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 with partial traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 29 July 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is between Groups I and II in view of the claim amendments. This is persuasive and groups I and II have been joined for Examination. No traversal was made on Group III. This requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-23 and 39-40 are thus presently under Examination with claims 28 and 33 cancelled and claims 24-27 and 29-38 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 and 39-40 objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, it appears the instance of “and” at line 5 should also have been removed in the amendment removing the limitation “in contact with the anode layer”.
As to claim 2, an appropriate superscript should be utilized with “cm2”.
Claims 3-23 and 39-40 are objected to based on their dependence on claims 1 and/or 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All limitations presented in claim 40 are already recited in claim 1, upon which claim 40 is dependent. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7, 10, 17 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Non-Patent Literature “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, Parra teaches an electrolyzer comprises a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymeric electrolyte membrane between an in contact with an anode layer and a cathode layer (Greenerity E300 MEA) and a porous transport layer (PTL) on the anode side in contact with the anode having a porous structure with an average pore size of, for example, 35 microns, and an average porosity of, for example, 34% (Experimental, Materials and Set Up; Table 1). The electrolyzer configured with inlets and outlets at both the anode and cathode surfaces and thus is configured to allow for operation as a carbon oxide electrolyzer (Figure 1; MPEP 2114).
As to claim 2, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. While comprising functional language, Parra further specifically teaches that the cell operates at a temperatures of 60 and 80 °C and in current ranges of 1000 mA/cm2 or less (1 A/cm2 or less) (Figure 9) with a water anode feed (Abstract). The cell is configured to received water and would be capable of receiving water with a metal ion concentration of at least about 0.5 mM (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 3, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The cell of Parra comprising the MEA and inlets and outlet as disclosed, would be configured to perform the function language of “to electrolyze carbon dioxide and produce carbon monoxide” depending on the feeds and operating conditions such as voltage and temperature (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 4, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The cell of Parra comprising the MEA and inlets and outlet as disclosed, would be configured to perform the function language of “to electrolyze carbon dioxide and produce a hydrocarbon, an alcohol, a carboxylic acid, an aldehyde, or any combination thereof” depending on the feeds and operating conditions such as voltage and temperature (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. While functional limitations Parra specifically teaches that the electrolyzer is configured to electrolyze anode water a flow rate of, for example, 17.28 L/hr (288 mL/min) (Experimental, Materials and Set Up).
As to claim 6, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39.Parra further teaches that the apparatus comprises a anode flow field (channeled anode side end plate) in contact with the PTL on an opposite side from the MEA anode layer (Experimental, Materials and Set Up).
As to claim 7, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Parra further teaches that the PTL comprises sintered titanium, thus essentially entirely titanium and more than 50% titanium (Experimental, Materials and Set Up).
As to claim 10, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Parra further teaches that the PTL can have a thickness of, for example, 0.2, 0.26, 0.3 or 0.5 mm (200, 260, 300 and 500 microns) (Page 8096, Paragraph 2).
As to claim 17, Parra teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Parra further teaches that the PTL is formed of sintered titanium powder, at least some of which, at least after sintering, would be at least slightly non-spherical (Experimental, Materials and Set Up).
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0242021 A1 to Blanchet et al. (Blanchet).
As to claims 1 and 39, Blanchet teaches an electrolyzer comprising an MEA comprising an anode layer and a cathode layer surrounding and in contact with a polymeric electrolyte layer, and a porous transport layer (three dimensional porous flow structure) on each of the anode and cathode side, the porous transport layer having an average pore size of, for example, 50 microns, and an average porosity (void volume) of about 55%, considered to be “about” 50% (particularly in view of Applicant’s discussion of “about” in paragraph 0039 of the specification as filed as +/- 10%) (Paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0029, 0030, 0034 and 0058). Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with reactants and products such as hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional (and preamble only) language of “a carbon oxide electrolyzer” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 2, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional language of “to operate at a temperature of about 0 to 80°C, electrolyzer anode water having a metal ion concentration of at least about 0.5 mM, and operate at an anode current density of about 1000 mA/cm2 or lower” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 3, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional language of “to electrolyze carbon dioxide and produce carbon monoxide” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 4, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional language of “to electrolyze carbon dioxide and produce a hydrocarbon, an alcohol, a carboxylic acid, an aldehyde, or any combination thereof” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 5, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional language of “to electrolyze anode water at a rate of about 1 L/hr or greater” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 6, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer can be formed in contact with an anode flow field opposite from the anode layer (Paragraph 0029).
As to claim 7, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer comprises a single metal such as titanium, thus essentially entirely titanium and more than at least about 50% by weight (Paragraph 0030).
As to claim 10, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer can have a thickness of, for example, 0.25 mm (Paragraph 0057).
As to claim 11, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer has a graded structure with the average pore size varying when moving in a direction away from the anode layer of the MEA (Paragraphs 0037-0039 and 0041).
As to claim 19, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer comprises a composite structure, i.e. multilayer (Paragraphs 0037-0039).
As to claim 20, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Blanchet further teaches that the apparatus comprises a microporous layer in contact with the anode layer, the porous transport layer in contact with the MPL on a die of the MPL opposite the anode layer (Paragraphs 0037 to 0040).
As to claim 22, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Blanchet teaches that the cell is configured with inlets and outlets into each of the anode and cathode sides of the MEA and formed with material that are capable of operating with hydrogen, oxygen, water and air (Figure 1) and thus a cell that is configured to perform the functional language of “to electrolyze anode water at a rate of about 1 L/hr or greater” (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 23, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer can be formed in contact with an anode flow field opposite from the anode layer (Paragraph 0029).
As to claim 40, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, Blanchet teaches that the porous transport layer has an average pore size of, for example, 40 microns, and an average porosity (void volume) of about 55%, considered to be “about” 50% (particularly in view of Applicant’s discussion of “about” in paragraph 0039 of the specification as filed as +/- 10%) (Paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0029, 0030 and 0034).
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, 9, 13 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 Blanchet.
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 (coated titanium mesh gas diffusion layer) (Paragraph 0162 and 0166; Figure 1A). The cell of Tembhurne configured with material allowing for the cell to operate as a carbon oxide electrolyzer (MPEP 2114).
However, Tembhurne fails to teach any particularly desirable pore size or porosity for the gas diffusion layer. However, Blanchet also discusses gas diffusion structures and teaches that effective porosity and pore size for this layer to ensure the maintenance of sufficient fluid permeability but also electrically conductivity is an average pore size of, for example, 50 microns, and an average porosity (void volume) of about 55%, considered to be “about” 50% (particularly in view of Applicant’s discussion of “about” in paragraph 0039 of the specification as filed as +/- 10%) (Paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0029, 0030, 0034 and 0058). 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, the gas diffusion layer, of Tembhurne, with a pore size of 50 microns and an average porosity of about 55% with the reasonable expectation of effectively ensuring fluid permeability and electrical conductivity as taught by Blanchet.
As to claim 13, the combination of Tembhurne and Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. As discussed above, Tembhurne teaches that the porous transport layer has a mesh structure. However, Tembhurne specifically teaches that the electrolyzer include an anode flow field in addition to this structure (Paragraph 0037). 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 Tembhurne 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of US 4,561,946 to Suhara et al. (Suhara).
As to claim 8, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet further teaches that the porous transport layer comprises a single metal such as titanium, thus essentially entirely titanium and more than at least about 50% by weight (Paragraph 0030). However, Blanchet 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 Blanchet 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 Blanchet as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of US 2005/0106450 A1 to Castro et al. (Castro).
As to claim 12, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. However, Blanchet 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.
Claims 14-16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet as applied to claims 20 and 39 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 14, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet teaches that the porous transport layer is formed by compression applied to a porous metallic material which can then be filled with a porous metallic fill material to modify the uniformity, these steps applied in order to result in a desired thickness, smoothness, yield strength and elastic modulus (Paragraph 0044). These properties resulting in a specific compressibility through its thickness. However, Blanchet fails to specifically teach the compressibility properties as claimed. However, Blanchet further specifically contemplates these properties for application as an electrochemical hydrogen compression (Paragraph 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method steps of compression and filling to result in specific desired properties for other electrochemical reactions. Thus rendering obvious optimizing the porous transport layer to result in the compressibility limitation as claimed.
As to claim 15, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet teaches that the porous transport layer is formed by compression applied to a porous metallic material which can then be filled with a porous metallic fill material to modify the uniformity, these steps applied in order to result in a desired thickness, smoothness, yield strength and elastic modulus (Paragraph 0044). These properties resulting in a specific flexural modulus. However, Blanchet fails to specifically teach the flexural modulus as claimed. However, Blanchet further specifically contemplates these properties for application as an electrochemical hydrogen compression (Paragraph 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method steps of compression and filling to result in specific desired properties for other electrochemical reactions. Thus rendering obvious optimizing the porous transport layer to result in the flexural modulus limitation as claimed.
As to claim 16, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet teaches that the porous transport layer is formed by compression applied to a porous metallic material which can then be filled with a porous metallic fill material to modify the uniformity, these steps applied in order to result in a desired thickness, smoothness, yield strength and elastic modulus (Paragraph 0044). However, Blanchet fails to specifically teach the yield strength as claimed. However, Blanchet further specifically contemplates these properties for application as an electrochemical hydrogen compression (Paragraph 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method steps of compression and filling to result in specific desired properties for other electrochemical reactions. Thus rendering obvious optimizing the porous transport layer to result in the yield strength limitation as claimed.
As to claim 18, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 39. Blanchet fails to specifically teach that the roughness of the PTL is about 11 to 16 microns where the PTL contacts the anode layer. However, Blanchet does specifically teach that the roughness is important in terms of surface contact and voltage drop (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the roughness in order to optimize the voltage drop as desired for the intended use of the apparatus (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 21, Blanchet teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Blanchet fails to specifically teach that the roughness of the MPL is about 11 to 16 microns where the MPL contacts the anode layer. However, Blanchet does specifically teach that the roughness is important in terms of surface contact and voltage drop (Paragraphs 0036 and 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the roughness in order to optimize the voltage drop as desired for the intended use of the apparatus (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
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