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 of Group I with respect to Group III in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 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)).
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I with respect to Group II in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “…the inventions are interrelated and that a search of one group of claims will reveal art to the other, and that the invention of Group I is useful in the invention of Group II, and it is believed that the inventions of Groups I, and II are closely related in the Technical Field so a proper search of any of the claims would, by necessity, require a proper search of the other”. This is found persuasive.
Therefore, the Restriction Requirement between Groups I and II is withdrawn. The Restriction Requirement between Groups I and II and Group III is maintained.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/24/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Fig. 1 is provided with the written specification, however, the written specification does not mention “Fig. 1”, “FIG. 1”, or “Figure 1”. The written specification does not appear to mention the figure at all.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the liquid composition comprises a solvent, optionally wherein the solvent is water.”
MPEP 2173.05(h) II states “Another alternative format which requires some analysis before concluding whether or not the language is indefinite involves the use of the term "optionally." In Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) the language "containing A, B, and optionally C" was considered acceptable alternative language because there was no ambiguity as to which alternatives are covered by the claim. A similar holding was reached with regard to the term "optionally" in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).”
Claim 8 is considered clear given there is no ambiguity as to which alternatives are covered by the claim. The solvent of claim 8 can be any solvent.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the fluorinated polymer” when it should recite “the ionic fluorinated polymer” in order to ensure full and proper antecedent basis within the claims.
Claim 2 ends the claim in a comma, however, the claim should be ended with a period.
Claim 6 states “wherein the ionic fluorinated polymer is a highly fluorinated or perfluorinated”. It appears the “a” is erroneous and causes a grammatical issue.
Claim 15 states “where the annealing is at a temperature below 200°C”. This claim should state “where the annealing is performed at a temperature below 200°C” given annealing is a process to be performed.
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.
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.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the bis(sulfonyl)imide salt" in line 2 and “the metal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the side chain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which side chain of the plurality of side chains is “the side chain”.
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, 5-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hamrock discloses a method of making a polymer electrolyte membrane, the method (see entire disclosure and especially P23, 31-32) comprising:
disposing a liquid composition on a substrate, wherein the liquid composition comprises an ionic fluorinated polymer (in P31-32, Hamrock discloses an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition) and then casted onto a glass plate (substrate)).
The Examples of Hamrock do not use an ionic fluorinated polymer comprising a plurality of side chains having a protogenic group in a salt form. However, Hamrock discloses the polymer electrolyte membrane can comprise a polymer having a highly fluorinate backbone, typically a perfluorinated backbone, and recurring pendant groups attached to the backbone according to the formula: YOSO2—CF2—CF2—CF2—CF2—O—[polymer backbone] wherein Y can be an alkali metal cation, typically Na+ (P17-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the polymer having a perfluorinated backbone, and recurring pendant groups attached to the backbone according to the formula: YOSO2—CF2—CF2—CF2—CF2—O—[polymer backbone] wherein Y is Na+ as the polymer formed into a liquid dispersion (composition) and then casted onto a glass plate (substrate) to form the membrane of Hamrock, given Hamrock teaches such a polymer can be used for forming a polymer electrolyte membrane and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Hamrock is silent to the T(α) of the ionic fluorinated polymer. However, given the starting materials and process of preparing the membrane in Hamrock (see P26-32) are similar to that of Applicant’s invention, and modified Hamrock includes an ionic fluorinated polymer wherein the protogenic group is in a salt form (see P17-18), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably presume that the T(α) of the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock would fall within the claimed range.
Alternatively, Chen teaches fluoropolymer dispersions useful for making a polymer electrolyte membrane (P81, 86). Chen teaches copolymers in the fluoropolymer dispersions of their disclosure are generally considered ionomers (P42).
Chen teaches ionomers typically exhibit a thermal transition between a state in which the ionic clusters are closely associated and a state in which the interactions between those clusters have been weakened (P42). Chen teaches this transition is described as an alpha transition, and the transition temperature is T(α) (P42).
Chen teaches ionomers with higher T(α) typically have greater mechanical integrity at elevated temperatures than corresponding materials with lower T(α); as a result, to obtain high service temperatures for an ionomer, a relatively high T(α) can be desirable for ionomers (P42). Chen teaches the a-dispersion temperature T(α) of their ionomers used in forming polymer electrolyte membranes (P86) is at least 95° C, 100° C, 105° C, 110° C, or 115° C (P42).
However, Chen also teaches they have found that decreasing the T(α) can increase oxygen permeability and that selecting a T(α) to obtain a balance of mechanical integrity and oxygen permeability can be useful (P42). In this case, Chen teaches in some embodiments, the a-dispersion temperature [T(α)] of copolymer of the present disclosure is up to 110° C, 105° C, or 100° C, or less than 100° C, in some embodiments, up to 99.5° C or 99° C (P42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Chen and selected wherein the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock has a T(α) that is greater than or equal to 95° C and less than or equal to 110° C, given Chen teaches this balances mechanical integrity and oxygen permeability of an ionomer used for making a polymer electrolyte membrane.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the teaching of Chen that the T(α) of an ionomer, such as the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock, is a result-effective variable based upon the desired balance between mechanical integrity and oxygen permeability of said ionomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized, through routine experimentation, the T(α) of the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock in order to reach one of ordinary skill in the art’s desired balance between mechanical integrity and oxygen permeability of the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the ionic fluorinated polymer has an equivalent weight of at least 700 and at most 1200 grams/mole (800-1200; see entire disclosure and especially P7, 15, 22).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the ionic fluorinated polymer is a highly fluorinated or perfluorinated (perfluorinated; see entire disclosure and especially P17-18).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the ionic fluorinated polymer is derived from at least a tetrafluoroethylene monomer and a vinyl ether monomer (see entire disclosure and especially P17-20).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the liquid composition comprises a solvent, optionally wherein the solvent is water (in P31-32, Hamrock discloses an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition) and then casted onto a glass plate (substrate); the liquid dispersion (composition) includes water).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the method further comprises drying the liquid composition on the substrate (in P31-32, Hamrock discloses an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), and the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C).
Regarding claim 11, in the Examples of Hamrock (P31-32), an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C, and then annealed for 10 minutes at 200° C.
However, Hamrock also discloses “ The polymer can be formed into a membrane by any suitable method. The polymer is typically cast from a suspension. Any suitable casting method may be used, including bar coating, spray coating, slit coating, brush coating, and the like. Alternately, the membrane may be formed from neat polymer in a melt process such as extrusion” (P23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hamrock and formed the membrane using extrusion, given Hamrock teaches the membrane may be formed from neat polymer in a melt process such as extrusion. Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In this way, given the polymer electrolyte membrane of modified Hamrock is formed using extrusion, the liquid composition comprising the ionic fluorinated polymer would be an extrudate.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the substrate is a temporary substrate (in P31-32, Hamrock discloses an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C, then annealed for 10 minutes at 200° C, then the membranes were removed from the glass by placing the glass plate into water after cooling; therefore, the glass plate is a temporary substrate).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the method further comprises annealing the ionic fluorinated polymer after disposing the liquid composition on the substrate (in P31-32, Hamrock discloses an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C, and then annealed for 10 minutes at 200° C).
Regarding claim 15, in the Examples of Hamrock (P31-32), an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C, and then annealed for 10 minutes at 200° C.
However, Hamrock also discloses the membrane may be annealed, typically at a temperature of 120° C or higher (P23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hamrock and performed the annealing at a temperature of 120° C or higher rather than strictly at 200° C, given Hamrock teaches the annealing can be performed at these temperatures. Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
The annealing being performed at a temperature of 120° C or higher overlaps the claimed range of below 200° C, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 16, modified Hamrock meets the limitation a polymer electrolyte membrane made according to claim 1 (see entire disclosure and especially P6, 14-18, 23, 31-32).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hamrock meets the limitation An electrochemical cell comprising the polymer electrolyte membrane made according to claim 16 (fuel cell; see entire disclosure and especially P1, 8, 13, 16, 35-36).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hamrock et al (US 20130029249 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Hamrock ‘249”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hamrock includes the ionic fluorinated polymer being a polymer having a perfluorinated backbone, and recurring pendant groups attached to the backbone according to the formula: YOSO2—CF2—CF2—CF2—CF2—O—[polymer backbone] wherein Y is Na+ (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In a similar field of endeavor, Hamrock ‘249 teaches materials that may be useful for proton exchange membranes (PEM) (Abstract). Hamrock ‘249 teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane that includes a polymer according to the current description (P18).
Hamrock ‘249 teaches the polymer comprises a highly fluorinated, more typically perfluorinated, backbone (P63).
Hamrock ‘249 teaches a polymer having pendent groups comprising groups according to formula VI: —R3—SO2—NZ—SO2(CF2)nSO3Y wherein where n is 1-6 and Y is hydrogen or an alkali metal; and wherein Z is chosen from the group consisting of H and suitable countercations (P84-85). Hamrock ‘249 discloses suitable countercations can cations of alkali metals (P86). Hamrock discloses R3 is —O—R4—wherein R4 is a branched or unbranched highly fluorinated aliphatic group comprising 1-15 carbon atoms and 0-4 oxygen atoms (P87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hamrock ‘249 and substituted the polymer of Hamrock ‘249 (having pendent groups comprising groups according to formula VI described above and in P63, 84-85, 86, and 87) with the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock, given Hamrock ‘249 teaches their polymers can be used for a polymer electrolyte membrane and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
From this modification, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the protogenic group is selected from a bis(sulfonyl)imide salt.
Regarding claim 3, Hamrock ‘249 teaches Z in formula VI can include a suitable counteraction (P84-85) and suitable countercations can cations of alkali metals (P86).
It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that alkali metals are lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), Rubidium (Rb), Cesium (Cs), or Francium (Fr).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected Z in formula VI of the polymer of modified Hamrock to be a cation of Li, Na, K, Cs, given they are known alkali metals, Hamrock ‘249 teaches Z in formula VI can include cations of alkali metals, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07)), and the combination would be obvious to try. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
From this modification, modified Hamrock meets the limitation wherein the protogenic group is selected from a bis(sulfonyl)imide salt, and wherein the bis(sulfonyl)imide salt is a bis(sulfonyl)imide metal salt, wherein the metal is selected from Na, K, Li, or Cs.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Desmarteau (US 5463005 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hamrock includes the ionic fluorinated polymer being a polymer having a perfluorinated backbone, and recurring pendant groups attached to the backbone according to the formula: YOSO2—CF2—CF2—CF2—CF2—O—[polymer backbone] wherein Y is Na+ (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, modified Hamrock does not meet the limitation wherein the side chain comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
9
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where x is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6; m is 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and
PNG
media_image1.png
9
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a suitable counter cation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Desmarteau teaches monomers such as
PNG
media_image2.png
158
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(C4 / L66 – C5 / L10).
Desmarteau teaches the monomers may be polymerized with other variables monomers such as tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) to provide copolymers useful for making various products, including electrolytic fuel cell membranes (C5 / L17-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Desmarteau and substituted the ionic fluorinated polymer of modified Hamrock with the copolymer formed from one of the materials listed in the picture above and a tetrafluoroethylene monomer as taught by Desmarteau, given Desmarteau teaches such a copolymer would be useful for making electrolytic fuel cell membranes and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
From this modification, modified Hamrock would meet the limitaiton wherein the side chain comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
9
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where x is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6; m is 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and
PNG
media_image1.png
9
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a suitable counter cation (M+ being sodium).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fuller et al (US 20120115066 A1).
Regarding claim 10, in the Examples of Hamrock (P31-32), an ionic fluorinated polymer is formed into a liquid dispersion (composition), casted onto a glass plate (substrate), the castings were then dried for 10 minutes at 90° C, then annealed for 10 minutes at 200° C, then the membranes were removed from the glass by placing the glass plate into water after cooling.
However, modified Hamrock does not meet the limitation wherein the substrate is a supporting matrix.
In a similar field of endeavor, Fuller teaches polymer electrolyte membranes can be used in fuel cells (P5). Fuller teaches in order to maintain consistent fuel cell stack pressures, membranes are needed which swell uniformly and then only marginally in the presence of liquid water (P9). Fuller teaches one method used to make the membrane films swell more uniformly and reduce internal stress is to prepare membrane films by solution-casting (P12). Fuller teaches another approach is to reinforce the ionomer by incorporating it into a non-swelling support structure (P12). Fuller teaches this method is practiced by W. L. Gore, Inc., which markets composite membranes made with low equivalent weight, PFSA ionomer that is imbibed into a porous, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene support matrix (P12). Fuller teaches the structural strength of the membrane is reinforced and uniform swelling is maintained by the polytetrafluoroethylene support structure (P12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Fuller and chosen to form the polymer electrolyte membrane of modified Hamrock by casting/incorporating the liquid dispersion including the ionic fluorinated polymer into a non-swelling support structure such as a polytetrafluoroethylene support structure, given Fuller teaches this can reinforce the structural strength of a membrane and maintain uniform swelling of the membrane. Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.), and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Prugh et al (US 20050067345 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hamrock does not meet the limitation wherein the temporary substrate comprises a polyolefin or a polyester (given the temporary substrate of Hamrock is a glass plate).
In a similar field of endeavor, Prugh teaches temporary substrates for use in manufacturing a catalyst coated membrane for a fuel cell include dimensionally stable substrates including polyesters and polyolefins having a release surface (P12-20, 24, 62-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Prugh and substituted the temporary substrate of a glass plate of modified Hamrock with a polyolefin or a polyester temporary substrate as taught by Prugh, given Prugh teaches these as known temporary substrates to be used in forming membranes for fuel cells and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) or Hamrock et al (US 20040121210 A1, given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) in view of Chen et al (US 20200199259 A1 given in the 02/28/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Kim et al (US 20170331136 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hamrock does not meet the limitation wherein the electrochemical cell is a flow battery (given the electrochemical cell of Hamrock is a fuel cell).
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a core constituent in a fuel cell and a redox flow battery is a polymer electrolyte membrane (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim and utilized the polymer electrolyte membrane of modified Hamrock in a redox flow battery rather than a fuel cell, given Kim teaches a core constituent for both a fuel cell and a redox flow battery is a polymer electrolyte membrane and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
