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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-6 and 11 in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of the two groups of claims can be searched without undue burden. This is not found persuasive because, for a restriction of a national stage application under the requirement for unity of invention, serious burden does not need to be established (see MPEP 1893.03(d)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are under consideration in this Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, particularly in paragraph 0006 of the instant specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 1-6 and 11 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.
The term “thin” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not explicitly set out what constitutes “thin” in the context of the protective layer. Paragraph 0058 of the instant specification describes an embodiment having a layer thickness of about 50 nm to 200 nm, particularly 80 nm to 120 nm, presumable falling within the described “thin” scope. Paragraph 0059 of the instant specification then describes deposition of “very thin layers” with a layer thickness of “a few nanometers to a few micrometers”. It is therefore unclear what range of layer thicknesses falls within the claimed scope of “thin”. For examination purposes, “thin” has been interpreted as micrometer-scale or less, based on paragraph 0059 of the instant specification.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a gas diffusion layer…wherein the fine-mesh support material is formed" in lines 2-3. The limitation of “a gas diffusion layer made from a fine-mesh metallic support material” is previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the “gas diffusion layer” of claim 6 is referring to this previous limitation or introducing a new limitation. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to refer to the previous limitation.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (“Performance enhancement of PEM electrolyzers through iridium-coated titanium porous transport layers”, Electrochem. Comm., 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an electrolysis cell for polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis (see e.g. Abstract and Page 97, Col. 1, Section 2.4, PEM water electrolyzer cell), having a cathodic half-cell and an anodic half-cell, wherein the cathodic half-cell and the anodic half-cell are separated from each other by means of a polymer electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Sections 2.3 and 2.4, anode and cathode components on either side of Nafion membrane), the anodic half-cell comprising:
a gas diffusion layer made from a fine-mesh metallic support material (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Sect. 2.4, lines 3-5, anodic PTL comprising titanium felt); and
an anodic catalyst layer that is applied to the polymer electrolyte membrane and into which an anodic catalyst material has been introduced (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Sect. 2.3, anode catalyst layer with IrO2 as catalyst pressed onto Nafion membrane), wherein the anodic catalyst layer is arranged adjacent to the gas diffusion layer (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Sect. 2.4, and Page 99, Sect. 4, lines 1-4, Ti felt as anodic PTL in contact with catalyst layer),
wherein a thin protective layer has been applied to the fine-mesh support material locally in the region of the points of contact between the gas diffusion layer and the anodic catalyst layer adjoining same (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 2, Sect. 3, lines 9-11, and Page 99, Sect. 4, lines 1-4, thin 20-150 nm iridium layer distributed on outer surface of fibers of Ti felt PTL in contact with catalyst layer), and
wherein the protective layer comprises iridium, so that entry of anodic catalyst material into the gas diffusion layer is inhibited (see e.g. Page 99, Sect. 4, lines 1-4, iridium layer on surfaces of Ti PTL in contact with catalyst layer; thereby acting as a barrier to diffusion of atoms and molecules from the anodic catalyst and entry thereof into the GDL/PTL, as described in paragraphs 0025 and 0043-0044 of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the anodic half-cell further comprising iridium oxide as the anodic catalyst material (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Sect. 2.3, lines 3-5, IrO2 as anode catalyst).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the anodic cell further comprising a gas diffusion layer formed from titanium as base material, wherein the fine-mesh support material is formed (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Section 2.4, lines 3-5, titanium felt as anodic PTL).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the electrolysis cell generating hydrogen (see e.g. Abstract, Page 99, Col. 1, lines 1-3, and Page 97, Col. 1, Section 2.5, lines 1-11, PEM water electrolyzer cell splitting supplied water into hydrogen and oxygen).
It should be noted, however, that this limitation is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Jang et al. (U.S. 2019/0161868).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches all the elements of the electrolysis cell of claim 1 as stated above. Liu does not teach the fine-mesh support material being configured in the form of a grid so that the points of contact with the protective layer extend regularly across the faces of the gas diffusion layer and anodic catalyst layer that are facing each other, instead only exemplifying it being in the form of a felt (see e.g. Page 97, Col. 1, Section 2.4, lines 4-5). Liu does however generally teach that the protective layer is suitable for use with commercial titanium-based porous transport layers (see e.g. Abstract).
Jang teaches a diffusion layer for the oxygen electrode of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis apparatus (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a porous titanium layer on which is deposited a layer of iridium oxide acting as a corrosion-protection layer that prevents oxidation of the inner titanium (see e.g. Paragraph 0027), wherein the porous titanium layer preferably has a mesh shape, i.e. in the form a regular grid, that enables deposition to be more uniformly performed and thus enhances the corrosion prevention of the titanium layer (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 4A-4E, Ti mesh shown with regular grid pattern; Paragraphs 0062 and 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fine-mesh support material of Liu to be formed of a titanium mesh with a regular grid pattern, and thereby regular contact points, as taught by Jang as an alternate suitable exemplary titanium porous transport layer that can be protected by the iridium protective layer that further enables deposition to be more uniformly performed and thus enhances the corrosion prevention of the titanium layer. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claims 3-4, Liu teaches the protective layer having a layer thickness of 20 nm to 150 nm (see e.g. Fig. 1C and Page 97, Col. 2, Section 3, lines 9-11), overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights