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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph [0130] of the specification as filed, in the “Production of removable base material 4” section, reference number “19” should be inserted after “unwinding stability improving layer” on page 40, line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the ion exchange capacity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, particularly given that an ion exchange capacity of a fluorinated polymer is dependent upon the conditions utilized to measure said capacity.
Claims 3-6 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the aperture ratio" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, claim 4 recites the limitation "the denier count of the yarns A and the denier count of the yarns B” (emphasis added) in lines 1-2; and claim 6 recites the limitation “the densities” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 11 and 12 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. Each of claims 11 and 12 recites the limitation "the elastic modulus of the support" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, particularly given that elastic modulus of a material is dependent upon the measurement conditions.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation “the average maximum membrane thickness” and “the average minimum membrane thickness” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapov (US2021/0328246A1) in view of Hayabe (WO2022/050363A1, also printed as US2023/0193483A1, please refer to the US document as an English language equivalent of the WIPO document); or alternatively, Hayabe in view of Agapov. Agapov teaches a roll construction of laminated material that inhibits delamination of a polymer layer from a backer film upon unwinding of the roll construction, such as after storage or transportation, having improved properties over traditional roll constructions that can suffer from premature delamination, wherein the laminated material (200) comprises a polymer layer (205) and a backer film (210) comprising a base layer (230), such as a polypropylene layer (Paragraphs 0012 and 0052), and a release film (225) positioned between the base layer (230) and the polymer layer (205) such that the polymer layer (205), which may comprises a porous substrate (215) and an ion exchange resin (220) in the form of a reinforced type solid polymer electrolyte membrane (as in the instantly claimed invention), is provided directly on a top surface (245) of the release film (225) as shown in Fig. 2, and then the laminated material comprising the ion-exchange resin layer, the release film, and the base layer are fed to a roller to generate the roll of laminated material (as in instant claim 14), e.g., as shown in Fig. 4 (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0003-0005, 0027, and 0029-0035). Agapov teaches that the release film (225) is a film of a cycloolefinic copolymer with a glass transition temperature of 50°C or higher, such as those commercially available from Polyplastics Co., Ltd, under the tradename TOPAS® (Paragraphs 0046-0048). Agapov teaches that the ion-exchange resin layer as the polymer layer can be peeled from the laminated material and placed between a cathode and an anode for use in various applications such as for polymer electrolyte fuel cells, electrodialysis, pervaporation, and vapor permeation applications (Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0027, 0033, 0050, and 0058); and although Agapov teaches a reinforced type solid polymer electrolyte membrane as the polymer layer, wherein the solid polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a porous substrate that may be formed from tetrafluoroethylene (e.g., as in instant claim 5) with an ion exchange material as an impregnant with suitable ion exchange materials including a fluorinated polymer having ion exchange groups as in instant claims 1 and 7-8 (Paragraphs 0010-0011, 0034, 0044-0045, 0050-0051), Agapov does not teach the solid polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a woven fabric as in instant claim 1, and more particularly, is as recited in instant claims 2-6.
However, Hayabe teaches a solid polymer electrolyte membrane and membrane electrode assembly that can reduce the range of increase in electrolysis voltage even when the current density increases when applied to a water electrolysis apparatus or electrolytic hydrogenation apparatus, wherein the membrane electrode assembly comprises an anode having a catalyst layer, a cathode having a catalyst layer, and a solid polymer electrolyte membrane disposed between the anode and the cathode (Abstract; e.g., as in Agapov). Hayabe teaches that the solid polymer electrolyte membrane comprises a fluorinated polymer having ion-exchange groups (Abstract; e.g., as in Agapov), particularly a fluorinated polymer comprising units and ion-exchange groups as recited in instant claims 7-10 (Paragraphs 0094-0134; e.g., similar to Agapov) and with an ion exchange capacity as in instant claim 2 (Paragraph 0016); and a woven fabric comprising yarns A extending in one direction and yarns B extending in a direction substantially orthogonal to the yarns A (e.g., a porous substrate as in Agapov), with an aperture ratio of the woven fabric is at least 50% (Paragraphs 0010-0012; as in instant claim 3) and a denier count of the yarns A and a denier count of the yarns B being independently from 15 to 50 (Paragraph 0017; as in instant claim 4). Hayabe teaches that the yarns A and the yarns B are “independently made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer, polyether ether ketone and polyphenylene sulfide” (Paragraph 0019, as in instant claim 5), with densities of said yarns A and B each independently from 70 to 150 yarns/inch (Paragraph 0020, as in instant claim 6). Hayabe teaches a maximum membrane thickness TA, a minimum membrane thickness TB, an average maximum membrane thickness TAAVE and a average minimum membrane thickness TBAVE of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane determined/measured in the same manner as in the instant invention, wherein the “average maximum membrane thickness TAAVE of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane is preferably from 60 to 200 µm, more preferably from 60 to 140 µm, further preferably from 60 to 120 µm, particularly preferably from 60 to 100 µm, from such a viewpoint that the electrolysis voltage can be reduced more” while the “average minimum membrane thickness TBAVE of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane is preferably from 30 to 130 µm, more preferably from 30 to 100 µm, further preferably from 30 to 80 µm, particularly preferably from 30 to 50 µm, from such a viewpoint that the strength of the membrane electrode assembly can be more improved; with a ratio of TAAVE /TBAVE being at least 1.20 and thus meeting the claimed Formula (X) of instant claim 13, particularly in light of the examples (Abstract; Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0057-0072 and Examples). Hayabe teaches that the membrane can be produced utilizing transfer base materials such as low melting point films, such as polyethylene films, polypropylene films (e.g., as with the base layer of the backer film of Agapov), and polystyrene films, wherein the low melting point films deform to follow the surface shape of the precursor membrane so that a solid polymer electrolyte membrane having a concavo-convex structure on the surface is obtainable (Paragraphs 0062 and 0138-0139); and that a stacking roll may be utilized to laminate the layers of membrane (e.g., as in Agapov; Paragraph 0166).
