DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendments
2. Applicant’s response dated 24 November 2025 has been entered into the record. Claims 17-26 were previously pending. In their response, the applicant has cancelled Claims 19 and 24 and added new Claims 27 and 28. Claims 17 and 22 have been amended. Currently, Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 remains pending and under examination. The examiner finds the claims amendments did not add any new matter as supported by Fig. 2 and ¶45.
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.
3. Claims 17, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louh et al. in view of Valentine, Khandavalli et al., Park et al., and Spiegel.
Louh et al. (“Novel Deposition of Pt/C Nanocatalysts and Nafion Solution on Carbon-Based Electrode via Electrophoretic Processes for PEM Fuel Cells,” Trans. ASME, 2007, 4, 72-78 – previously presented) is an academic study directed at electrophoretic deposition of Pt/C catalysts with ionomers (pg. 72: Title and Abstract). Valentine (US Pub. No. 2014/0054178 A1 – previously presented) is directed at an electrode mask for electrowinning a metal (title). Khandavalli et al. (“Investigation of the Microstructure and Rheology of Iridium Oxide Catalyst Inks for Low-Temperature Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Water Electrolyzers,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 45068-45079 – previously presented) is directed toward the microstructure of iridium oxide catalysts inks (pg. 45068: title). Park et al. (“Electrodeposition of High-Surface-Area IrO2 Films on Ti Felt as an Efficient Catalyst for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction,” Frontiers in Chem. 2020, 8, article 593272, pg. 1-9 – previously presented) is directed toward electrodeposited iridium oxide films for OER (pg. 1: title). Spiegel (“Flow-Field Design” https://www.fuelcellstore.com/flow-field-design, article published 19 September 2017) is directed toward flow field design (title).
Regarding Claim 17, Louh et al. discloses a method electrodepositing a catalyst-ionomer (Pt/C and Nafion) onto the base composition of a porous transport layer (i.e.: carbon fabric) for PEMFC. Louh et al. teaches the preparation of a catalyst ionomer solution comprising a Pt/C catalyst, Nafion as the ionomer and charged ligand, isopropanol as solvent, and pH adjusting reagents (pg. 73: 2. Experimental Section). The zeta potential, or apparent surface charge on the particles in dispersion, showed a negative value for the catalyst-ionomer solution of Nafion and Pt/C (pg. 74: 3. Results and Discission Section). The large negative zeta potential (-30 to -50 mV) is attributed to adsorption of the ionomer onto the Pt/C particle (pg. 74: 3. Results and Discission Section) with the magnitude correlating to increased colloidal stability (pg. 74: 3. Results and Discission Section). For negatively charged particles, said particles (e.g.: Nafion/Pt/C) will migrate toward the positive electrode (i.e.: the anode) during electrophoresis or electrodeposition (under an applied electric field). Louh et al. also teaches that the electrodeposition uses carbon fabric as the anode and the working electrode as copper (i.e.: the inert material or the cathode” of the instant application). The electrodeposition method of Louh et al. requires the two electrodes are placed into the catalyst-ionomer solution (facing each other) with a spacing of 1.0 cm, connected to a DC power source, and a computer program that controls the waveform of the applied electric field (pg. 73: 2. Experimental Section and pg. 76: Fig. 5). Louh et al. indicates that the catalyst/ionomer substantially infiltrates into the gaps and voids in the fiber bundles (i.e.: “deposited to a depth in the second surface of the base composition of the PTL” of the instant application) as discussed on pg. 74 and depicted in Fig. 3 on pg. 75. The anode is removed from the catalyst-ionomer solution after EPD, dried, and placed into a MEA (indicating the catalyst-ionomer solution had evaporated) (pg. 73-74: 2. Experimental Section and pg. 74-75: 3. Results and Discussion Section). However, Louh et al. does not disclose the deposition of Ir nanoparticles nor the use of a mask to control the location (i.e.: “the second surface of the PTL”) of the deposited catalyst-ionomer.
Khandavalli et al. discloses an ink (i.e.: “catalyst-ionomer solution”) comprising iridium oxide (i.e. “Ir nanoparticles”) and different concentration of Nafion D2020 (i.e.: a polymeric perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid depicted below which is an “ionomer”) in a mixture of water and 1-propanol which can be used for PEMWE (pg. 45068: Introduction). The zeta potential, or apparent surface charge on the particles in dispersion, was evaluated as a function of Nafion loading (pg. 45069: Introduction and Zeta Potential and DLS), which became more negative with higher Nafion loadings (Figure 1). The larger zeta potential is attributed to adsorption of the ionomer (i.e.: Nafion is a charged ligand) onto the IrO2 particle with the negative sign related to the dissociation of the proton from the sulfonic acid (pg. 45071: Results and Discussion). The Larger magnitude zeta potential values correlate with increasing colloidal stability where the sign of the zeta potential indicates the movement of a particle in an applied electric field. Negatively charged particles, such as Nafion/IrO2, will migrate toward the positive electrode (i.e.: the anode) during electrophoresis (applied electric field) like the Nafion/Pt/C particles described in Louh et al. Given the similar zeta potential magnitude and sign, the catalyst-ionomer solutions in Khandavalli et al. and Louh et al. would reasonably be expected to have similar electrophoretic properties, such as “deposited to a depth in the second surface of the base composition of the PTL” as required by Claim 17 of the instant application.
Valentine is directed toward an electrode mask 100 (title) made of a solid non-conductive sheet that adheres to an electrode (e.g.: the cathode) used in electrowinning or electrodeposition (abstract and ¶22). The electrode mask 100 can be applied to various electrode materials including stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, etc. (¶22). As described in Claim 1 and Claim 11 of Valentine, the electrode mask exposes only selected parts of the conductive electrode surface to the electrolyte solution. Valentine further indicates that the mask is useful for optimizing the electrodeposition of the metal or the efficiency of electrodeposition at the electrode (¶46 and Claim 14). The use of electrically insulating masks on the deposition electrode during electrodeposition will concentrate current density in the desired areas of said deposition electrode.
Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., and Valentine discloses a base composition that comprises fabric which is made of fibers of carbon, but not made of titanium fibers.
Park et al. teaches a method of electrodepositing IrO2 onto titanium felt after various etching times for use as an OER anode (pg. 1: abstract). According to Park et al., etching the titanium felt resulted in the deposition of a uniform amorphous IrO2 film (pg. 1: Abstract; pg. 4: Results and Discussion; and pg. 7: Conclusion). The iridium oxide deposits onto all of the titanium fibers as depicted in FIGURE 1. Appropriate surface etching results in good substrate adhesion and a quality catalyst layer (pg. 2: Introduction). Moreover, Park et al. indicates that the deposition of an iridium oxide layer improves the corrosion resistance (of the titanium) substrate in acidic electrolyte, such as perchloric acid (pg. 7: Discussion). Lastly, Park et al. indicates that the etching of titanium felt increased the electrochemical surfaces resulting in the availability of more accessible catalytic sites (pg. 5: Results and Discussion)
It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., and Valentine for electrodepositing IrO2/Nafion onto a base composition by using an etched titanium felt as taught by Park et al. Forming an ionomer-catalyst layer on etched titanium felt substrate using electrodeposition would reasonably result in a higher surface area material with more accessible catalyst sites.
Pertaining to the newly added limitation of the of the anode flow field, Louh et al. discloses the use of an electrochemical cell with bipolar plates/current collectors, but does not specify if the bipolar plates have channels to accommodate the flow of anode and cathode reactants. Spiegel indicates that flow field plates are designed to provide an adequate amount of reactant (i.e.: hydrogen and oxygen) to the gas diffusion layer and the catalyst surface while minimizing a pressure drop. One example of a flow field arrangement is the serpentine design (Fig. 1), which ensures any obstruction in the path will not block all downstream activity of the obstruction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bipolar plate of the electrochemical cell of Louh et al. (and the other references) by using a (serpentine) flow field design to results in a more robust cell design.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein the electrolyte comprises an organic electrolyte (1-propanol as the primary solvent by volume) as described on pg. 45069 in the materials and methods section of Khandavalli et al.
Regarding Claim 28, Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel disclose the method of Claim 17, further comprising positioning the PTL between the membrane and the anode flow field to form the electrochemical cell as explained in Spiegel.
4. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Fori et al.
Louh et al. (citation above – previously presented) is an academic study directed at electrophoretic deposition of Pt/C catalysts with ionomers (pg. 72: Title and Abstract). Khandavalli et al. (citation above) is directed toward the microstructure of iridium oxide catalysts inks (pg. 45068: title). Valentine (citation – previously presented) is directed at an electrode mask for electrowinning a metal (title). Park et al. (“Electrodeposition of High-Surface-Area IrO2 Films on Ti Felt as an Efficient Catalyst for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction,” Frontiers in Chem. 2020, 8, article 593272, pg. 1-9 – previously presented) is directed toward electrodeposited iridium oxide films for OER (pg. 1: title). Spiegel is (citation above) is directed toward flow field design (title). Fori et al. (“Decisive influence of colloidal suspension conductivity during electrophoretic impregnation of porous anodic film supported on 1050 aluminum substrate,” J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 413, 31-36 – previously presented) is directed toward parameters to optimize electrophoretic impregnation (pg. 31: abstract).
Regarding Claim 20, Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein the PTL is coated to an unspecified depth. Therefore, the combination of references are silent on the actual depth, such as at least 5 microns.
Fori et al. is directed toward the electrophoretic impregnation of porous films on aluminum substrate (pg. 31: title and abstract). Fori et al. indicates that the conductivity of the suspension is the driving force for penetration of particles into the pores (analogous to the depth of the PTL base) of a material (pg. 35: Conclusion). Low conductivity suspensions only induced deposits at the surface (of the film), whereas, an increase in the suspension conductivity strengthened the electric field leading to deposition within the pores. Fori et al. father found that increasing the colloidal suspension conductivity compresses (i.e.: weakens or reduces the strength of) the electric double layer against the pores (i.e.: “the depth into the PTL base”) which promotes migration further into the pore or PTL base in the case of the instant application.
Therefore, the electric conductivity of the colloidal suspension (analogous to the catalyst-ionomer solution of the instant application) drives the depth of infiltration, which is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the depth of infiltration of the ionomer-catalyst particles into the PTL base, including values within the claimed range (i.e.: a depth greater than 5 microns), through routine experimentation by changing the suspension electrical conductivity. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have formed a PTL that has catalyst infiltrated deeply into said PTL to facilitate efficient catalysis through the entire thickness of the PTL.
Regarding Claim 21, Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein the PTL is coated to an unspecified depth. Therefore, the combination of references are silent on the actual depth, such as at least 5% of an overall thickness of the PTL. microns.
Fori et al. is directed toward the electrophoretic impregnation of porous films on aluminum substrate (pg. 31: title and abstract). Fori et al. indicates that the conductivity of the suspension is the driving force for penetration of particles into the pores (analogous to the depth of the PTL base) of a material (pg. 35: Conclusion). Low conductivity suspensions only induced deposits at the surface (of the film), whereas, an increase in the suspension conductivity strengthened the electric field leading to deposition within the pores. Fori et al. father found that increasing the colloidal suspension conductivity compresses (i.e.: weakens or reduces the strength of) the electric double layer against the pores (i.e.: “the depth into the PTL base”) which promotes migration further into the pore or PTL base in the case of the instant application.
Therefore, the electric conductivity of the colloidal suspension (analogous to the catalyst-ionomer solution of the instant application) drives the depth of infiltration, which is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the depth of infiltration of the ionomer-catalyst particles into the PTL base, including values within the claimed range (i.e.: a depth at least 5% of the overall thickness of the PTL), through routine experimentation by changing the suspension electrical conductivity. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have formed a PTL that has catalyst infiltrated deeply into said PTL to facilitate efficient catalysis through the entire thickness of the PTL.
5. Claims 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louh et al. in view of Park et al., Valentine, and Spiegel.
Louh et al. (citation above – previously presented) is an academic study directed at electrophoretic deposition of Pt/C catalysts with ionomers (pg. 72: Title and Abstract). Park et al. (citation above – previously presented) is directed toward electrodeposited iridium oxide films for OER (pg. 1: title). Valentine (citation above – previously presented) is directed at an electrode mask for electrowinning a metal (title). Spiegel (citation above) is directed toward field flow design (title).
Regarding Claim 22, Louh et al. discloses a method electrodepositing a catalyst-ionomer (Pt/C and Nafion) layer onto the base composition of a porous transport layer (i.e.: carbon fabric) for PEMFC in two successive electrophoretic steps. As described on pg. 73 of Louh et al, a Pt/C nano-catalysts suspension in IPA was prepared in the first EPD tanks and a suspension of Nafion in IPA was prepared in the second EPD step (i.e.: “infiltrating an ionomer into the catalyst coated PTL such that the ionomer is mixed with the catalyst to provide a catalyst-ionomer coating. Louh et al. indicates that the catalyst/ionomer substantially fills the gaps and voids in the fiber bundles (i.e.: “deposited to a depth in the second surface of the base composition of the PTL” of the instant application) as discussed on pg. 74 and depicted in Fig. 3 on pg. 75. Louh et al. also teaches that the electrodeposition uses carbon fabric as the anode and the working electrode as copper (i.e.: the inert material or the cathode” of the instant application). The electrodeposition method of Louh et al. requires the two electrodes are placed into the catalyst solution (facing each other) with a spacing of 1.0 cm, connected to a DC power source, and a computer program that controls the waveform of the applied electric field (pg. 73: 2. Experimental Section and pg. 76: Fig. 5). The anode is removed from the catalyst solution after the first EPD and dried (pg. 73-74: 2. Experimental Section and pg. 74-75: 3. Results and Discussion Section). Next, the catalyst coated PTL is immersed into the Nafion suspension followed by the second EPD step, dried, and placed into a MEA (pg. 73-74: 2. Experimental Section and pg. 74-75: 3. Results and Discussion Section). However, Louh et al. does not disclose the deposition from a catalyst from an iridium salt nor the use of a mask to control the location (i.e.: “the second surface of the PTL”) of the deposited catalyst-ionomer.
Park et al. teaches a method of electrodepositing IrO2 onto titanium felt after various etching times for use as an OER anode (pg. 1: abstract). According to Park et al., etching the titanium felt resulted in the deposition of a uniform amorphous IrO2 film (pg. 1: Abstract; pg. 4: Results and Discussion; and pg. 7: Conclusion). The iridium oxide deposits via an anodic process onto all of the titanium fibers as depicted in FIGURE 1. The catalyst solution of Park et al. comprises a mixture of an iridium salt (e.g.: iridium chloride), oxalic acid, and hydrogen peroxide (pg. 2: Preparation of IrO2/Ti Electrodes Using Anodic Electrodeposition). Appropriate surface etching results in good substrate adhesion and a quality catalyst layer (pg. 2: Introduction). Moreover, Park et al. indicates that the deposition of an iridium oxide layer improves the corrosion resistance (of the titanium) substrate in acidic electrolyte, such as perchloric acid (pg. 7: Discussion). Lastly, Park et al. indicates that the etching of titanium felt increased the electrochemical surfaces resulting in the availability of more accessible catalytic sites (pg. 5: Results and Discussion). Combining the high surface area catalyst deposited using the anodic ED method of Park et al. in conjunction with the 2nd EPD step of Louh et al. would increase the electrical contact between the catalyst and the electrolyte leading to more efficient electrical process.
Valentine is directed toward an electrode mask 100 (title) made of a solid non-conductive sheet that adheres to an electrode (e.g.: the cathode) used in electrowinning or electrodeposition (abstract and ¶22). The electrode mask 100 can be applied to various electrode materials including stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, etc. (¶22). As described in Claim 1 and Claim 11 of Valentine, the electrode mask exposes only selected parts of the conductive electrode surface to the electrolyte solution. Valentine further indicates that the mask is useful for optimizing the electrodeposition of the metal or the efficiency of electrodeposition at the electrode (¶46 and Claim 14). The use of electrically insulating masks on the deposition electrode during electrodeposition will concentrate current density in the desired areas of said deposition electrode.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the two-step electrodeposition method of Louh et al. by using the Ir-salt solution and titanium fabric of Park et al. with the masking disclosed by Valentine with the reasonable expectation of efficiently depositing a catalyst-ionomer layer at a depth into a PTL base composition. Forming an ionomer-catalyst layer on etched titanium felt substrate using electrodeposition would reasonably result in a higher surface area material with more accessible catalyst sites and more efficient electrical process given the infiltration of the Nafion ionomer.
Pertaining to the newly added limitation of the of the anode flow field, Louh et al. discloses the use of an electrochemical cell with bipolar plates/current collectors, but does not specify if the bipolar plates have channels to accommodate the flow of anode and cathode reactants. Spiegel indicates that flow field plates are designed to provide an adequate amount of reactant (i.e.: hydrogen and oxygen) to the gas diffusion layer and the catalyst surface while minimizing a pressure drop. One example of a flow field arrangement is the serpentine design (Fig. 1), which ensures any obstruction in the path will not block all downstream activity of the obstruction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bipolar plate of the electrochemical cell of Louh et al. (and the other references) by using a (serpentine) flow field design to results in a more robust cell design.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Louh et al., Park et al, Valentine, and Spiegel disclose the method of Claim 22, wherein the electrolyte comprises an aqueous electrolyte as taught in Park et al. by the solution of an iridium salt (e.g.: iridium chloride), oxalic acid, and hydrogen peroxide (pg. 2: Preparation of IrO2/Ti Electrodes Using Anodic Electrodeposition).
Regarding Claim 27, Louh et al., Khandavalli et al., Valentine, Park et al., and Spiegel disclose the method of Claim 12, further comprising positioning the PTL between the membrane and the anode flow field to form the electrochemical cell as explained in Spiegel.
6. Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louh et al., Park et al, and Valentine as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Fori et al.
Louh et al. (citation above – previously presented) is an academic study directed at electrophoretic deposition of Pt/C catalysts with ionomers (pg. 72: Title and Abstract). Park et al. (citation above – previously presented) is directed toward electrodeposited iridium oxide films for OER (pg. 1: title). Valentine (citation above – previously presented) is directed at an electrode mask for electrowinning a metal (title). Spiegel (citation above) is directed toward flow field design (title). Fori et al. (citation above – previously presented) is directed toward parameters to optimize electrophoretic impregnation (pg. 31: abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, Louh et al., Park et al., Valentine, and Spiegel discloses the method of Claim 22, wherein the PTL is coated to an unspecified depth. Therefore, the combination of references are silent on the actual depth, such as at least 5 microns.
Fori et al. is directed toward the electrophoretic impregnation of porous films on aluminum substrate (pg. 31: title and abstract). Fori et al. indicates that the conductivity of the suspension is the driving force for penetration of particles into the pores (analogous to the depth of the PTL base) of a material (pg. 35: Conclusion). Low conductivity suspensions only induced deposits at the surface (of the film), whereas, an increase in the suspension conductivity strengthened the electric field leading to deposition within the pores. Fori et al. father found that increasing the colloidal suspension conductivity compresses (i.e.: weakens or reduces the strength of) the electric double layer against the pores (i.e.: “the depth into the PTL base”) which promotes migration further into the pore or PTL base in the case of the instant application.
Therefore, the electric conductivity of the colloidal suspension (analogous to the catalyst-ionomer solution of the instant application) drives the depth of infiltration, which is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the depth of infiltration of the ionomer-catalyst particles into the PTL base, including values within the claimed range (i.e.: a depth greater than 5 microns), through routine experimentation by changing the suspension electrical conductivity. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have formed a PTL that has catalyst infiltrated deeply into said PTL to facilitate efficient catalysis through the entire thickness of the PTL.
Regarding Claim 26, Louh et al., Park et al., Valentine, and Spiegel discloses the method of Claim 22, wherein the PTL is coated to an unspecified depth. Therefore, the combination of references are silent on the actual depth, such as at least 5% of an overall thickness of the PTL. microns.
Fori et al. is directed toward the electrophoretic impregnation of porous films on aluminum substrate (pg. 31: title and abstract). Fori et al. indicates that the conductivity of the suspension is the driving force for penetration of particles into the pores (analogous to the depth of the PTL base) of a material (pg. 35: Conclusion). Low conductivity suspensions only induced deposits at the surface (of the film), whereas, an increase in the suspension conductivity strengthened the electric field leading to deposition within the pores. Fori et al. father found that increasing the colloidal suspension conductivity compresses (i.e.: weakens or reduces the strength of) the electric double layer against the pores (i.e.: “the depth into the PTL base”) which promotes migration further into the pore or PTL base in the case of the instant application.
Therefore, the electric conductivity of the colloidal suspension (analogous to the catalyst-ionomer solution of the instant application) drives the depth of infiltration, which is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the depth of infiltration of the ionomer-catalyst particles into the PTL base, including values within the claimed range (i.e.: a depth at least 5% of the overall thickness of the PTL), through routine experimentation by changing the suspension electrical conductivity. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have formed a PTL that has catalyst infiltrated deeply into said PTL to facilitate efficient catalysis through the entire thickness of the PTL.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of at least amended independent Claims 17 and 22 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for amended independent Claim 17 in view of Louh et al., Valentine, Khandavalli et al., Park et al., and Spiegel and for amended independent Claim 22 in view of Louh et al., Park et al., Valentine, and Spiegel.
8. The inclusion of the flow field into Claims 17 and 22 has been addressed by citing Spiegel in addition to the other references. Spiegel is directed toward flow field design for fuel cells. A more detailed explanation can be found above in this office action.
9. Dependent Claims 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 currently stand rejected with a more detailed explanation above.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, 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.
12. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794 /JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794