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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on July 21, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15-18 are currently amended. Claims 2, 4 and 14 are canceled. Claims 19 and 20 are newly added. Claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15-20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the drawings and the specification are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 19 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim uses both “membrane electrode assembly (1)” and “membrane electrode assembly”. If applicant wishes to use reference characters within the claims, this should be done consistently throughout the claims. Applicant should select either “membrane electrode assembly (1)” or “membrane electrode assembly” and use the same throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the two window-like openings” on line 2. Claim 12 depends on claim 1 via claim 11.
Claim 1 defines “at least two window-like openings”.
The phrasing of claim 12 creates ambiguity as to whether it intends to refer to some two specific, but previously undefined window-like openings or whether it intends to refer to all window-like openings within the scope of claim 1.
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the fuel cell” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “pressing the first film sleeve (3) and the second film sleeve (3) together so that at least some regions of two halves of the first film sleeve (3) and at least some regions of two halves of the second film sleeve (3) lie on top of one another” on lines 6-9.
The phrasing of this limitation is ambiguous. It is possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the first film sleeve (3) and the second film sleeve (3) are pressed together, such that regions of the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) lie on top of regions of the two halves of the second film sleeve (3).
It is also possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the first film sleeve (3) is pressed, such that regions of the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) lie on top of one another and separately the second film sleeve (3) is pressed, such that regions of the two halves of the second film sleeve (3) lie on top of one another.
For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification, the limitation is understood to have intended the latter meaning.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “connecting the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) and the two halves of the second film sleeve (3) lying on top of one another to one another” on lines 9-10.
Similarly to the limitation of lines 6-9, the phrasing of the limitation is ambiguous. It is possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) are connected to the two halves of the second film sleeve (3). It is also possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) are connected to each other and separately the two halves of the second film sleeve (3) are connected to each other.
For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification, the limitation is understood to have intended the latter meaning.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) and the two halves of the second film sleeve (3) lying on top of one another are glued to one another” on lines 1-3.
The phrasing of the limitation is ambiguous. It is possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) are glued to the two halves of the second film sleeve (3). It is also possible to interpret the limitation to mean that the two halves of the first film sleeve (3) are glued to each other and separately the two halves of the second film sleeve (3) are glued to each other.
For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification, the limitation is understood to have intended the latter meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0087713, hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a method for producing a fuel cell (1). The fuel cell (1) comprises a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (10), partly enclosed by an assembly of films (4, “sub-gasket”) (paragraphs [0059, 0060] and figure 1).
The method includes a step of forming a bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) from a pair of films (4) (paragraph [0078] and figure 5a). An easily removed region (44) is created in each of the films (4) of the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) by perforating outer edges of the region (paragraph [0079]). Perforation results in a series of small openings – each of which may be described as a “window-like opening”.
The MEA (10) is then fully inserted into the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) containing the series of “window-like openings” (paragraph [0079] and figure 5c). The bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) is pressed together so that regions in two halves of the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) lie on top of one another. The two halves lying on top of another are connected to one another (paragraph [0080] and figure 5e).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches that the easily removed region (44) is smaller in size than the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”) of the MEA (10) (paragraph [0079]). Therefore, the border of each easily removed region (44), which is made up of the series of “window-like openings” will overlie a corresponding portion of the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”). As such, there necessarily will be a portion of the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”) positioned within each of the series of “window-like openings”.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches that the MEA (10) is inserted fully into the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”), such that the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) extends beyond the MEA (10) on all sides (figures 5d and 5d).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida teaches that prior to insertion of the MEA (10), adhesive is applied to an inside of the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) (paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches that after the MEA (10) is inserted into the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”), the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) is pressed together. Halves of the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) lie on top of one another and are connected to one another (paragraph [0080] and figure 5e).
An opening (41) is formed in the halves lying on top of one another (paragraph [0080] and figure 5d). The opening (41) provides access for reactive gases to reach the catalyst layer (3) – therefore, the opening (41) is considered “a supply opening”.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida teaches that the “window-like openings” are created through a perforation process (“punching process”) (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida teaches a fuel cell (1). The fuel cell (1) comprises a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (10), partly enclosed by an assembly of films (4, “sub-gasket”) (paragraphs [0059, 0060] and figure 1). The assembly of films (4, “sub-gasket”) is made of a bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) having two window-like openings (41) (paragraphs [0078, 0080] and figure 5d).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches that the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) comprises two halves – each half is one of the films (4). Some regions of the two films (4) lie on top of one another. The two films (4, “halves”) are connected to one another (paragraphs [0078, 0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches that the two halves lying on top of another are adhered to one another (paragraphs [0080, 0094] and figure 5e).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches multiple perforation holes (“window-like openings”) defining the easily removed region (44). There are pairs of perforation holes (“window-like openings”) opposite one another across the easily removed region (44).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches that the easily removed region (44) is smaller in size than the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”) of the MEA (10) (paragraph [0079]). Therefore, the border of each easily removed region (44), which is made up of the series of “window-like openings” will overlie a corresponding portion of the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”). As such, there necessarily will be a portion of the catalyst layers (3, “active regions”) positioned within each of the series of “window-like openings”.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida teaches that the opening (41, “supply opening”) is created through a perforation process (“punching process”) (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches that after the MEA (10) is inserted into the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”), the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) is pressed together. Halves of the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) lie on top of one another and are connected to one another (paragraph [0080] and figure 5e).
There are two openings (41) formed in the halves lying on top of one another (paragraph [0080] and figure 5d). Each opening (41) provides access for reactive gases to reach the catalyst layer (3) – therefore, an opening (41) may be considered “a supply opening”.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida teaches that the two openings (41, “supply opening”) and the series of “window-like openings” are created through a perforation process (“punching process”) (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida teaches that the bag-like structure (“film sleeve”) comprises two halves – each half is one of the films (4). Some regions of the two films (4, “halves”) lie on top of one another. The two films (4, “halves”) are adhered to one another (paragraphs [0078, 0080, 0094]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0159527, hereinafter Reckers.
Regarding claim 19, Reckers teaches a method for producing a fuel cell. The fuel cell comprises an MEA (11), partly enclosed by sealing frame (19, “sub-gasket”) (paragraph [0038] and figures 2-4). The sealing frame (19, “sub gasket”) surrounds the edge region of the MEA (11) (paragraph [0010]).
The method includes inserting one end of the MEA (11) into a first one-piece cavity (25, “film sleeve”) located on one side of the sealing frame (19, “sub gasket”) and inserting another end of the MEA (11) into a second one-piece cavity (25, “film sleeve”) located on another side of the sealing frame (19, “sub gasket”) (paragraph [0039] and figures 1-4).
Each cavity (25, “film sleeve”) is pressed so that regions of two halves (26) of each cavity (25, “film sleeve”) lie on top of one another (paragraph [0039] and figures 2-4). The halves (26) lying on top of one another are connected to one another at least by seal (24), which fills the cavity (25, “film sleeve”) (paragraph [0039] and figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 20, Reckers teaches that the two halves (26) of each cavity (25, “film sleeve”) which lie on top of one another and are glued to one another (paragraphs [0020, 0039]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the previously presented Yoshida and Reckers references were found to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724