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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1, 12 and 16 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 17-20 are as previously presented. Claims 8 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 16-20 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action is modified as necessitated by applicants amendments.
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 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haus (JP2013534707), and further in view of Okuyama (US 2012/0034548) and Atanassov (WO 20160149168).
As to claim 16, Haus discloses a membrane electrode assembly for a fuel cell (page 2-3 and 3, figure 1 #110 is the fuel cell and #114, 115, 116, 113, 118 being the membrane electrode assembly, discussed throughout), comprising: a first gas diffusion layer comprising a first catalyst support (pages 2-3 #118, discussed throughout), wherein the first catalyst support comprises a porous layer (pages 2-3 #118, discussed throughout); a second gas diffusion layer (pages 2-3, figure 1 #114, discussed throughout); an electrolyte membrane disposed between the first gas diffusion layer and the second gas diffusion layer (pages 2-3 #116, discussed throughout); a first catalyst layer disposed between the first gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane (pages 2-3, figure 1 #113, discussed throughout), the first catalyst layer comprising a first ionomer (figures 2A-F #230 or 241, pages 3-4, the first ionomer can also be the first ionomer plus the second ionomer or the second ionomer, discussed throughout); and a second catalyst layer disposed between the second gas diffusion layer and the electrolyte membrane (figure 1 #115, pages 2-3, discussed throughout), and wherein the first ionomer is on the form of agglomerates having sizes in a range of about 20 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers (pages 4-5), the first ionomer is present within the first catalyst layer in a concentration gradient (page 3, uneven, thus there would be a gradient).
Haus is silent to wherein the gas diffusion layer is made of carbon material and the porous carbon layer having pores with the diameter in a range of about 1 nm to about 8 nm; wherein a thickness of the electrolyte is 15 microns or less and wherein a concentration of the first ionomer is greater adjacent to the electrolyte membrane than the concentration of the first ionomer adjacent to the first gas diffusion layer.
Okuyama discloses a gas diffusion layer from a fuel cell ([0016], discussed throughout) wherein the gas diffusion layer is made of a porous carbon material ([0076], discussed throughout) having pores with diameter in a range of about 1 nm to about 8 nm ([0051] and discussed throughout). And a thickness of the electrolyte is 15 microns or less ([0115], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the gas diffusion layer from Okuyama within Haus as the gas diffusion layer can prevent freeze within the gas diffusion layer during cold startups of the fuel cell ([0013], discussed throughout). Additionally it would have been obvious to use the gas diffusion layer and the thickness of the electrolyte layer from Okuyama within Haus as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I) specifically thickness of electrolyte layers within fuel cells. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Atanassov discloses a fuel cell (page 2) wherein the ionomer gradient is used within the catalyst layer (page 5, [0039]), wherein a concentration of the first ionomer is greater adjacent to the electrolyte membrane than the concentration of the first ionomer adjacent to the first gas diffusion layer (page 5, [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to implement the gradient of the ionomer from Atanassov within Haus because the gradient can balance the needs of reducing pore blockage (page 5, [039], Atanassov; also see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 17, modified Haus discloses wherein, a concentration of the first ionomer varies within the first catalyst layer along a direction towards the first gas diffusion layer (page 5, [0039], Atanassove).
As to claim 18, modified Haus discloses wherein, the second catalyst layer includes a second ionomer, and a concentration of the second ionomer varies within the second catalyst layer along a direction towards the second gas diffusion layer (figures 2A-F #230 or 241, pages 3-4 and discussed throughout, Haus; page 5, [039], Atanassov).
As to claim 20, modified Haus discloses a fuel cell comprising the membrane electrode assembly of claim 16 (figure 1 #110, pages 2-3 and discussed throughout).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Haus as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20160039375).
As to claim 19, Haus is silent further comprising a scavenger layer disposed between the electrolyte membrane and the second catalyst layer. Kim discloses an electrolyte from a fuel cell wherein the electrolyte comprises a scavenger layer (page 1, figure 1). It would have been obvious to use the scavenger layer from Kim within Haus because the scavenger layer exhibits stable performance and enhanced durability (page 1 discussed throughout; Kim). Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have the scavenger layer on the second catalyst side given a finite number of options i.e. the first catalyst side of the second catalyst side (see MPEP 2143 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments, filed 1/14/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 16-20 under Haus have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of modified Haus. Please see new rejection above.
The applicant points to criticality and unexpected results within the instant examples. While the examiner does not contest the criticality and unexpected results of the examples the claims are not commensurate in scope with the instant examples i.e. the thickness of the electrolyte, the ionomer and so furth. See MPEP 716.02 requirements of criticality and unexpected results.
The applicant also points that it would not have been obvious to add a gradient as instantly claimed within Haus as has discloses “the ionomer in the electrode layer are distributed substantially uniform.” However, this is not considered persuasive as within page 3, it is the first ionomers that are distributed substantially uniform, the second ionomer can have an uneven distribution. Thus, the instant claimed first ionomer can be both the prior art first ionomer and second ionomer or it can be the second ionomer. Thus would yield an uneven distribution. Next, see the modification above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights