Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 19/280,139 filed on 25 July 2025. The application is a continuation-in-part of PCT/ IL2024 /050787 with priority to US provisional application 63/532757 filed 15 August 2023.
Claims 1-21 are pending, claims 19-21 are withdrawn by this action, and claims 1-18 have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §112(b) rejections are overcome by amendment and are withdrawn.
The §103 rejections of record are overcome by amendment and are withdrawn. New §103 grounds of rejection are presented in this action.
New §112(a) grounds of rejection are presented in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Particularly, claim 1 has been amended to recite that the claimed substrate, comprising a MPL made of nickel or nickel alloy, is non-catalytic. However, the originally filed disclosure specifically teaches at instant para [0040] that, in embodiments where the MPL of applicant’s substrate is made of nickel (as recited in claim 1), the MPL has catalytic activity towards the oxygen evolution reaction
The subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement; the disclosure may be implicit (MPEP 2163.02). However, silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation (MPEP 2173.05(i)). Examiner sees no explicit or implicit disclosure in the specification of an alternative embodiment in which the nickel substrate lacks catalytic activity. Amended claim 1 is therefore rejected under 112(a) because it contains subject matter that is not described in the originally filed specification. Claims 2-18 are rejected by extension because each of these claims incorporates the subject matter of claim 1 by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0337366 A1 to Blanchet et al (hereinafter “Blanchet”) in view of US 6,232,010 B1 to Cisar et al (hereinafter “Cisar”).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchet teaches a non-catalytic substrate for an oxygen electrode (para [0011], “a flow structure for use in an electrochemical cell”; para [0008], [0040], Blanchet’s flow structure is further coated with electrocatalyst to form an electrode, i.e. the flow structure is a substrate for an electrode; figure 1, para [0058], two of Blanchet’s flow structures are applied to a PEM fuel cell, one on the hydrogen electrode and another on the oxygen electrode), the substrate comprising:
a porous transport layer (PTL) made of a compacted felt of metal ligaments (para [0011], “compacted porous metallic substrate”; figure 2B and [0029]-[0032]) comprising at least one of nickel, alloys thereof or combinations thereof (para [0030], “can comprise a metal, such as, ... nickel ... or a metal alloy, such as, nickel chrome alloy, etc”), wherein pore sizes of the PTL are larger than 10 µm (para [0058], “After compaction, the average pore size of the metallic matrices was on the order of 50-100 μm”), and
a microporous layer (MPL) (para [0037], “compacted porous metallic matrix can be laminated on one side with a micro-porous material layer (MPL)”), wherein the MPL is attached to the PTL to provide electric conductivity thereto (para [0035], “low electrical contact resistance at the interface between the electrolyte membrane and the flow structure”) and to yield a predefined pore size distribution of the substrate below 10 µm (para [0038], “average pore size of the MPL can range ... from about 0.5-10 μm, from about 1 μm to about 10 μm, etc”; para [0058], “micro-porous material layers (MPLs) having pore size on the order of about 0.5 μm to 10 μm”).
Blanchet teaches that the metal PTL network is made of “a highly porous metallic material, such as, a foam, sintered metal frit, or any other porous metal” (para [0030]), and describes its microstructure as comprising “ligaments” (para [0032]). However, Blanchet does not clearly teach the metal PTL network is made of metal fibers.
Blanchet also does not disclose what material the MPL is made of.
Cisar teaches a non-catalytic substrate for an oxygen electrode (col 4 ln 55-67, “an apparatus ... comprising a porous metal flow field ... a porous metal gas diffusion layer”; figure 13-14 and col 9 ln 62 – col 10 ln 10, two such substrates, each comprising porous metal flow field 102 and microporous layer 104, are each respectively positioned adjacent to the anode and cathode electrocatalyst layers 108, 109 of a fuel cell), comprising a porous transport layer (PTL) (figure 13 layer 102; col 4 ln 55 - col 5 ln 19, “porous metal flow field”) which may be alternatively be a metal foam, sintered metal particle frit, or metal fiber felt (col 5 ln 2-4) and may comprise nickel (col 8 ln 6-36; col 9 ln 16-17, “sintered metal felts ... commercially available in nickel, stainless steel, and other metals”), and a microporous layer (MPL) made of metal (figure 13 layer 104; col 4 ln 55 – col 5 ln 19, “a porous metal gas diffusion layer metallurgically bonded to the first face of the porous metal flow field”), wherein the MPL is attached to the PTL to provide electric conductivity thereto (col 9 ln 45-55).
Cisar specifically teaches that it is desirable to make the MPL out of a sintered metal, as opposed to making the component out of carbon-carbon composite and polymeric binder, because the sintered metal MPL has a higher electrical conductivity, enabling an electrochemical cell comprising the substrate to achieve better current density (col 6 ln 13 - col 7 ln 15), and because the use of metal for both the PTL and the MPL allows these two components to be metallurgically bonded together as a unitized substrate, simplifying device assembly while further improving electrical conductivity (col 9 ln 20-61).
Cisar identifies titanium, nickel, and stainless steel as suitable metals to make the MPL component from (col 6 ln 24-30; col 8 ln 62 – col 9 ln 10; col 9 11-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when implementing Blanchet’s nickel PTL which may be made of “a highly porous metallic material, such as, a foam, sintered metal frit, or any other porous metal” (para [0030]), to make it from a material comprising nickel fibers, such as sintered metal felt as disclosed in Cisar, based on Cisar’s teaching that metal foam, sintered metal frit, and sintered metal felt are all suitable for use in the construction of the PTL (col 5 ln 2-4), and sintered metal felts are commercially available in nickel (col 9 ln 16-18). It similarly would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the MPL of Blanchet’s substrate from a metal material, based on Cisar’s teaching that the use of a metal material in the MPL improves the integrity and electrical conductivity of the substrate (col 6 ln 13-col 7 ln 15, col 9 ln 20-61). In so doing it would have been obvious to select, as the metal, nickel from among the three metals that Cisar identifies as suitable for this purpose. The court has held that if an anticipated success is attained by a person pursuing one of a finite number of known options within their technical grasp, the outcome likely reflects ordinary skill and common sense, rather than inventiveness (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (2007); also see MPEP 2143(E) and case law discussed therein). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious, and Blanchet further teaches wherein the MPL comprises pore forming agents configured to regulate and control pore sizes within the MPL (para [0053]-[0054], “Filler 30 may be porous and ... may also function as the MPL ... “filler 30 may include one or more additives, including pore formers”) and wherein the MPL has a thickness in the range 25.4 µm to 254 µm is between 10-50 µm thick (para [0051], “filler 30 may form a substantially smooth outer covering ... about 0.010 inches to about 0.001 inches in thickness”), a thickness range which overlaps the claimed range of between 10 µm and 50 µm thick. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable MPL thickness from within the thickness range of 0.001 to 0.010 inches (25.4 to 254 µm), including that portion of the prior art range which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 50 µm.
Regarding claim 4, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. Cisar also teaches that the MPL comprises binders that are resistant in high pH conditions (col 5 ln 17-18, “hydrophobic bonding material such as PTFE”; note, instant paragraph [0028] says that binders with suitable resistance to high pH conditions include fluorinated polymers such as PTFE).
Regarding claim 5, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious, and Blanchet further teaches the MPL comprises multiple layers that are configured to form a gradient across the MPL with respect to pore size and/or hydrophilicity (para [0039], [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. The further limitation of claim 6, wherein the substrate is “post treated to eliminate a passivated layer from the metal of the PTL and the MPL, to remove pore forming components from MPL, to adhere the MPL to the PTL and/or to stabilize MPL components within the MPL layer”, is directed to the process by which the claimed product is made. However, claim 6 is a product claim, so the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. Since the process step recited in claim 6 does not appear to imply any physical feature that could be relied upon to differentiate the claimed product from the prior art product, the product of Blanchet would read on this claim regardless of whether or not Blanchet disclosed the claimed post treatment. Furthermore, Blanchet teaches the substrate may be post treated to remove pore forming components from the MPL (para [0054], “pore formers may be baked off or dissolved”).
Regarding claim 7, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. The further limitation of claim 7, where the MPL and PTL are attached “by at least one of printing, spraying, applying hot pressing, calendaring or roll pressing”, is directed to the process by which the claimed product is made. However, claim 7 is a product claim, so the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. Since the process limitation recited in claim 7 does not appear to imply any physical feature that could be relied upon to differentiate the claimed product from the prior art product, the product of Blanchet would read on this claim regardless of whether or not Blanchet disclosed the claimed attachment method. Furthermore, Blanchet teaches the MPL is attached to the PTL by calendaring or roll pressing (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. The further limitation of claim 8, “wherein the PTL is pre-treated before attaching the MPL thereto, to enhance adhesion and improve an electric contact of the MPL to the PTL”, is directed to the process by which the claimed product is made. However, claim 8 is a product claim, so the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. Since the process step recited in claim 8 does not appear to imply any physical feature that could be relied upon to differentiate the claimed product from the prior art product, the product of modified Blanchet would read on this claim regardless of whether or not Blanchet disclosed pre-treating the PTL before attaching the MPL thereto. Furthermore, Blanchet further pre-treating the PTL by compaction before attaching the MPL thereto (para [0030]-[0033]) and teaches that that pre-treatment step improves an electrical contact resistance of the PTL surface (para [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. The further limitation of claim 9, “wherein the MTL is post-treated after attaching the MPL to the PTL”, is directed to the process by which the claimed product is made. However, claim 9 is a product claim, so the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. Since the process step recited in claim 9 does not appear to imply any physical feature that could be relied upon to differentiate the claimed product from the prior art product, the product of modified Blanchet would read on this claim regardless of whether or not Blanchet disclosed post-treating the MPL after attaching the MPL to the PTL. Furthermore, Blanchet discloses the MPL is post-treated after attaching the MPL to the PTL (para [0054], “pore formers may be baked off or dissolved”).
Regarding claim 10, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious. Blanchet teaches an electrode comprising the substrate as disclosed and further comprising a catalyst material deposited on the MPL of the substrate forming a catalyst layer thereupon (para [0040]). Blanchet also teaches a PEM fuel cell comprising a hydrogen electrode and an oxygen electrode, wherein each of the two electrodes comprises the substrate as disclosed (para [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the electrode of claim 10 obvious, and Blanchet further teaches the MPL comprises a gradient of pore distribution thereacross, with small pores near the catalyst layer and larger pores farther from the catalyst layer (para [0039], [0058]). The functional features recited in claim 11 (i.e., wherein the small pores near the catalyst layer function “to enhance electric contact thereto and decrease electrode resistance”, and the larger pores farther from the catalyst layer function “to optionally facilitate and enhance O2 gas release during operation”) do not appear to carry any patentable weight, since these functional features emerge from the claimed structure. That is to say, since Blanchet discloses the structure of a gradient of pore sizes with small pores near the catalyst layer and larger pores farther from the catalyst layer, as claimed, then the recited functions that emerge from this structure are inherently present in the electrode of modified Blanchet. See MPEP 2112 – 2112.01.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet and Cisar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in further view of Darland Jr et al (US 3,423,247 A, hereinafter “Darland Jr”).
Regarding claim 2, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the substrate of claim 1 obvious, and Blanchet further teaches the MPL pore size is preferably, “from about 0.5-10 μm, from about 1 μm to about 10 μm, etc” (para [0038]), a range which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and 5 microns. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and use a MPL pore size within the MPL pore size of 0.5 to 10 microns as disclosed by Blanchet, including those portions of the disclosed range which overlap with the claimed range of between 0.1 and 5 microns. The court has held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
However, the pore size of Blanchet’s PTL is from 50 to 100 microns (para [0058]). Blanchet does not teach the pore size of the PTL is between 10 and 25 microns.
Darland Jr is similarly directed to a substrate for an oxygen electrode (col 2 ln 58-60, “an electrode suitable for use in a fuel cell and as a cathode for a gas-depolarizable cell”; col 6 ln 28-58, the electrode is used as the oxygen electrode in various electrochemical cells), the substrate comprising a porous transport layer (PTL) (figure 1-2, “Zone B”; col 3 ln 61 – col 4 ln 3), and a microporous layer (MPL) (figure 1-2, “Zone A”; col 3 ln 36-60), wherein the MPL pore sizes are in a range of from 0.1 to 1.0 µm (col 3 ln 58-60), and the PTL pore sizes are in a range of from 1 to 20 µm (col 4 ln 2-3), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 25 µm. Darland Jr teaches that a substrate having the disclosed gradient of MPL pore sizes and PTL pore sizes is well suited to use in conjunction with an oxygen electrode because it achieves the desired balance between gas penetration from the PTL side and liquid penetration from the MPL side (col 3 ln 2-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of Blanchet by selecting, as the pore size of the MPL, a value in the range of 1 to 20 µm as disclosed by Darland Jr, including from within that portion of the prior art size range that overlaps with the claimed pore size range of 10 to 25 µm, based on Darland Jr’s teaching that a PTL with pore sizes in that range is suited to the intended purpose of functioning as a gas diffusion backing layer in an oxygen electrode (col 3 ln 2-27; col 3 ln 75 – col 4 ln 3). The court has held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Blanchet in view of Cisar renders the oxygen electrode of claim 10 obvious, but does not teach the MPL comprises a hydrophilicity gradient, exhibiting a more hydrophilic structure near the catalyst layer to facilitate water and/or electrolyte distribution teaches, and a more hydrophobic composition farther from the catalyst layer to enhance gas removal from O2 release areas teaches.
Darland Jr is similarly directed to a substrate for an oxygen electrode (col 2 ln 58-60, “an electrode suitable for use in a fuel cell and as a cathode for a gas-depolarizable cell”; col 6 ln 28-58, the electrode is used as the oxygen electrode in various electrochemical cells), the substrate comprising a porous transport layer (PTL) (figure 1-2, “Zone B”; col 3 ln 61 – col 4 ln 3), and a microporous layer (MPL) (figure 1-2, “Zone A”; col 3 ln 36-60). Darland Jr further teaches the MPL comprises a hydrophilicity gradient, exhibiting a more hydrophilic structure near the catalyst layer to facilitate water and/or electrolyte distribution, and a more hydrophobic composition farther from the catalyst layer to enhance gas exchange therefrom (col 3 ln 2-27; col 4 ln 30-54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode substrate of Blanchet by incorporating a hydrophilicity gradient into the MPL such that it exhibits a more hydrophilic structure near the catalyst layer and a more hydrophobic composition farther from the catalyst layer, as taught in Darland Jr (col 4 ln 30-54), for the purpose of facilitating water and/or electrolyte distribution at the catalyst-facing surface of the MPL, and enhancing gas removal from the opposite side of the MPL, as taught in Darland Jr (col 3 ln 2-27).
Regarding claim 13, Blanchet in view of Cisar and Darland Jr renders the substrate of claim 12 obvious, and Darland Jr further teaches the hydrophilicity gradient across the MPL is achieved by binder characteristics across the MPL having a region near the catalyst layer more hydrophilic than a region distant from the catalyst layer (col 4 ln 60 - col 5 ln 9, successive layers farther from the catalyst layer have increasing amounts of polyethylene binder, and the farthest layers have polytetrafluoroethylene included in the binder; col 5 ln 34 – 42).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beachy et al (US 2018/0327917 A1, hereinafter “Beachy”) in view of Blanchet.
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 17, Beachy discloses an AEM reversible device, configured to operate both as a fuel cell and as an electrolyzer (abstract), comprising a hydrogen electrode (para [0038], “a hydrogen electrode in which hydrogen evolution and hydrogen oxidation can occur”; para [0048], [0056], figure 1C), a membrane (figure 1A #400; para [0057], “membrane (AEM) 400”), an alkaline electrolyte (para [0038], “a porous matrix layer that may be permeated with aqueous liquid electrolyte”; para [0037], “preferred ... aqueous KOH ... as the electrolyte”; para [0049], [0056]) and an oxygen electrode (para [0038], “an oxygen electrode in which oxygen evolution and oxygen reduction can occur”; figure 1A #750; para [0057], “oxygen electrode (750)”), wherein the oxygen electrode comprises of a first layer comprising nickel fibers (para [0057], “the oxygen electrode current collector (850) may be nickel mesh”; figure 1A), a second layer comprising nickel (para [0057], “and the oxygen electrode (750) may be nickel foam”; figure 1A), and having a catalyst material deposited on the second layer, forming a catalyst layer thereupon (para [0057], “coated with a mixture of catalyst and binder”).
However, Beachy does not teach that the nickel-mesh layer of the oxygen electrode is a PTL having pore size of greater than 10 microns and the nickel-foam layer of the oxygen electrode is a MPL having pore of less than 10 microns, as required by claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. In this sense, the oxygen electrode disclosed in Beachy is different than the oxygen electrode of claim 10.
Blanchet teaches a non-catalytic substrate for an oxygen electrode (para [0011], “a flow structure for use in an electrochemical cell”; para [0008], [0040], Blanchet’s flow structure is further coated with electrocatalyst to form an electrode, i.e. the flow structure is a substrate for an electrode; figure 1, para [0058], two of Blanchet’s flow structures are applied to a PEM fuel cell, one on the hydrogen electrode and another on the oxygen electrode), the substrate comprising:
a porous transport layer (PTL) made of a compacted felt of metal ligaments (para [0011], “compacted porous metallic substrate”; figure 2B and [0029]-[0032]) comprising at least one of nickel, alloys thereof or combinations thereof (para [0030], “can comprise a metal, such as, ... nickel ... or a metal alloy, such as, nickel chrome alloy, etc”), wherein pore sizes of the PTL are larger than 10 µm (para [0058], “After compaction, the average pore size of the metallic matrices was on the order of 50-100 μm”), and
a microporous layer (MPL) (para [0037], “compacted porous metallic matrix can be laminated on one side with a micro-porous material layer (MPL)”), wherein the MPL is attached to the PTL to provide electric conductivity thereto (para [0035], “low electrical contact resistance at the interface between the electrolyte membrane and the flow structure”) and to yield a predefined pore size distribution of the substrate below 10 µm (para [0038], “average pore size of the MPL can range ... from about 0.5-10 μm, from about 1 μm to about 10 μm, etc”; para [0058], “micro-porous material layers (MPLs) having pore size on the order of about 0.5 μm to 10 μm”).
Blanchet teaches that their substrate, comprising a PTL with pore size greater than 10 µm and a MPL with pore size less than 10 µm, is particularly suitable for use in electrochemical cells such as polymer electrolyte fuel cells and electrolyzers (para [0009], [0028]) because they mechanically support the membrane of the cell thereby preventing possible damage to the membrane from gas pressure differentials (para [0039], [0060]), and provide good electrical contact to improve the efficiency of the cell (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beachy’s device by structuring the nickel-based oxygen electrode as an electrode which has, beneath its catalyst layer, an electrode substrate comprising an MPL with fine pores less than 10 µm in diameter, and a PTL with pores greater than 10 µm in diameter, based on Blanchet’s teaching that an electrode substrate with this structure improves the mechanical durability and electrical efficiency of the electrochemical cell it is in (para [0039], [0060]).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Beachy in view of Blanchet renders obvious a device which is both the AEM electrolyzer of claim 15 and the AEM reversible device of claim 17. Blanchet further teaches the MPL comprises a gradient of pore distribution thereacross, with small pores near the catalyst layer and larger pores farther from the catalyst layer (para [0039], [0058]). The functional features recited in claims 16 and 18 (i.e., wherein the small pores near the catalyst layer function “to enhance electric contact thereto and decrease electrode resistance”, and the larger pores farther from the catalyst layer function “to optionally facilitate and enhance O2 gas release during operation”) do not appear to carry any patentable weight, since these functional features emerge from the claimed structure. That is to say, since Blanchet discloses the structure of a gradient of pore sizes with small pores near the catalyst layer and larger pores farther from the catalyst layer, as claimed, then the recited functions that emerge from this structure are inherently present in the electrode of modified Blanchet. See MPEP 2112 – 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 27 March 2026, and Remarks filed 21 April 2026), with respect to the rejection of claim 1 based on Darling Jr, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made based on Blanchet.
Applicant amends claim 1 to recite that the claimed oxygen electrode substrate is non-catalytic. Applicant argues that Darland Jr does not pre-empt amended claim 1 because, in the layers of Darland Jr’s oxygen electrode that the Office identified as corresponding to the substrate, there are catalyst particles.
Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the §103 rejection of record is withdrawn.
In the interview conducted 15 April 2026, Examiner suggested that the disclosure of Blanchet (in pre-grant publication US 2013/0337366 A1 or corresponding patent US 10,287,695) might be relied upon as the basis of a new ground of rejection. Applicant addresses the Blanchet reference in their Remarks, arguing that Blanchet’s invention does not read on the claimed oxygen electrode substrate, because Blanchet’s disclosed article is flow structure in support of an electrode, rather than the substrate of the electrode.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, the apparent meaning of “oxygen electrode substrate” is a porous intermediate structure, onto which an electrocatalyst layer may be deposited or attached to thereby form an oxygen electrode (see instant specification para [0005]-[0006], [0020]-[0022], [0034]). The flow structure of Blanchet’s disclosure is consistent with this meaning (para [0029], Blanchet’s “flow structure” is a porous structure which provides for mechanical support, fluid transport, and electrical connectivity to a PEM cell; para [0040], electrocatalyst is attached to the MPL surface of the flow structure). The structure disclosed in Blanchet therefore reads against the claim.
New grounds of rejection, based on Blanchet modified by Cisar, are therefore presented in this action.
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 R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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 V 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights