer of Klose to use a dry transfer process like that taught tin Capuano to save cost and time compared to the wet processing suggested in Klose. Additionally, the dry process of Capuano should yield a recombination layer having the nanocrystal catalyst is greater in the channels of the ionomer compared to in the side chains of the ionomer based on the disclosure of the instant invention.
Claim 4: The limitation claiming “the nanocrystal catalyst is based on tetraamine platinum hydroxide, tetraammineplatinum(II) chloride, and/or platinum diamino dinitro nitrate” is referring to precursors used to make the nanocrystal catalyst. Therefore, these limitations are similar to a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 I states ‘"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)’. The resulting structure of the precursors of claim 4 is a platinum nanocrystal. Therefore, Klose in view of Briguglio anticipates/renders obvious the claim (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Additionally, the Klose discloses that “One disadvantage of the interlayer of this work is the increase of ohmic losses (HFR). However, as seen on the example of fuel cells where despite Pt additives no increase in HFR was detected, this could be solved by improving the interlayer morphology and the membrane-membrane interface, e.g. by hot pressing prior to assembly or increasing the clamping pressure” (see e.g. page F1275, col 1, paragraph starting with “One”).
Capuano teaches a recombination layer (see e.g. [0010]) for an electrolytic cell (see e.g. [0003]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The recombination layer comprises platinum nanoparticles (see e.g. [0030]), just like in Klose. However, the platinum nanoparticle is formed by reducing a platinum precursor (“platinum diamine dinitrate”, see e.g. [0039]; [0020]: “The recombination layer applied is reduced, which converts the platinum in solution to a metal”). According to Capuano in [0050] and [0051], “The wet transfer process included hot pressing…The present dry deposition methods eliminate manufacturing steps and reduce catalyst metal content loading, as compared to the conventional wet transfer process, thereby saving cost and time.” 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 recombination layer of Klose to use a dry transfer process like that taught tin Capuano to save cost and time compared to the wet processing suggested in Klose.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Briguglio as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Van Berchum et al (US 20150290594 A1).
Claim 11: Klose in view of Briguglio teaches a first substrate and a second substrate (titanium fibers and carbon paper, see e.g. page F1272, col 2, paragraph starting with “Sintered”); the proton exchange membrane disposed between the substrates (see e.g. page F1272, col 2, paragraph starting with “Sintered”).
Klose does not explicitly teach that the proton exchange membrane comprises the proton exchange membrane disposed on a roll. Van Berchum teaches an ion exchange membrane (see e.g. [0002]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Van Berchum some applications of this type of membrane requires the membrane to be tightly wound (see e.g. [0053]). Therefore, 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 membrane of Klose so that the proton exchange membrane is disposed on a roll for applications that require a tightly wound membrane as discussed in Van Berchum.
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