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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of species (a)(ii) in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 4 is also readable on the elected species. The argument is persuasive and claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-11 are examined herein.
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, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekino et al (US 20090117445). Regarding claim 1, the reference teaches a fuel cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly comprising a first electrode (31), a second electrode (32), and an electrolyte membrane (33) between the first and second electrodes, wherein the first electrode comprises first and second electrode modules (both top elements “31”; Fig. 8) that are separable from each other (see definition of “separable” on page 15 of instant specification). Regarding claim 3, the first and second electrode modules are spaced from each other (Fig. 8) and a visual boundary resulting form an interval between the electrode modules is present between the modules. Regarding claim 6, the membrane comprises first and second membrane modules (both 33) separable from each other, the second electrode comprises third and fourth electrode modules (both 32) separable from each other, the membrane electrode assembly comprises first and second assembly modules (both 13) separable from each other, wherein the first (left) assembly module comprises the first electrode module, third electrode module, and first membrane module between these, and the second (right) assembly module comprises the second electrode module, fourth electrode module, and second membrane module between these (Fig. 8). Regarding claim 7, the first and second membrane modules have active regions in contact with the respective electrode modules and non-active regions surrounding the active regions (Fig. 8). The first assembly module further comprises first and third sub-gasket modules (upper left 43, lower left 43) disposed in the non-active region of the first membrane module, the first and third sub-gasket modules surrounding the first and third electrode modules respectively. The second assembly module further comprises second and fourth sub-gasket modules (upper right 43, lower right 43) disposed in the non-active region of the second membrane module, the second and fourth sub-gasket modules surrounding the second and fourth electrode modules respectively. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claims, 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015-176739. Regarding claim 1, the reference teaches a fuel cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly comprising a first electrode (11b), a second electrode (12b), and an electrolyte membrane (10) between the first and second electrodes (Fig. 4), wherein the first electrode (11b) comprises first and second electrode modules (shown at 40A, 40B, Fig. 5) that are separable from each other ([0031], [0040]) (see definition of “separable” on page 15 of instant specification). Regarding claim 3, the first and second electrode modules are spaced from each other (Fig. 5) and a visual boundary resulting from an interval between the electrode modules is present between the modules. Regarding claim 4, the assembly further comprises a first gas diffusion layer (11a, Fig. 4), wherein first GDL is disposed such that the first electrode (11b) is located between the first GDL (11a) and the membrane (10), the first GDL comprises a first gas diffusion module (shown at 40A) attached to the first electrode module and a second gas diffusion module (shown at 40B) attached to the second electrode module, the first and second gas diffusion modules separable from each other (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 6, the membrane comprises first and second electrolyte membrane modules (shown at 40A, 40B) separable from each other, the second electrode comprises third and fourth electrode modules (shown at 40A, 40B) separable from each other, the membrane electrode assembly comprises first and second assembly modules (40A, 40B) separable from each other, wherein the first assembly module (40A) comprises the first electrode module, third electrode module, and first membrane module between these, and the second assembly module (40B) comprises the second electrode module, fourth electrode module, and second membrane module between these (see [0031], [0040]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekino et al in view of JP ‘739.
Sekino et al. is applied to claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the assemblies comprise first and second gas diffusion modules on the respective first and second electrode modules (claims 4 and 8), or that the assemblies further comprise third and fourth gas diffusion modules on the respective third and fourth electrode modules (claim 8).
As set forth in the rejection above, JP ‘739 teaches two in-plane membrane electrode assemblies having distinct (first-fourth) electrode modules and gas diffusion modules ([0040] et seq, Figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the use of gas diffusion electrodes (first-fourth modules to correspond to the respective electrode modules) are conventionally used in the art as evidenced by JP ‘739. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). In addition, JP ‘739 teaches that humidification properties can be changed between sections (assemblies) by varying properties of electrode or GDL layers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use GDL layers (modules) in the fuel cell assembly of Sekino et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites that the assembly further comprises a first elastic gasket having first and second windows configured respectively to allow the first and second gas diffusion modules to be exposed therethrough, the first elastic gasket being in contact with the first and second sub-gasket modules, and a second elastic gasket having third and fourth windows configured respectively to allow the third and fourth gas diffusion modules to be exposed therethrough, the second elastic gasket being in contact with the third and fourth sub-gasket modules. Sekino et al. as modified by JP ‘739, the closest prior art and applied above, does not teach or fairly suggest this subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 10, 2026