Hence, given that both Agapov and Hayabe are directed to solid polymer electrolyte membranes wherein Agapov provides improvements with respect to the backer (transfer) film for unwinding of a roll construction of a generic solid polymer electrolyte membrane that may be formed from materials similar to the teachings of Hayabe and the claimed invention, while Hayabe provides improvements with respect to the solid polymer electrolyte membrane structure and composition thereof that may be utilized with a generic transfer material/film such as formed from low melting point films of materials similar to the teachings of Agapov, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the backer film and roll structure as taught by Agapov, reading upon the claimed removable base material as in instant claims 1 and 14 for the production, storage, and/or transportation of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane of the invention taught by Hayabe, reading upon the claimed solid polymer electrolyte membrane as in instant claims 1-10 and 13; or alternatively, to utilize the solid polymer electrolyte membrane of the invention taught by Hayabe as the solid polymer electrolyte membrane in the invention taught by Agapov, given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results over the teachings of the cited prior art, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-10 and 13-14 would have been obvious over the teachings of Hayabe in view of Agapov, or alternatively, over Agapov in view of Hayabe.
With respect to instant claims 11-12, although the combined teachings of Hayabe and Agapov do not specifically teach elastic modulus properties at 160°C as instantly claimed, given that as noted above, Hayabe teaches that low melting point films with a melting point of from 70 to 180°C, such as polyethylene films (PE), polypropylene films (PP), and polystyrene films (PS), may be utilized as transfer base materials; while as also noted above, Agapov teaches that the transfer film may be a film of a cycloolefinic copolymer (COC) with a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 50°C or higher, such as commercially available TOPAS® films (e.g., amorphous polymers), provided on a base layer comprising a polymer selected from preferably polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), and PP (e.g., crystalline polymers with PET and PEN having melting points substantially higher than 160°C while crystalline PP may have melting points around 160-170°C); and given that one skilled in the art would clearly recognize that for the above crystalline polymers, the corresponding polymer film/layer would lose its structural integrity at temperatures near the melting point thereof and/or melt at temperatures above the melting point thereof such that the storage modulus thereof would effectively be zero (as is well established in the art, see also Paragraph 0023 of the present specification as filed), while for the amorphous COC films, the modulus decreases as the temperature approaches the Tg of the COC and then drops substantially and ultimately to zero above the Tg as is well established in the art. Hence, based upon the combined teachings of Hayabe and Agapov, and particularly in light of the polymers taught by Agapov with respect to the transfer film as the claimed releasing layer, and base layer as the claimed support, the elastic modulus relationship as recited in instant claim 11 would have been obvious over the teachings of Hayabe in view of Agapov, or alternatively, over Agapov in view of Hayabe, based upon known elastic modulus properties of the above polymers and that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, given that the transfer film as the claimed release layer may be formed from a COC film with the COC having a Tg as low as 50°C such that one skilled in the art would reasonably expect such as COC polymer to completely lose structural integrity at 160°C and thus have an elastic modulus of zero, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 12 would have been obvious over the teachings of Hayabe in view of Agapov, or alternatively, over Agapov in view of Hayabe, given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishimura (US2025/0046843A1) teaches a mold release film for producing an assembly of an electrode membrane and/or electrolyte membrane for a solid polymer type fuel cell, wherein the mold release film includes at least a substrate layer and a mold release layer directly or indirectly layered on at least one surface of the substrate layer, with the mold release layer containing a polypropylene-based resin having a melting point in a range of 110°C to 350°C, for example, from 140°C to 190°C, and preferably 160°C to 175°C; while the substrate layer may be formed from a synthetic resin having an elastic modulus of 100 to 1000 MPa at 150°C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights