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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karuppaiah et al. (US 20030190518 A1).
Considering claim 1, Karuppaiah discloses an electrochemical cell comprising: an ion-conducting polymer membrane (56) having a first surface and a second surface [0048]; a first hybrid electrocatalyst layer (52,42) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface of the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer contacting the first surface of the ion-conducting polymer membrane (56), the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer comprising: a first ion-conducting layer (52) [0048]; and a first nonionic conductive catalyst layer (42) [0048]; a first species diffusion/transport layer (44) contacting the second surface of the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer, wherein the first species diffusion/transport layer contacts the first nonionic conductive catalyst layer (42) and the ion-conducting polymer membrane (56) contacts the first ion-conducting layer (52) (Fig. 6); a second hybrid electrocatalyst layer (54, 100) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface of the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer contacting the second surface of the ion-conducting polymer membrane (56), the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer comprising: a second ion-conducting layer (54); and a second nonionic conductive catalyst layer (100); and a second species diffusion/transport layer (46) contacting the second surface of the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer, wherein the second species diffusion/transport layer (46) contacts the second nonionic conductive catalyst layer (100) and the ion-conducting polymer membrane (56) contacts the second ion-conducting layer (54) ([0048], [0067] and Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 2, Karuppaiah discloses the electrochemical cell is a fuel cell [0018], therefore it is suitable to be used as an electrolyzer in revers operation mode.
Considering claim 7, Karuppaiah discloses the first ion-conducting layer and the second ion-conducting layer each comprise an ionomer [0059].
Considering claims 10-15, Karuppaiah discloses the first ion-conducting layer and the second ion-conducting layer each comprise an electrocatalyst (platinum with carbon) ([0059], [0060]).
Considering claims 16-18, Karuppaiah discloses the nonconductive binder is PTFE [0053] in an amount of less than 20% and more than 5% [0055].
Considering claims 19 and 20, Karuppaiah discloses the electrocatalyst comprises platinum and carbon ([0050], [0051]).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppaiah et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al. (US 20060204831 A1).
Considering claims 3-5, Karuppaiah does not disclose the ion conducting layers comprising a plurality of ion-conducting layers.
However, Yan discloses an electrode where the catalyst layer comprises an ionomeric material disposed in the catalyst portion, wherein the concentration of the ionomeric material forms a gradient wherein the concentration of the ionomeric material is highest in proximity to the surface of the membrane [0016]. The gradient is achieved by multiple coating approach [0060] or porosity of the support [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gradient in the electrode of Karuppaiah, because Yan teaches that such gradient formed by multilayer coating enhances water management and overall cell performance.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karuppaiah et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pintauro et al. (US 20190245233 A1).
Considering claim 8, Karuppaiah discloses the ionomer is Nafion [0059].
Karuppaiah does not disclose a sodium-form ionomer.
However, Pintauro teaches using a salt form of an ionomer [0122] such as sodium-form Nafion [0130], because of its better performance of the initial fuel cell power output [0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sodium form of Nafion in the fuel cell electrodes of Karuppaiah, because Pintauro teaches either normal Nafion or a salt form of an Nafion such as sodium-form Nafion [0138], because of its better performance of the initial fuel cell power output.
Considering claim 9, Karuppaiah is silent about the content of the ionomer.
However, Pintauro discloses a sodium form ionomer in a ratio of 1-3 with respect to the amount of the carrier polymer, and the amount of the ratio of the catalyst with respect to the weight of the polymers is 1-1.5 [0015]. Therefore, for the ratio values of 1 for the ionomer to the carrier polymer and 1.5 of the catalyst the weight of the polymers, 33 wt% of polymers, half of which is ionomer, which is 16.5 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 1 wt% to 20 wt%. Thus the range of Pintauro overlaps the instantly claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cave et al. (US 20200240023 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20230047140 A1).
Considering claims 1 and 2, Cave discloses an electrochemical cell comprising: an ion-conducting polymer membrane (1065) having a first surface and a second surface [0048]; a first hybrid electrocatalyst layer (1020, 1025) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface of the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer contacting the first surface of the ion-conducting polymer membrane (1065), the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer comprising: a first ion-conducting layer (1025) [0048]; and a first catalyst layer (1020) [0048]; a first species diffusion/transport layer (1026) contacting the second surface of the first hybrid electrocatalyst layer, wherein the first species diffusion/transport layer (1026) contacts the first catalyst layer (1020) and the ion-conducting polymer membrane (1065) contacts the first ion-conducting layer (1025) (Fig. 15); a second hybrid electrocatalyst layer (1045, 1040) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface of the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer contacting the second surface of the ion-conducting polymer membrane (1055), the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer comprising: a second ion-conducting layer (1045); and a second catalyst layer (1040) [0066]; and a second species diffusion/transport layer (1046) contacting the second surface of the second hybrid electrocatalyst layer, wherein the second species diffusion/transport layer (1046) contacts the second catalyst layer (1040) and the ion-conducting polymer membrane (1065) contacts the second ion-conducting layer (1045) ([0048], [0067] and Fig. 15).
Cave does not disclose the first and second catalyst layers are nonionic conductive.
However, Zhang teaches ionomer-free anode and cathode catalyst layers between a gas diffusion layer and an ion exchange membrane [0009], suitable in water electrolyziers, fuel cells and CO2 electrolyzers [0060]. Compared to the conventional dense catalyst layers, the ionomer-free catalyst free provides large surface area exposing rich active sites for the electrochemical reactions and show the possibility to create abundant defects but also promote mass transport and thus decrease the mass transport loss in an electrochemical device [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ionomer-free catalyst layers, as taught by Zhang in the electrochemical cell of Cave, because discloses that Compared to the conventional dense catalyst layers, the ionomer-free catalyst free provides large surface area exposing rich active sites for the electrochemical reactions and show the possibility to create abundant defects but also promote mass transport and thus decrease the mass transport loss in an electrochemical device.
Considering claim 6, Cave discloses soaking the ion exchange membrane in sodium salt ([0125]-[0127]).
Cave does not explicitly disclose a sodium-form polymer membrane.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sodium ions in the ion exchange membrane will replace hydrogen ions in the polymer exchange membrane such as Nafion, thus forming a sodium-form of the membrane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794