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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 22 April 2026. Claims 1-27, 29-32, 34-39, 41 and 42 are currently pending of which claims 24-27, 29-32 and 34-38 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 22 April 2026. The objections to the claims presented in the Office Action of 22 October 2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 22 April 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 22 October 2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 22 April 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 22 October 2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0321334 A1 to Kuhl et al. (Kuhl) in view of US 2025/0010370 A1 to Madkour et al. (Madkour).
As to claims 1, 19 and 39, Kuhl teaches a carbon oxide electrolyzer comprising a gaseous carbon oxide source coupled to a cathode side of the carbon oxide electrolyzer, a membrane electrode assembly comprising a cathode layer (620), an anode layer (640) and a polymeric electrolyte layer (660) between and in contact with the cathode layer and the anode layer (Paragraphs 0067 and 0080; Figure 6). Kuhl further teaches that the anode side has a porous transport layer formed of titanium (anode gas diffusion layer (646)) and the cathode side has a porous transport layer (cathode gas diffusion layer (626)) (Paragraphs 0070 and 0071; Figure 6).
However, Kuhl fail to further teach a specific pore size or porosity of either of the porous transport layers. However, Madkour also discusses titanium porous transport layers for electrolyzers and teaches that the porous transport layer should be formed of a composite structure, at least a portion of the composite structure comprising an average pore size of 14-40 microns with a porosity of, for example, 40%, in order to form a porous transport layer with overall better water transport, better oxygen transport, better interfacial contact to catalyst and corresponding catalyst utilization, better mechanical properties, higher efficiency and lower total capital expenditures (Paragraph 0316-0333). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the anode side porous transport layer of Kuhl with the porous transport layer of Madkour in order to utilize a porous transport layer with overall better water transport, better oxygen transport, better interfacial contact to catalyst and corresponding catalyst utilization, better mechanical properties, higher efficiency and lower total capital expenditures as taught by Madkour.
As to claim 2, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The remaining limitations of claim 2 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Kuhl further specifically teaches that the electrolyzer operates with anode water (Paragraph 0035).
As to claim 3, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 3 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Nonetheless, Kuhl specifically teaches that the electrolyzer is configured to electrolyzer carbon dioxide and produce carbon monoxide (Paragraph 0084).
As to claim 4, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 4 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Nonetheless, Kuhl specifically teaches that the electrolyzer is configured to electrolyzer carbon dioxide and produce, for example, hydrocarbons or alcohols (Paragraph 0084).
As to claim 5, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The remaining limitations of claim 5 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 6, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Kuhl further teaches that the apparatus comprises an anode flow field (644) in contact with the anode side porous transport layer (646) on a side of the anode side porous transport layer (646) opposite the anode layer (640) (Paragraphs 0067 and 0071; Figure 6).
As to claim 10, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Madkour further teaches that the porous transport layer has a thickness of 0.48 mm (480 microns) (Paragraph 0365).
As to claims 11 and 42, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 39. Madkour further teaches that the PTL has a graded structure in which the average pore size and the average porosity varies when moving in a direction away from the anode layer of the MEA (i.e. through at least a portion of the thickness) (Paragraphs 0324 and 0325).
As to claim 17, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Madkour further teaches that the porous transport layer is formed of sintered particles that can have a non-spherical (triangular) shape (Paragraphs 0067 and 0317).
As to claim 18, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Madkour further teaches that the surface of the PTL that contacts the anode layer (catalyst layer) should be roughed in order to ensure intimate electrically conductive contact (Paragraph 0314). Madkour fails to specifically give a desired value for this roughness however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the roughness value in order to optimize the intimate electrically conductive contact (MPEP 2144.05 II).
As to claim 20, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The porous transport layer of Madkour comprises two layers, thus a first layer in contact with the anode layer that can be considered a microporous layer and a second layer in contact with the microporous layer opposite to the anode layer that can be considered a porous transport layer (Paragraphs 0320-0322).
As to claim 21, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Madkour further teaches that the surface of the microporous layer that contacts the anode layer (catalyst layer) should be roughed in order to ensure intimate electrically conductive contact (Paragraph 0314). Madkour fails to specifically give a desired value for this roughness however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the roughness value in order to optimize the intimate electrically conductive contact (MPEP 2144.05 II).
As to claim 22, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 20. The remaining limitations of claim 5 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 23, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Kuhl further teaches that the apparatus comprises an anode flow field (644) in contact with the anode side porous transport layer (646) on a side of the anode side porous transport layer (646) opposite the anode layer (640) (Paragraphs 0067 and 0071; Figure 6). Thus also opposite the microporous layer of the combination.
As to claim 41, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Madkour fails to specifically teach an embodiment in which the microporous layer has a porosity of 10 to 15%, giving a specific example with a higher porosity of 30%. However, Madkour specifically teach that it is desirable to have the lowest porosity in contact with the catalyst layer (anode layer of the claims) in order to achieve the desired intimate electrically conductive contact (Paragraph 0270 and 0314). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that this porosity could be formed lower in order to achieve better electrical contact, thus rendering obvious optimization within the range of 10-15% (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 1-7, 14, 15, 16 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhl in view of the NPL “Influence of the porous transport layer properties on the mass and charge transfer in a segmented PEM electrolyzer” to Parra-Restrepo et al. (Parra).
As to claims 1 and 39, As to claims 1 and 39, Kuhl teaches a carbon oxide electrolyzer comprising a gaseous carbon oxide source coupled to a cathode side of the carbon oxide electrolyzer, a membrane electrode assembly comprising a cathode layer (620), an anode layer (640) and a polymeric electrolyte layer (660) between and in contact with the cathode layer and the anode layer (Paragraphs 0067 and 0080; Figure 6). Kuhl further teaches that the anode side has a porous transport layer (anode gas diffusion layer (646)) formed of titanium and the cathode side has a porous transport layer (cathode gas diffusion layer (626)) (Paragraphs 0070 and 0071; Figure 6).
However, Kuhl fails to further teach a specific pore size or porosity of either of the porous transport layers. However, Parra also discusses titanium porous transport layers for electrolysis cells and teaches that an effective pore size is around 10 microns and an effective porosity is 31% (Abstract; Conclusions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the anode side porous transport layer of Kuhl with a pore size of around 10 microns and a porosity of 31% with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the porous transport layer as taught by Parra.
As to claim 2, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The remaining limitations of claim 2 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Kuhl further specifically teaches that the electrolyzer operates with anode water (Paragraph 0035).
As to claim 3, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 3 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Nonetheless, Kuhl specifically teaches that the electrolyzer is configured to electrolyzer carbon dioxide and produce carbon monoxide (Paragraph 0084).
As to claim 4, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 4 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114). Nonetheless, Kuhl specifically teaches that the electrolyzer is configured to electrolyzer carbon dioxide and produce, for example, hydrocarbons or alcohols (Paragraph 0084).
As to claim 5, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The remaining limitations of claim 5 are functional limitations, the apparatus of Kuhl would be capable of performing these functional limitations (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 6, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Kuhl further teaches that the apparatus comprises an anode flow field (644) in contact with the anode side porous transport layer (646) on a side of the anode side porous transport layer (646) opposite the anode layer (640) (Paragraphs 0067 and 0071; Figure 6).
As to claim 7, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Kuhl (Paragraph 0072) and Parra (Conclusions) both teach that the anode side porous transport layer comprises titanium, thus essentially titanium and more than about 50% by weight.
As to claim 14, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The porous transport layer of Parra is a sintered titanium layer with a porosity in the claimed range and a pore size in the claimed range, and thus would be expected to inherently have the same properties as claimed by applicant (MPEP 2112). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the compressibility of the porous transport layer in order to optimize the operation of the cell depending on the desired operating conditions such as pressure, temperate and flow rates (MPEP 2144.05 II).
As to claim 15, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The porous transport layer of Parra is a sintered titanium layer with a porosity in the claimed range and a pore size in the claimed range, and thus would be expected to inherently have the same properties as claimed by applicant (MPEP 2112). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the flexural modulus of the porous transport layer in order to optimize the operation of the cell depending on the desired operating conditions such as pressure, temperate and flow rates (MPEP 2144.05 II).
As to claim 16, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. The porous transport layer of Parra is a sintered titanium layer with a porosity in the claimed range and a pore size in the claimed range, and thus would be expected to inherently have the same properties as claimed by applicant (MPEP 2112). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the yield strength of the porous transport layer in order to optimize the operation of the cell depending on the desired operating conditions such as pressure, temperate and flow rates (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 1, 9 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0177860 A1 to Tembhurne et al. (Tembhurne) in view of Parra.
As to claims 1, 9 and 39, Tembhurne teaches an electrolyzer comprising an MEA comprising an anode layer (catalyst layer of anode (17)) and a cathode layer (catalyst layer of cathode (19)) surrounding and in contact with a polymeric electrolyte layer (nafion membrane (21)), and a porous transport layer comprises platinum coated titanium mesh (gas diffusion layer) (Paragraph 0162 and 0166; Figure 1A). The cell of Tembhurne specifically configured for the reduction of carbon dioxide, and thus in this embodiment requiring cathode (reduction electrode) communication with a source of carbon dioxide (Paragraphs 0005 and 0016).
However, Tembhurne fails to further teach a specific pore size or porosity of either of the porous transport layers. However, Parra also discusses titanium porous transport layers for electrolysis cells and teaches that an effective pore size is around 10 microns and an effective porosity is 31% (Abstract; Conclusions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the anode side porous transport layer of Tembhurne with a pore size of around 10 microns and a porosity of 31% with the reasonable expectation of effectively forming the porous transport layer as taught by Parra.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuhl and Parra as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of US 4,561,946 to Suhara et al. (Suhara).
As to claim 8, the combination of Kuhl and Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Kuhl (Paragraph 0072) and Parra (Conclusions) both teach that the anode side porous transport layer comprises titanium, thus essentially titanium and more than about 50% by weight. However, the combination fails to contemplate niobium. Suhara also discusses porous layers on the anode side of electrochemical cells and teaches that an effective equivalent to titanium is niobium (Column 4, Lines 3-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the titanium of the combination with niobium as a known equivalent as taught by Suhara (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuhl and Madkour as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of US 2005/0106450 A1 to Castro et al. (Castro).
As to claim 12, the combination of Kuhl and Madkour teaches the apparatus of claim 39. However, the combination fails to further teach that the PTL has a graded hydrophobicity such that the hydrophobicity increases when moving in a direction away from the anode layer of the MEA. However, Castro also discusses gas diffusion structures and teaches that in addition to a porosity gradient a hydrophobicity gradient that increases away from the MEA should be formed in the gas diffusion layer in order to promote efficient gas transport and result in overall enhanced performance (Abstract; Paragraphs 0011 and 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the porous transport layer, equivalent to the gas diffusion structure of Castro, with a hydrophobicity gradient increases away from the MEA in addition to a porosity gradient in order to promote efficient gas transport and result in overall enhanced performance as taught by Castro.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuhl and Para as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of US 2019/0242021 A1 to Blanchet et al. (Blanchet).
As to claim 13, the combination of Kuhl and Para teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Kuhl further teaches that the anode side porous transport layer comprises a titanium mesh (Paragraph 0071). However, Kuhl specifically teaches that the electrolyzer include an anode flow field in addition to the mesh porous transport layer (Paragraph 0071). However, Blanchet further teaches that a porous gas flow field can be used with and without a corresponding flow field plate (Paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Kuhl without the use of a flow field plate as a known equivalent to a separate flow field plate as taught by Blanchet (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights