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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
All claims drawn to non-elected invention(s) were cancelled by Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not comply with PCT Rule 11 (MPEP § 1893.03(f)). Specifically, the drawings are not suitable for reproduction because the resolution is too low i.e., the drawings are illegible (see e.g., Fig. 1.1) (PCT Rule 11.2 and 11.13, MPEP § 1825).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the term Nafion™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term 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.
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities: p. 21 line 1 reads “Nafion”, but should read “Nafion™”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 1 reads “wherein phosphonic”, but should read “wherein the phosphonic” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 line 2 reads “a gas permeability to H2 gas permeability”, but should read “a gas permeability to H2
Claim 13 line 2 reads “is stable, voltage increase less than 15 µV/hr”, but should read “is stable, in that the voltage increase is less than 15 µV/hr” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations “the second side of the first substrate opposes the first side of the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane” in lines 3-4, “the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane” in lines 5-6, “the second side of the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane opposes the second side of the second substrate” in lines 6-8, “the first substrate” in line 9, and “the second substrate” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Specifically, claim 1 only recites “a first substrate” and “a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane” in the alternative (lines 2-3). I.e., as currently drafted, claim 1 does not recite “a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane” when the first electrode coating is disposed on “a second side of a first substrate” and vice versa.
Claim 1 therefore does not provide antecedent basis for “the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane” when the first electrode coating is disposed on “a second side of a first substrate”.
Similarly, when the “first electrode coating” is disposed on “a first side of a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane”, the claim does not provide antecedent basis for “the first substrate”.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “the first electrode coating comprises a phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” and “the second electrode coating comprises a phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” in lines 12 and 14-15, respectively. A plain language reading of these limitations would require the first and second electrode coatings to exclude liquids i.e., “without liquid” is a property of the electrode coatings. However, e.g., claim 2 recites “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid”, which implies the term “without liquid” is intended to refer to a property of the phosphonic acid ionomers, rather than the first and second electrode coatings. It is therefore unclear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite e.g., “a first substrate, a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and a second substrate; wherein …”.
Regarding claims 2, 8-10, and 13-14, these claims depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1. These claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “a proton conductivity of greater than about 0.02 to 0.05 S cm-1 at 200 to 220 °C”. It is unclear what range(s) is/are intended to be claimed by this limitation. Specifically, it is unclear, in light of the specification, whether this limitation is intended to:
a) require a proton conductivity between 0.02 and 0.05 S/cm at any temperature between 200 and 220 °C;
b) require a proton conductivity between 0.02 and 0.05 S/cm at all temperatures in the range of 200 and 220 °C;
c) require a proton conductivity greater than about 0.02 S/cm at any temperature between 200 and 220 °C;
d) require a proton conductivity greater than about 0.02 S/cm at all temperatures in the range of 200 and 220 °C; or
e) some other range.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” in lines 1-2. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites two discrete “a phosphonic acid ionomer” in lines 12 and 14-15, respectively. It is therefore unclear whether:
a) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of the “first electrode coating”;
b) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of the “second electrode coating”; or
c) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of both of the “first electrode coating” and “second electrode coating”.
Furthermore, claim 3 depends from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 4-6, claims 4-6 recite the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” (or “phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid”) in lines 1-2. However, claim 1, from which claims 4-6 depend, recites two discrete “a phosphonic acid ionomer” in lines 12 and 14-15, respectively. It is therefore unclear whether:
a) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of the “first electrode coating”;
b) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of the “second electrode coating”; or
c) the limitation “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid” is intended to further limit the “a phosphonic acid ionomer” of both of the “first electrode coating” and “second electrode coating”.
Furthermore, claims 4-6 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation “the catalyst” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, does not recite “a catalyst”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the catalyst” refers.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitation “the carbon particles” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 7 recites “a carbon particle” in line 2, and it is therefore unclear whether or not claim 7 requires a plurality of carbon particles, or merely requires a single carbon particle.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitation “the platinum particles” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 7 recites “platinum group metal particles” in line 2. It is therefore unclear whether claim 7 requires platinum group metal particles, or platinum particles.
Furthermore, claim 7 depends from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 7 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “the gas mixture” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, from which claims 11 and 12 depend, does not recite a gas mixture. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the gas mixture” refers.
Furthermore, claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 12 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “wherein the width of the anode, the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and the cathode is about 10 to 275 microns”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “width” in claim 15 is used by the claim to mean “thickness.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Specifically, the specification reads “The thickness (width) of the anode, the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and the cathode can be about 75 to 275 microns” (p. 7 para. 3), and claim 9 uses the term “thickness” to refer to this property of the membrane.
Furthermore, claim 15 depends from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 15 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atanasov et al. (“Synergistically integrated phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) for fuel cells.” Nature Materials | VOL 20 | 370 March 2021 | 370–377 and SI) as evidenced by Alfa Aesar (“Precious Metal Compounds and Catalysts” 2016).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as reciting “a first substrate, a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and a second substrate, wherein …”.
It is noted that “PWN70” is the compound referred to as “PTFSPA” in the instant application i.e., “PTFSPA was synthesized following the procedure of Atanasov et al.41” (instant specification p. 10 para. 2).
Atanasov teaches an electrochemical hydrogen pump (see below), comprising:
a first substrate (“the cathode” Methods § para. 1 and Table 1);
a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane (“Membrane” and “PA-PBI” Table 1, see also “Fuel cell testing and impedance analysis” §); and
a second substrate (“anode” Methods § para. 1 and Table 1); wherein
a first electrode coating is disposed on a second side of the first substrate (“Catalyst inks … brush painting on pre-cut 5 cm2 E-TEK carbon cloth gas diffusion layers” Electrode preparation §), wherein the second side of the first substrate opposes a first side of a high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane (“MEAs consisting of different combinations of membranes and electrode binders” Fuel cell performance and durability § para. 1); and
a second electrode coating is disposed on a second side of a second substrate (“Catalyst inks … brush painting on pre-cut 5 cm2 E-TEK carbon cloth gas diffusion layers” Electrode preparation §), wherein the second side of the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane opposes the second side of the second substrate (“MEAs consisting of different combinations of membranes and electrode binders” Fuel cell performance and durability § para. 1),
wherein the first substrate has the characteristic of a porous gas diffusion layer that is conductive and serves as an anode and the second substrate has the characteristic of a porous gas diffusion layer that is conductive and serves as a cathode (“5 cm2 active area gas diffusion electrodes” Electrode preparation § and “anode” and “cathode” Methods § para. 1 and Table 1),
wherein the first electrode coating comprises a phosphonic acid ionomer (“PWN70” Electrode preparation § and Fig. 2a) without liquid (Fig. 2g) and a plurality of catalyst particles (“50 wt% PtRu/C” Electrode preparation § and “50% PtRu/C (Pt:Ru 2:1, HiSPEC 12100)” Methods § para. 1)1,
wherein the second electrode coating comprises a phosphonic acid ionomer (“PWN70” Electrode preparation § and Fig. 2a) without liquid (Fig. 2g) and a plurality of catalyst particles (“60 wt% Pt/C catalyst” Electrode preparation § and “Commercial 60 wt% Pt/C (HiSPEC 9100)” Methods § para. 1)1.
Regarding the preamble limitation “An electrochemical hydrogen pump”, as currently drafted this is a recitation of an intended use of the apparatus i.e., it defines the apparatus by how it is intended to be used, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to an intended use is an apparatus structurally capable of performing the recited use (MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
In the instant case, Atanasov teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising a platinum catalyst disposed thereon. As described in the instant specification, such an MEA is capable of serving as an electrochemical hydrogen pump. Therefore, the system of Atanasov is capable of serving as an electrochemical hydrogen pump.
As the system of Atanasov is capable of serving as an electrochemical hydrogen pump, Atanasov anticipates the preamble limitation “An electrochemical hydrogen pump”.
Regarding claim 2, Atanasov further teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has the characteristic of a binder for the plurality of catalyst particles in the first electrode coating and the second electrode coating (“PWN70” Electrode preparation § and Fig. 2a).
As evidenced by the instant specification, PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, can serve as a binder for catalyst particles comprising platinum on carbon. Therefore, Atanasov necessarily teaches “the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has the characteristic of a binder for the plurality of catalyst particles in the first electrode coating and the second electrode coating” (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 3, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has a proton conductivity of greater than about 0.02 to 0.05 S cm-2 at 200 to 220 °C, regardless of how this limitation is interpreted.
Specifically, because Atanasov teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid is PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, and the instant specification teaches PTFSPA has a proton conductivity of greater than about 0.02 to 0.05 S cm-2 at 200 to 220 °C, Atanasov necessarily teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has this proton conductivity (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 4, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has a gas permeability to H2 that is about 5x or more greater than a gas permeability to H2 for a phosphoric acid (H3PO4) imbibed quaternary benzyl pyridinium polysulfone (QPPSf) thin film polymer electrolyte.
Specifically, because Atanasov teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid is PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, and the instant specification teaches PTFSPA has a gas permeability to H2 that is about 5x or more greater than a gas permeability to H2 for a phosphoric acid (H3PO4) imbibed quaternary benzyl pyridinium polysulfone (QPPSf) thin film polymer electrolyte, Atanasov necessarily teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid has property (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 5, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid is a phosphonic acid functionalized polypentafluorostyrene (“PWN70” Electrode preparation § and Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 6, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the phosphonic acid ionomer without liquid is poly(tetraflurostyrene phosphonic acid-co-pentafluorostyrene) (PTFSPA) (“PWN70” Electrode preparation § and Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 8, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane is based upon phosphoric acid imbibed polycations blended with polybenzimidazole (“PA-PBI” Table 1 and Fig. 2a) and operates (see below) and conducts ions at temperature of -20 to 300 °C (Fig. 2b and see below).
The limitation “operates … at temperature of -20 to 300 °C”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the instant specification indicates that a PA-PBI membrane is capable of operating at temperatures between -20 and 300 °C. Therefore, as Atanasov teaches a membrane is made of PA-PBI, the membrane of Atanasov is capable of operating at temperatures between -20 and 300 °C. Therefore, Atanasov anticipates the limitation “operates … at temperature of -20 to 300 °C”.
Regarding the limitation “conducts ions at temperature of -20 to 300 °C”, Atanasov teaches the membrane is made of PA-PBI. The instant specification indicates PA-PBI conducts ions at a temperature of -20 to 300 °C. Therefore, Atanasov necessarily teaches the membrane “conducts ions at temperature of -20 to 300 °C” (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 9, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Atanasov further teaches the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane thickness is 50 µm (Table 1), a value within the claimed range.
Furthermore, Atanasov teaches the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane is PA-PBI. As evidenced by the instant specification, a PA-PBI membrane is capable of having a thickness that varies between 2 and 200 µm. Therefore, the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane of Atanasov is capable of having a thickness that varies between 2 and 200 µm (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 10, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump is configured to produce 99.3% to 100% pure hydrogen at the cathode from a gas mixture fed to the anode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Atanasov teaches the system comprises an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, as a binder. The instant specification indicates that an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PTFSPA as a binder is capable of producing 99.3% to 100% pure hydrogen at the cathode from a gas mixture fed to the anode. Therefore, the system of Atanasov is capable of producing 99.3% to 100% pure hydrogen at the cathode from a gas mixture fed to the anode.
Atanasov therefore anticipates the limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump is configured to produce 99.3% to 100% pure hydrogen at the cathode from a gas mixture fed to the anode”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been interpreted as, “wherein a gas mixture is supplied to the electrochemical hydrogen pump, and …”.
Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the gas mixture is selected from model reformate mixtures: i.) model syngas composed of 25% hydrogen, 40% carbon monoxide, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% methane, and 5% nitrogen; ii.) reformate mixture with a smaller carbon monoxide content - 30% hydrogen, 3% carbon monoxide, and 67% nitrogen; iii.) model water gas shift reaction effluent with 75% hydrogen, 20% carbon dioxide, 5% methane, and 20 ppm carbon monoxide; or iv.) a hydrocarbon reformate mixture with 75% hydrogen and 25% carbon monoxide”, as currently interpreted, limits the material worked on by the apparatus, rather than the apparatus itself. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to the material worked on is an apparatus capable of working on the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Atanasov teaches the system comprises an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, as a binder. The instant specification indicates that such an MEA is capable of working on the recited gas feeds. Therefore, the system of Atanasov is capable of working on the recited gas feeds.
As the system of Atanasov is capable of working on the recited gas feeds, Atanasov anticipates the limitation “the gas mixture is selected from model reformate mixtures: i.) model syngas composed of 25% hydrogen, 40% carbon monoxide, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% methane, and 5% nitrogen; ii.) reformate mixture with a smaller carbon monoxide content - 30% hydrogen, 3% carbon monoxide, and 67% nitrogen; iii.) model water gas shift reaction effluent with 75% hydrogen, 20% carbon dioxide, 5% methane, and 20 ppm carbon monoxide; or iv.) a hydrocarbon reformate mixture with 75% hydrogen and 25% carbon monoxide”.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has been interpreted as, wherein a gas mixture is supplied to the electrochemical hydrogen pump, and …”.
Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the gas mixture comprises hydrogen in natural gas”, as currently interpreted, limits the material worked on by the apparatus, rather than the apparatus itself. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to the material worked on is an apparatus capable of working on the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Atanasov teaches the system comprises an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PWN70 i.e., PTFSPA, as a binder. The instant specification indicates that such an MEA is capable of working on hydrogen in natural gas. Therefore, the system of Atanasov is capable of working on a gas mixture comprising hydrogen in natural gas.
As the system of Atanasov is capable of working on a gas mixture comprising hydrogen in natural gas, Atanasov anticipates the limitation “the gas mixture comprises hydrogen in natural gas”.
The limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump is configured to generate 99 to 100% hydrogen at the cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the instant application indicates that an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PTFSPA i.e., PWN70, as a binder is capable of generating 99 to 100% hydrogen at the cathode. Therefore, as Atanasov teaches such an MEA, the system of Atanasov is capable of generating 99 to 100% hydrogen at the cathode.
Atanasov therefore anticipates the limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump is configured to generate 99 to 100% hydrogen at the cathode”.
Regarding claim 13, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the electrochemical hydrogen pump is stable, such that the voltage increase is less than 15 µV/hr, at 200 °C for over 100 hours”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the instant application indicates that an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PTFSPA i.e., PWN70, as a binder is capable of being stable, such that the voltage increase is less than 15 µV/hr, at 200 °C for over 100 hours. Therefore, as Atanasov teaches such an MEA, the system of Atanasov is capable of being “stable, such that the voltage increase is less than 15 µV/hr, at 200 °C for over 100 hours”.
Atanasov therefore anticipates the limitation “wherein the electrochemical hydrogen pump is stable, such that the voltage increase is less than 15 µV/hr, at 200 °C for over 100 hours”.
Regarding claim 14, Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump operates at 160 to 300 °C”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the instant application indicates that an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane and two gas diffusion electrodes comprising platinum group metal catalysts with PTFSPA i.e., PWN70, as a binder is capable of operating at 160 to 300 °C. Therefore, as Atanasov teaches such an MEA, the system of Atanasov is capable of operating at 160 to 300 °C.
Atanasov therefore anticipates the limitation “the electrochemical hydrogen pump operates at 160 to 300 °C”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasov et al. (“Synergistically integrated phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) for fuel cells.” Nature Materials | VOL 20 | 370 March 2021 | 370–377 and SI) in view of Venugopalan et al. (“Stable and Highly Conductive Polycation−Polybenzimidazole Membrane Blends for Intermediate Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells.” ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 573−585).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 has been interpreted as “wherein the catalyst particles in at least one of the first electrode coating or the second electrode coating comprise platinum group metal particles disposed on carbon particles, wherein the carbon particles have a diameter of about 100 nm to 2 µm and the platinum group metal particles have a diameter of about 2 nm to 20 nm”.
Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Atanasov further teaches the catalyst particles in the second electrode coating comprise platinum disposed on carbon particles (“60 wt% Pt/C catalyst” Electrode preparation § and “Commercial 60 wt% Pt/C (HiSPEC 9100)” Methods § para. 1).
Atanasov does not teach the carbon particles have a diameter of about 100 nm to 2 µm and the platinum group metal particles have a diameter of about 2 nm to 20 nm.
However, Venugopalan teaches that 37% Pt on high surface area carbon, Tanaka Kikinzoku International (§ 2.10), a material the instant specification indicates comprises carbon particles having a diameter of about 100 nm to 2 µm and platinum group metal particles having a diameter of about 2 nm to 20 nm (para. bridging p. 30-31), is suitable for the cathode catalyst in an MEA configured to serve as a fuel cell (e.g., abstract).
As Atanasov and Venugopalan each teach MEAs comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane based on PBI impregnated with phosphoric acid, Atanasov and Venugopalan are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Atanasov, such that the second electrode coating comprises the catalyst of Venugopalan i.e., such that the carbon particles have a diameter of about 100 nm to 2 µm and the platinum group metal particles have a diameter of about 2 nm to 20 nm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Venugopalan teaches this catalyst is suitable as the cathode catalyst in an MEA configured to serve as a fuel cell. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasov et al. (“Synergistically integrated phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) for fuel cells.” Nature Materials | VOL 20 | 370 March 2021 | 370–377 and SI) in view of Cisar (US Pat. No. 5635039 A).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been interpreted as “wherein the thickness of the anode, the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and the cathode is about 10 to 275 microns.”
Atanasov anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Atanasov further teaches the thickness of the high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane is 50 micron (Table 1, MEA2), and the anode and cathode are formed on a carbon cloth base (“E-TEK carbon cloth gas diffusion layers” Electrode preparation §).
Atanasov is silent as to the thickness of the gas diffusion layers in the MEA.
However, Cisar teaches that a thickness of 65 microns is suitable for carbon cloth gas diffusion electrode used in an MEA (“wet-proofed carbon cloth electrode backing material. The average thicknesses of the gas diffusion layer and the active platinum catalyzed layer for a carefully pressed M&E assembly are 40 μm and 25 μm, respectively.” col. 11 lines 10-33).
As Atanasov teaches MEAs comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane based on PBI impregnated with phosphoric acid, Atanasov is analogous art to the instant invention. As Cisar teaches a method of forming MEAs, Cisar is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Atanasov, such that the thickness of the gas diffusion electrodes are about 65 μm each, and thus the total thickness of the anode, high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane, and cathode is about 180 microns,2 a value within the claimed range. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Cisar teaches a total thickness of 65 μm is suitable for a gas diffusion electrode. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using GDEs with a thickness of 65 µm) to achieve predictable results (forming an MEA) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0087698 A1) teaches PTFSPA has superior proton conductivity relative to phosphoric acid imbibed quaternary ammonium polymers at temperatures above about 120 °C (see Figs. 3 and 4). Moon (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0274112 A1) teaches platinum group catalyst particles (para. 60) disposed on carbon particles (para. 62) for use as a catalyst in MEAs (abstract) preferably have a particle diameter of 1 to 5 nm (para. 61), wherein the carbon particles preferably have a particle diameter of 10 to 100 nm (para. 63). Kim et al. (“Characterizations of polybenzimidazole based electrochemical hydrogen pumps with various Pt loadings for H2/CO2 gas separation” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013) 14816) teaches an MEA comprising a PBI-PA membrane (§ 3.1.) with a total thickness of about 90 micron (“the thickness of PBI membrane (30 µm)” p. 14819 col. 1 para. 1 and “the anode and cathode thickness was similar at 27 µm and 29 µm,” para. bridging p. 14820 and 14821) is suitable for an electrochemical hydrogen pump (e.g., abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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 V. 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 R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 As evidenced by Alfa, HiSPEC™ 9100 and 12100 are supported on carbon black (p. 71) in particulate form (“powder catalysts for specific applications. These include … carbon blacks” p. 7 § 5.4(f)).
2 50 microns for the membrane as taught by Atanasov, and 65 micron for each GDE as taught by Cisar.
Prosecution Insights