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 .
The Applicant’s amendments are received on 1/16/26. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14 and 16 are amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1, 2, 4-10,12-17 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 6 and 14 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 8 and 16 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,12, 13, 15, 17. The rejection is repeated or further modified in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10,12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP2006344428).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Tanaka et al. reference discloses a fuel cell comprising a cathode structure, a cathode structure for being integrated into a fuel cell comprising an air introduction portion (air inlet)and an air discharge portion (air outlet), wherein the cathode structure comprises a first region disposed close to the air introduction portion when the cathode structure is integrated into the fuel cell and comprising a first catalyst, and a second region being the remaining region excluding the first region and comprising a second catalyst. The first catalyst comprises a first support body (supported by carbon) and an alloy catalyst supported by the first support body (“At least one of the catalyst layer (1) and the catalyst layer (2) has a higher content of the platinum alloy particles from the inlet side to the outlet side of the gas flow path” and “In the catalyst layer (1) and / or the catalyst layer (2), platinum particles and platinum alloy particles are used as catalyst particles for promoting the electrode reaction”). The Tanaka et al. reference discloses the catalyst particles contains platinum particles and platinum alloy particles The Tanaka et al. reference discloses a second support body and a catalyst supported by the second support body (carbon) and discloses in another embodiment that platinum (non-alloy) can be used for the second region (embodiment) closest to the outlet side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate platinum (non-alloy) supported by carbon in the second region closest to the air outlet side since different embodiments are taught by Tanaka. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of the patents together like pieces of a puzzle. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. The question to be answered is whether the claimed invention is a product of innovation or merely the result of common sense, ordinary creativity, and ordinary skill. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses the cathode structure of claim 1, wherein the cathode structure comprises a pair of long sides facing each other and a pair of short sides facing each other, and wherein the first region is disposed along at least any one of the pair of short sides (Fig. 1, wherein the short sides are the edge of the fuel cell facing each other, as can be seen, region 1 is disposed at the very least, the short sides).
Regarding claims 4, 12, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses the first region occupies about 30% to 70% of a surface area of the cathode structure (displays 50% of Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses the alloy catalyst has a formula of Pt-M, wherein M comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, Ru, Cu, Fe.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses in one embodiment the first catalyst comprises an alloy supported on carbon comprises to comprise 50% of alloy supported on carbon support (remainder of the catalyst is calculated to be 50% carbon support; Example 2). Although the Tanaka et al. reference discloses different embodiments, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the disclosed % of the first catalyst and carbon support of embodiments for the same purposes. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses wherein the non-alloy catalyst comprises a platinum (Pt; embodiment for layer 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses in one embodiment the second catalyst comprises an non-alloy supported on carbon comprises 47% of non-alloy supported on carbon support (remainder of the catalyst is calculated to be 53% carbon support; Example). Although the Tanaka et al. reference discloses different embodiments, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the disclosed % of the second catalyst and carbon support of embodiments for the same purposes. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 17, the Tanaka et al. reference discloses a membrane-electrode assembly comprising a cathode structure of claim 1 (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants arguments are:
The Applicant argues,
PNG
media_image1.png
204
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the claims are broad. The claims do not exclude the first catalyst from the second region and the second catalyst from the first region. The prior art discloses mixed first and second catalyst for both regions which would also read on the claimed invention. Thus, the rejections are maintained.
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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights