DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (i.e., claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 06/09/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Taiwan on 10/27/21. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 110139951 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/26/22.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The present invention provides”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 6-10 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.
The terms “relatively large particle size catalyst” and “relatively small particle size catalyst” in claims 6-7 and 10 [occurrence in three (3) claims] are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively large” and “relatively small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the exact dimension or magnitude of being “relatively large” and “relatively small” is totally unknown, subjective and open to interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication CN 106887601 (heretofore CN’601).
As to claims 1, 5-6, 10:
CN’601 discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode including the steps of: mixing a catalyst material having an average particle size to form a mixture, stirring and/or mixing in a stirrer the mixture to form a second mixture, rolling the second mixture into a catalyst layer/coat, and laminating the catalyst layer/coat on a conductive/metallic current collector, and a gas diffusion membrane (Abstract; 0005-0012; 0015-0025; 0036-0037; 0041-0046; see CLAIMS 1-8; see EXAMPLES 1-3). CN’601 discloses mixing 41 parts by weight of manganese dioxide having an average particle diameter of 7 µm and 100 parts by weight of carbon having an average particle diameter of 47 µm (for instance, see EXAMPLE 1), thereby forming a weight ratio of about 2.44. CN’601 discloses that the average particle diameter of the carbon material ranges from 35-55 µm (see CLAIM 4). Examiner’s note: 1st interpretation, the manganese dioxide and the carbon material are taken to represent applicant’s materially undefined catalyst material(s); 2nd interpretation, the manganese dioxide itself can represent applicant’s materially undefined catalyst because the present claim fails to stipulate whether the first and second catalyst are made of different materials, as such as a first portion of the manganese dioxide constitutes a first catalyst material and a second portion of the manganese dioxide constitutes a second catalyst material. Thus, since the present claims fail to define the specific composition of the catalyst material(s), it is deemed that the teachings of CN’601 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly and materially undefined catalyst material.
As to claims 2-3, 7-8:
In EXAMPLES 1-3, CN’601 discloses the gas diffusion membrane comprising a second conductive agent and a second adhesive, and manganese dioxide or a transition metal oxide (see CLAIM 10) as first/second catalyst materials (see CLAIMS 1-8; see EXAMPLES 1-3). CN’601 also discloses carbon as conductive agent/aid, PTFE, water as a solvent (forming an aqueous solution) and a conductive mesh current collector made of stainless steel (see EXAMPLES 1-3), or copper or nickel (0038). CN’601 teaches the carbon material can be active carbon, acetylene black, carbon nanotube or graphite (see CLAIM 9).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a reasonable search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the method for manufacturing the electrode comprising the specific combination of components/elements and method steps satisfying all the limitations recited in dependent claims 4 and 9, respectively.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Barbara L. Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights