DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/29/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-9 are cancelled. Claim 17 is amended.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 17 overcomes previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to 112 rejection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that LEE does not teach the multilayered formation of the instant claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
LEE teaches the paper web has multiple layers [0087] formed in a wet-laid process [0062] and dried separately. The wet-laid process allows for a wet stock when laid onto the Fourdrinier (forming wire) [0062]. LEE does not teach the formation of a multilayer green paper combined while wet. TANG teaches the formation of a similar gas diffusion layer carbon paper [abstract]. TANG further teaches the carbon fiber paper with the gas diffusion layer is made in a wet-process [0048]. TANG teaches the wet-process uses co-current papermaking and spray on-papermaking where the two wet layers are formed at the same time before combining by drying [0052 and 0055]. TANG teaches the advantage of the invention is higher porosity and electrical conductivity [0066]. It would be obvious to ones skilled in the art to modify the process of LEE with the concurrent formation of TANG. One would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify LEE with the concurrent formation of TANG based on the improved porosity and electrical conductivity as taught by TANG.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140011118 A1) in view of TANG (CN110485191 A).
For claim 10, LEE and TANG teach a microporous paper used as a gas diffusion barrier in a fuel cell [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A process for producing a green paper for production of a gas diffusion layer (GDL) for a fuel cell”.
LEE teaches the paper web has multiple layers [0087] formed in a wet-laid process [0062] and dried separately. The wet-laid process allows for a wet stock when laid onto the Fourdrinier (forming wire) [0062]. LEE does not teach the formation of a multilayer green paper combined while wet. TANG teaches the formation of a similar gas diffusion layer carbon paper [abstract]. TANG further teaches the carbon fiber paper with the gas diffusion layer is made in a wet-process [0048]. TANG teaches the wet-process uses co-current papermaking and spray on-papermaking where the two wet layers are formed at the same time before combining by drying [0052 and 0055]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a first paper web is formed and a second paper web is formed, and the latter, in the still-moist state, is combined with and firmly bonded to the first paper web, where the first paper web and the second paper web together form the green paper”. TANG teaches the advantage of the invention is higher porosity and electrical conductivity [0066]. It would be obvious to ones skilled in the art to modify the process of LEE with the concurrent formation of TANG. One would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify LEE with the concurrent formation of TANG based on the improved porosity and electrical conductivity as taught by TANG.
For claim 11, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches the web is formed on a Fourdrinier [0062]. The Examiner understands a Fourdrinier uses a series of cylinders to form the web. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first and/or second paper web is produced in a cylindrical paper machine”.
For claim 17, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches one side of the membrane is used to house the platinum catalyst (a catalyst metal) [0129]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first paper web in the gas diffusion layer (GDL) produced from the green paper forms a diffusion layer for a membrane (CL) coated with catalytic metal”. LEE also teaches that the porous membrane web side acts as a flow channel (flow field) [0148]. The examiner understands that sides of the membrane can be interchangeable as first or second. This teaches the limitation of “and the second paper web in the gas diffusion layer (GDL) produced from the green paper forms a distribution layer with a flow field”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140011118 A1) as evidenced by United States Department of Energy (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-basics#:~:text=Polymer%20electrolyte%20membrane%20(PEM)%20fuel,to%20meet%20shifting%20power%20demands.).
For claim 16, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches the fuel cell formed is a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell [0002]. The examiner notes polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells are also called proton exchange membrane fuel cells, as evidenced by the United States Department of Energy (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-basics#:~:text=Polymer%20electrolyte%20membrane%20(PEM)%20fuel,to%20meet%20shifting%20power%20demands.). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the fuel cell is a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC), a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer cell (PEMEC), an electrolyzer cell or another power-to-x technology which requires correspondingly porous conductive material for gas/stream/reactant distribution”.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140011118 A1) and TANG (CN110485191 A) in view of ROSSET (US 20110056638 A1).
For claim 12, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches the use of a Fourdrinier to form the webs [0062]. LEE does not teach the short form of the machine. ROSSET teaches a similar sheet formation process using a Fourdrinier [0034]. ROSSET also teaches the short former is a type of papermachine similar to a Fourdrinier [0034]. ROSETT teaches the benefit of the system options presented is the ability to marry to two plies together before drying similar to LEE. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the short former of ROSSET in for the Fourdrinier of LEE and expect a similar ability to combine the webs as the original system. One would be motivated to substitute the machines based on the similar use case as taught by ROSSET. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first and/or second paper web is produced in a short former in which the paper stock is jetted onto a cylindrical screen”.
For claim 18, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE does not teach the imparting of a watermark on the paper. ROSSET teaches a similar sheet formation process using a Fourdrinier [0034]. ROSSET also teaches the short former is a type of papermachine similar to a Fourdrinier [0034]. ROSSETT teaches a watermark can be imparted on the web by a forming fabric (Fourdrinier wire) [0009]. ROSSET also teaches the use of multiple watermark on multiple plies (ribbon and substrate) that are juxtaposed [0116]. The examiner understands the juxtaposition includes the ability to stack or mirror the structure. ROSSET further teaches the benefit of the system options presented is the ability to marry to two plies together before drying similar to LEE. wherein a watermark is made in the first paper web and in the second paper web, where the structures of the watermark in the first paper web and of the watermark in the second paper web are not identical but have exact mirror symmetry in the plane and in the direction of material thickness.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140011118 A1) and TANG (CN110485191 A) in view of FUKUDA (US 4818640).
For claim 13, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches that the shorter fiber (finer) with lower flowability are laid on the wire first [0062]. LEE further teaches the larger fibers applied on the air side (on top) [0062]. This first fine layer is applied first before the longer web (less fine). The examiner understands the finer fiber allows for more material per volume resulting in a higher density than a web made from the same furnish medium with less fine fiber (which would allow less matter per volume). LEE additionally teaches different density distributions through the web layers [0066]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first paper web has a higher density than the second paper web”. LEE does not teach the density of the individual layers. FUKUDA also teaches the formation of a carbon based gas diffusion paper for a fuel cell [column 15 line 8-10]. FUKUDA further teaches the sheets should have a mean bulk density not less than 1.4 g/cc (1.4 g/cm3) [column 15 line 27]. This range overlaps the density range of the second paper web and teaches the limitation of “and the second paper web a density of 1 g/cm3 to 5 g/cm3”. See 2144.05(I). The FUKUDA range also encompasses the range of the first web limitation of “the first paper web having a density of 3 g/cm3 to 10 g/cm3”. See 2144.05(I). FUKUDA teaches the paper provides improved buffer action and heat/chemical resistance [column 4 line 37]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the density taught by FUKUDA and the density distribution of LEE and expect a similar ability to maintain the permeability of the material. One would be motivated to combine the arts’ densities based on the similar use case and improved properties as taught by FUKUDA.
For claim 14, LEE, TANG, and FUKUDA teach the process according to claim 13, as above. LEE teaches that the shorter fiber (finer) with lower flowability are laid on the wire first [0062]. LEE further teaches the larger fibers applied on the air side (on top) [0062]. This first fine layer is applied first before the longer web (less fine). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first paper web is formed by a finer paper stock slurry than the second paper web”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140011118 A1) and TANG (CN110485191 A) in view of ICHIKAWA (US 20180366736 A1).
For claim 15, LEE and TANG teach the process according to claim 10, as above. LEE teaches the use of platinum (metal) catalyst [0129]. ICHIKAWA also teaches a similar carbon based conductive permeable web [abstract] used in a fuel cell [0025]. ICHIKAWA also teaches that the conductive web uses platinum metal fibers [0068]. ICHIKAWA further teaches the advantage of the metal fiber are the oxidation and acid resistance [0068]. wherein the first and/or second paper web includes added metal powders and/or metal fibers. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the platinum metal fibers of ICHIKAWA in for the Fourdrinier of LEE and expect a similar resulting web. One would be motivated to substitute the metals based on the similar use case and the improved oxidation/acid resistance as taught by ICHIKAWA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights