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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/10/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/8/25. Claim 1 is amended. The rejection of claim 1 over Yamamoto is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, a new rejection is made in view of Kim, below. Claim 8 is added. Claims 1-8 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0214559) in view of Kim (US 2020/0331212).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a membrane electrode unit, or MEA (20), for an electrochemical cell (10), wherein the MEA comprises a frame structure (40, 60) for accommodating a membrane (21) coated with electrodes (23, 24), wherein the frame structure comprises first and second films, or gaskets (40, 60), between which an adhesive (90) is disposed (Figures 1-3).
Yamamoto further teaches that the films are melted together, via the adhesive which is a hot-melt adhesive, in bonded portions (81, 82) (Figure 5, [0051]).
Further regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches gas diffusion layers (23,24), but is silent on the use of adhesive to arrange the layers on sides of the frame structure.
Kim teaches a membrane-electrode unit, or membrane-electrode assembly (MEA) (3), wherein the MEA (3) comprises a frame structure, or subgasket (4d), and wherein gas diffusion layers (5, 7) are arranged on first and second sides of the frame structure (4d) via further adhesives, or adhesive layers (9) (Figure 2, [0066]-[0075]).
Kim further teaches that providing the further adhesive (9), which is an ultrasonic adhesive, for adhering the diffusion layers (5, 7) to the frame (4d) is desirable for inhibiting the electrolyte membrane of the MEA bas material from being thermally deformed ([0151]), fand for reducing consumption and cost of the further adhesive ([0152]).
It is additionally seen in Figure 2 of Kim that the frame extends beyond the gas diffusion layer, therefore the bonding region protrudes outwards from the further adhesive.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to adhere the gas diffusion layers to the frame of Yamamoto such as suggested by Kim for the reasons discussed above.
As for claims 2-3 and 7, Yamamoto teaches that each of the films, or gaskets, are PEN ([0050]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Yamamoto teaches that the gaskets are bonded over a circumference of the active region (Figure 5). It is seen in Figure 1 that a distribution region, or gas diffusion layers (24, 25), are provided within the circumferential bonding area.
With regard to claim 6, Yamamoto teaches producing the MEA discussed above by melting the films together by a hot punch, or thermal fusing operation with pressing device (123) (Figure 8B, [0081]).
Regarding claim 8, the method by which the depression is formed is considered a product-by-process limitation and therefore is not given patentable weight per MPEP 2113. Specifically, the examiner notes that the method of forming the depression as claimed does not appear to have any specific effect on the overall structure of the membrane-electrode unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/8/58, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim 1 under Yamamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim, as discussed above, for obviating the newly added limitation.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights