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 .
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.
Invitation for an Examiner Interview
If, upon review, Applicant believes anything contained herein is unclear or incorrect the Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule a telephonic interview.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane comprises 1 to 9 layers of the reinforced composite electrolyte membranes” (ln 2-3). However, claim 10, from which claim 11 depends, recites the limitation “(c) a step of stacking two or more of the reinforced composite electrolyte membranes” and “(d) a step of…to obtain the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane”. It is unclear how the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane of claim 11 can comprise “1 to 9 layers” of the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane when claim 10 requires “stacking…two or more” reinforced composite electrolyte membranes. For the purposes of Examination, claim 11 is interpreted as “2 to 9 layers”.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR102321252B1 – previously of record – citations are directed to the Machine Translation unless otherwise noted) in view of Kim (US20180241061 – previously of record) and Adachi (US20180290441A1).
In reference to claim 10:
Jeong discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane (para 0001), comprising:
(a) a step of preparing an ionomer solution (para 0212);
(b) a step of preparing a reinforced composite electrolyte membrane wherein an ionomer layer with a thickness of 1-25 μm is formed on both sides of a porous support by impregnating the porous support in the ionomer solution and then drying the same (para0179); and
(partially c and d) a step of stacking two or more of the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane and manufacturing a multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane by applying heat and pressure (paras 0059, 0182-0183) and applying heat and pressure of 5-10 MPa (725-1450psi, para 0070).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose a wt % of the ionomer in the solution and, therefore, does not disclose wherein the ionomer solution comprises 17-40 wt % of an ionomer. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kim. Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a composite electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell (abstract). Kim further teaches using a porous PTFE support (para 0055, a porous PTFE support is disclosed in the instant application and the disclosure of Jeong, see claim 12 below) and a perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer solution in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 20 wt % based on a total amount of the perfluorinated sulfonic acid ionomer solution (para 0016). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an ionomer solution comprising 1-20 wt % (which overlaps with the claimed 17-40 wt %)of the ionomer based on its art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Jeong does not teach in step (c) applying a pressure of 100-800 psi to the two or more of the reinforced composite electrolyte membranes without applying heat. However, this is taught by Adachi. Adachi teaches a method for manufacturing a polymer electrolyte membrane (abstract). Adachi further teaches applying a preliminary pressure of .15 to 10 MPA without heating (21-1450psi, paras 0058, 0090-0091, 0096) allows for the production of electrolyte membranes without warping or wrinkles of the product (para 0012). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jeong, as modified by Kim, with the preliminary pressure application of Adachi in order to obtain a method which allows for the production of electrolyte membranes without warping or wrinkles of the product.
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Jeung further discloses wherein the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane comprises 1 to 9 layers of the reinforced composite electrolyte membranes (paras 0094, 0182-0183; Fig. 1 showing membranes 21, 22, 23).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 12, above, Jeung further discloses wherein
the ionomer is a perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) ionomer (para 0095 disclosing Nafion which is a known perfluorosulfonic acid), and
the porous support is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (para 0172).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Jeung further renders obvious wherein the thickness of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane is 27-95 μm (para 0127 disclosing a thickness of 50-200 μm. See MPEP 2144.05.I).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, modified Jeung does not explicitly disclose wherein the Young's modulus of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane is 250-400 MPa. However, as the prior art discloses the method and materials used it is the Examiner’s position that the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane would have the same properties, including Young’s modulus, as that claimed and thus meet the claimed “250-400 MPa” claimed. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Jeung further discloses wherein the dimensional change rate is 1% in the length direction and 5% in the width direction (para 0198, also see the equation at para 0199 of the original document) and wherein the dimensional change rate is 5% in the length direction and 1% in the width direction (para 0205, also see the equation at para 0199 of the original document). Jeung does not explicitly disclose wherein the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane has a dimensional change rate of 0.1-6% as defined by Equation 1:
Dimensional change rate (%)=(Awet-Adry)/Adry
Dimensional change rate
wherein Awet means the area of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane after being impregnated in ultrapure water for 24 hours at 25° C., and Adry means the area of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane in a dry state. However, it is the Examiner’s position that, as the prior art discloses the method and materials used the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane would have the same properties, including dimensional change rate, as that claimed and thus meet the claim limitation.
In reference to claim 18:
In addition the discussion of claim 10, above, Jeung further renders obvious wherein the temperature applied to the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane stacked in one or more layer in the step (c) is 110-170° C (para 0176. See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, Kim, and Adachi as applied to claim 10, above, and further in view of Nakazawa (JP2018113123A – previously of record – citations are directed to the Machine Translation unless otherwise noted).
In reference to claim 19:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Jeong further discloses wherein
the thickness of the ionomer layer formed on both sides of the porous support is 5-15 μm (para 0108 disclosing a preferred thickness of 6-50 and 10-40 μm),
the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane comprises two layers of stacked reinforced composite electrolyte membrane (Figs. 1-3),
the ionomer is a perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) ionomer (para 0095 disclosing Nafion which is a known perfluorosulfonic acid) and the porous support is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (para 0172),
the thickness of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane is 40-75 μm (para 0127 disclosing a thickness of 50-200 μm. See MPEP 2144.05.I),
Jeung further discloses wherein the composite electrolyte membrane assembly maybe be formed by pressing them at high temperature and high pressure (para 0151) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure and temperature applied to the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane stacked in one or more layer in the step (c) is 1300-1800 psi and the temperature is 132-138° C. However, where 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 MPEP 2144.05.II.A. As applied to the instant application, Jeung explicitly discloses “high” temperature and pressure, as discovery of 1000-2000 psi as an optimum or workable range would occur through routine optimization.
As discussed in reference to claim 10, above, Kim discloses the wt % of the ionomer is 1% to about 20%. Kim does not explicitly disclose the ionomer solution comprises 22-27 wt % of the ionomer. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. As applied to the instant application, it is the Examiner’s position that the range of 1% to about 20% is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 22-27 wt % that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the results as claimed.
Modified Jeong does not explicitly disclose the Young's modulus of the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane is 300-320 MPa. However, as the prior art discloses the method and materials used it is the Examiner’s position that the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane would have the same properties, including Young’s modulus, as that claimed and thus meet the claimed “250-400 MPa” claimed. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Modified Jeong does not explicitly teach the method further comprises a step of stacking at least one layer of the reinforced composite electrolyte membrane prior to the step (c) and applying a pressure of 300-600 psi using a roll press. However, this would have been obvious in view of Nakazawa. Nakazawa teaches a method of manufacturing a reinforced composite electrolyte membrane (para 0001). Nakazawa further teaches impregnating the porous support in a hot pressing step (para 0024) and that the pressure is preferably .01 MPa or more 10MPa or less (1.45-1450psi) in order to suppress unevenness in stretching that occurs when the reinforcing layer is stretched (para 0037) and suppress the dimensional change and damage accompanying swelling and shrinkage of the electrolyte membrane (para 0005). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Jeung with the pressing step of Nakazawa in order to obtain a method which will suppress unevenness in stretching that occurs when the reinforcing layer is stretched and suppress the dimensional change and damage accompanying swelling and shrinkage of the electrolyte membrane.
Modified Jeong does not explicitly disclose the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane has a dimensional change rate of 1-4.5% as defined by Equation 1, Dimensional change rate (%)=(Awet-Adry)/Adry
Dimensional change rate
wherein Awet means the area of the electrolyte membrane after being impregnated in ultrapure water for 24 hours at 25° C., and Adry means the area of the electrolyte membrane in a dry state However, it is the Examiner’s position that, as the prior art discloses the method and materials used the multilayer reinforced composite electrolyte membrane would have the same properties, including dimensional change rate, as that claimed and thus meet the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 lines 20-21, filed 12/28/2025, with respect to claims 10 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of 11/05/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 paragraph 1, filed 12/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Adachi (US20180290441A1).
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Jeong only teaches wherein only one side of the second support layer is coated with the third electrolyte layer (pg 8 last paragraph). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jeong discloses wherein the second support layer has an electrolyte layer on both sides, formed via impregnation (paras 0274-0277).
Applicant next argues that Jeong, even when combined with the other prior art of record, fails to establish a prima facie of obviousness because the claimed ranges of pressure and temperature are not recognized in Jeong to be result-effective variables. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. After KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (MPEP 2144.05.II.B). “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." (MPEP 2144.05.III.A, internal quotations omitted). Applicant has not presented any evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. Additionally, Jeong discloses the pressure affects the pore size of the PTFE porous support (para 0070) and improper temperature may generate bubbles during stretching or increase stiffness which results in slipping during stretching (para 0071) .
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745