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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that Suzuki does not disclose or suggest the claimed composite electrolyte membrane having the amended structure and pore size. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection has been updated accordingly. Suzuki teaches the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane and composite membrane structure, while Roumi teaches separate porous layers having passages extending through the respective layers and openings having a size within the claimed range.
Applicant further argues that Suzuki does not identify its microporous polymer layers as the first and second porous layers separately recited in amended claim 1 and does not disclose a reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane positioned between two separate claimed porous layers having pores from 100 µm to 5000 µm. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Suzuki as individually disclosing each of these limitations. Rather, Suzuki is relied upon for the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane and composite membrane structures, while Roumi is relied upon for the separate porous layers having through-passages and openings within the claimed pore-size range.
Applicant argues that Suzuki’s embodiments having multiple microporous polymer layers do not cure the alleged deficiency because Suzuki describes such layers as portions of the microporous polymer structure or imbibed layers of the composite membrane. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because Roumi, rather than Suzuki, supplies the teaching of the separately recited porous layers. Accordingly, the rejection does not require the microporous polymer structures of Suzuki to be interpreted as inherently corresponding to the claimed first and second porous layers. The combination of Suzuki and Roumi provides the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane of Suzuki together with separate porous layers having through-passages as taught by Roumi.
Applicant argues that the Office has not identified a sufficient reason or rationale for converting Suzuki’s microporous polymer structure into the claimed first and second porous layers. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the proposed modification does not require converting Suzuki’s microporous polymer structure into the claimed porous layers. Rather, the proposed combination incorporates the separate porous-layer structure of Roumi with the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane of Suzuki. Suzuki and Roumi are analogous in the art of electrochemical membranes and separators, and Roumi demonstrates the use of separate porous layers having through-openings in a multilayer electrochemical separator structure. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the known porous-layer structure of Roumi with the composite membrane structure of Suzuki for the known functions of providing mechanical support and permitting passages through the respective layers.
Applicant argues that the overlap of Suzuki’s thickness disclosures with claims 16 and 32 does not supply the missing reason to modify Suzuki to arrive at the amended claim 1 architecture. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection of claims 16 and 32 does not rely upon the thickness overlap alone. Suzuki teaches the relevant reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane and thickness characteristics, while Roumi supplies the separate porous layers and through-openings within the amended 100–5000 µm pore-size range. Thus, the claimed combination results from the combined teachings of the references rather than from the thickness overlap alone.
Applicant argues that, with respect to claim 40, even if glass fiber were incorporated into Suzuki as taught by Otani, such modification would not provide the missing first and second porous layers having pores from 100 µm to 5000 µm. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the amended porous-layer architecture and pore-size limitation are supplied by Roumi, not Otani. Otani is relied upon for the additional glass-fiber limitation. The rejection therefore does not rely upon Otani to provide the entire amended claim 1 structure. Rather, Suzuki in view of Roumi provides the underlying claimed membrane and porous-layer arrangement, and Otani provides the additional glass-fiber material.
Applicant argues that, with respect to claim 41, incorporation of ceramic material from Roumi into Suzuki would not provide the amended first and second porous layers having pores from 100 µm to 5000 µm. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection relies upon Roumi for both the porous-layer structure and the claimed pore-size characteristic. Roumi teaches porous layers having through-openings, including 1 mm openings corresponding to 1000 µm, which is within the claimed 100–5000 µm range. The additional ceramic-material limitation is likewise addressed by the teachings relied upon in the rejection. Therefore, the combination does not require reconstructing Suzuki solely from the ceramic-material disclosure.
Applicant argues that, with respect to claim 72, Mittelsteadt merely supplies an electrolyzer context and does not disclose or reasonably suggest the amended claim 1 architecture. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection relies upon Suzuki in view of Roumi for the claimed composite membrane and porous-layer architecture, while Mittelsteadt is relied upon for the electrolyzer environment. The references are properly combined for their respective teachings, and the proposed combination would have resulted in the use of the known composite membrane structure in a known electrolyzer environment for its expected purpose.
Applicant argues that the proposed combinations would require reconstruction of the invention only with knowledge of Applicant’s disclosure. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection is based on specific teachings of the cited prior art. Suzuki teaches the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane, and Roumi teaches separate porous layers having passages extending through the layers, including openings of 1 mm (1000 µm), which falls within the claimed 100–5000 µm range. The proposed combination therefore does not rely upon hindsight but instead combines known elements according to their known functions.
Applicant argues that the combination of the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane and first and second porous layers provides unexpected improvements in puncture pressure failure and burst pressure, as demonstrated by Example 1. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the evidence is not commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. Claim 1 encompasses porous layers having pore sizes throughout the range of 100 µm to 5000 µm and is not limited to the particular PTFE scrim material, membrane construction, membrane thickness, or other conditions used in Example 1. The evidence therefore does not establish that the asserted improvement necessarily occurs throughout the full scope of the claimed range.
Applicant argues that the results demonstrate a synergistic performance effect because Example 1 has a higher puncture pressure failure and burst pressure than Comparative Examples 1 and 4. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the comparisons are directed to particular tested embodiments and do not establish that the alleged synergistic effect necessarily results from all embodiments encompassed by amended claim 1. In particular, the evidence does not establish that the alleged improvement is present throughout the entire 100–5000 µm pore-size range or for the various materials and configurations encompassed by the claim. Accordingly, the evidence of the particular results obtained in Example 1 is not sufficient to establish unexpected results commensurate with the full scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references recognize the benefits provided by the claimed combination. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because a reference need not recognize the same advantage or expressly identify the same benefit as Applicant’s disclosure in order for the claimed structure to have been obvious. The relevant inquiry is whether the prior art provides a reason to make the proposed combination and whether the resulting arrangement would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, Suzuki and Roumi provide the respective structural teachings necessary to arrive at the claimed combination.
Applicant argues that because amended claim 1 is distinguishable over Suzuki, the dependent claims are likewise allowable. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection has been revised to account for the amendment to claim 1. The amended limitations are addressed by the combination of Suzuki and Roumi, and the additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed by the respective references applied to those claims. Accordingly, the amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the § 103 rejections of the claims.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, the amendments and arguments do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the rejections are maintained.
Status of Claims
The following claims have been cancelled:
Claim 5
Claims 7-11
Claim 15
Claims 17-25
Claims 27-31
Claim 34
Claims 36-39
Claims 42-45
Claims 47-48
Claim 50
Claims 52-58
Claims 60-71
Claim Objections
Applicant has corrected the claim numbering to show claims 47-48 as cancelled and claim 49 as pending. The objection to claims 47-49 is therefore withdrawn.
Drawings
Applicant has submitted replacement drawing sheets removing reference characters 121, 122, 132, 134, 136, 142, and 144. The drawing objection is therefore withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, 26, 32, 33, 35, 46, 49, 51, 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20200243887), hereinafter Suzuki, in view of Roumi (EP 2837049).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches:
A composite electrolyte membrane for an electrochemical device ([0003]), comprising:
at least one reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane having a first surface and an opposing second surface ([0002]);
a microporous polymer structure and an ion exchange material ([0011], microporous polymer structure 105, ion exchange material 110);
the ion exchange material is at least partially embedded within the microporous polymer structure to render the microporous polymer structure occlusive ([0011], [0148]);
a plurality of porous layers comprising at least a first porous layer and a second porous layer ([0014]);
the first porous layer having a first surface and an opposing second surface such that the first surface of the first porous layer is adjacent to the first surface of the at least one reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane ([0014], Fig. 1A, microporous polymer structure 105);
the plurality of pores provide one or more passages extending between the first and second surfaces of the first porous layer , wherein -the second porous layer has a first surface and an opposing second surface such that the first surface of the second porous layer is adjacent to the second surface of the at least one reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane ([0014]);
The second plurality of pores provide one or more passages extending through the second porous layer between the first and second surfaces of the second porous layer ([0014]).
Roumi teaches a multilayer separator system for an electrochemical system having multiple high-mechanical strength layers with openings extending through the respective layers (Abstract). In particular, Roumi’s Examples A describes two Kapton film layers, each having a 1 mm diameter openings, with a Celgard layer positioned between the two Kapton layers. Roumi likewise describes the openings as extending through the respective layers. A 1 mm opening corresponds to 1000 µm, which falls within the amended claimed range of 100 µm to 5000 µm.
Suzuki and Roumi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolyte membranes. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a pore size within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches the microporous polymer structure is embedded with the ion exchange material ([0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches:
The microporous polymer structure of the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane ([0014], Fig. 1A microporous polymer structure 105) has:
A first surface ([0014], Fig. 1A microporous polymer structure 105);
An opposing second surface ([0014], Fig. 1A microporous polymer structure 105);
At least one layer of the ion exchange material is present on at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the microporous polymer structure ([0011], microporous polymer structure 105, ion exchange material 110).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches:
A first layer of the ion exchange material is present on the first surface of the microporous polymer structure ([0011], microporous polymer structure 105, ion exchange material 110);
A second layer of ion exchange material is present on the second surface of the microporous polymer structure ([0011], microporous polymer structure 105, ion exchange material 110).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches one or more of the layers of the ion exchange material further comprise at least one membrane catalyst ([0097]).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches a porous layer is attached to the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane ([0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches a portion of one or both of the first and second porous layers is embedded in at least one layer of the ion exchange material ([0011]).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches one reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane comprises two or more microporous polymer structures ([0014]).
Regarding claim 26, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches the ion exchange material comprises at least one ionomer ([0115]).
Regarding claim 33, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches each porous layer in said plurality of porous layers may be independently selected from woven material and non-woven material, such as a mesh, knitted material, paper, felt, mat or cloth ([0078]).
Regarding claim 35, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches each of said plurality of porous layers comprises a fluorinated polymer ([0015]).
Regarding claim 41, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki fails to teach at least one porous layer of the plurality of porous layers comprises ceramic material. Roumi teaches at least one porous layer of the plurality of porous layers comprises ceramic materials ([0022]).
Suzuki and Roumi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite electrolyte membranes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include ceramic materials because they are well known reinforcing materials used to improve thermal stability, mechanical strength, and safety characteristics in electrochemical devices.
Regarding claim 46, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches each porous layer of said plurality of porous layers is non-conductive ([0078]). Suzuki specifically teaches non-conductive materials including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polypropylene (PP), polyester, polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), polysulfone (PSU), polyether sulfone (PES), polyetherimide (PEI), and polymethyl pentene (PMP).
Regarding claim 49, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane is an integral structure such that individual components of the composite electrolyte membrane cannot be separated without any damage or irreversible deformation occurring to any of the individual components ([0011], microporous polymer structure 105, ion exchange material 110). Suzuki specifically teaches the materials are embedded with each other meaning they are an integral structure that cannot be separated without any damage therefore teaching the limitations of claim 49.
Regarding claim 51, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches:
A membrane electrode assembly for an electrochemical device ([0096-0097], Fig. 5A, 5B), comprising:
at least one electrode comprising ([0096-0097], Fig. 5A, 5B):
a first electrode ([0096-0097], Fig. 5A, 5B);
the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 1 adjacent to the at least one electrode such that the first porous layer is between the first electrode ([0096-0097], Fig. 5A, 5B)
at least one reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane ([0096-0097], Fig. 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 59, Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 51, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches at least one electrode comprises an electrode catalyst layer comprising at least one electrode catalyst ([0097]).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches at least one layer of the ion exchange material has a thickness at 0 % RH from about 0.5 μm to about 20 μm ([0115], [0148]). Suzuki specifically teaches a thickness of 9.9 μm at 0 % RH.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 32, Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Suzuki further teaches the reinforced polymer electrolyte membrane has a thickness in the range of from 4 μm to 30 μm ([0115], [0148], [0204]). Suzuki specifically teaches a thickness in the range of 4.9 μm to 14.5 μm.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Roumi, and in further view of Otani et al. (JP 2014197477), hereinafter Otani.
Regarding claim 40, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki fails to teach at least one porous layer of the plurality of porous layers comprises a glass fiber. Otani teaches at least one porous layer of the plurality of porous layers comprises a glass fiber ([0028]).
Suzuki and Otani are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite electrolyte membranes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include glass fibers because they are well known reinforcing materials used to improve the mechanical strength, dimensional stability, and durability of electrolyte membrane and separator structures in electrochemical devices.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Roumi, and in further view of Mittelsteadt et al. (US 20120237848), hereinafter Mittelsteadt.
Regarding claim 72, Suzuki and Roumi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Suzuki fails to teach an electrolyzer comprising the composite electrolyte membrane according to claim 1. Mittelsteadt teaches an electrolyzer comprising a composite electrolyte membrane (Abstract, Use). Suzuki and Mittelsteadt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite electrolyte membranes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the composite electrolyte membrane of Suzuki in the electrolyzer system taught by Mittelsteadt. The motivation to substitute the membrane of Suzuki for the membrane used in Mittelsteadt would be to obtain the known advantage of improved mechanical strength, durability, and ionic transport characteristics. The combination merely involves the substitution of one known electrolyte membrane for another known electrolyte membrane to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
