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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, JP2011044250A discloses an antioxidant for fuel cells (antioxidant, see p.1, see Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a core comprising an inorganic particle (inorganic particle, see p.3, Fig. 2); and
a shell covering at least a portion of a surface of the core and comprising an ionomer (inorganic particles coated/covered with polymer, see p.3-4, Fig. 2; polymer having a phosphorus-containing functional group has a proton conductive group, see p.4),
wherein the ionomer comprises a polymer and a proton conductive functional group bonded to the polymer (polymer having a phosphorus-containing functional group has a proton conductive group, see p.4).
Regarding claim 3, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the polymer comprises a main chain and a side chain (polymer has main chain and side chain, see p.4); the proton conductive functional group is bonded to the side chain; and the proton conductive functional group has more proton transfer sites than the side chain (phosphorus-containing functional group and proton conducting group introduced/transduced simultaneously/separately, see p.4).
Regarding claim 4, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the polymer comprises a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer (perfluorosulfonic acid resin, see p.5).
Regarding claim 5, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the proton conductive functional group comprises a phosphoric acid group (—PO4H3) (phosphoric acid, see p.2-3,5).
Regarding claim 17, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses a fuel cell (fuel cell, p.3, Fig. 1) comprising:
an electrolyte membrane comprising an ion transfer material (solid electrolyte membrane 1, p.3, Fig. 1);
a pair of electrodes disposed on both surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (catalyst electrode layer 2 bonded to both sides of a solid electrolyte membrane 1, p.3, Fig. 1); and
gas diffusion layers disposed on the pair of the electrodes (diffusion layer 4 disposed on both sides of the membrane electrode assembly 3, p3., Fig. 1),
wherein at least one of the electrolyte membrane, the electrodes and the gas diffusion layers comprises an antioxidant of claim 1 (inorganic particles in at least on region of the solid electrolyte membrane 1, catalyst electrode layer 2 and diffusion layer 4, p.3, Fig. 1; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the electrolyte membrane comprises an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight of the antioxidant based on 100 parts by weight of the ion transfer material (0.01 to 5 wt%, see p.5).
Regarding claim 19, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the ion transfer material has a greater equivalent weight than an equivalent weight of the ionomer (when the solid electrolyte membrane contains the inorganic particles, the content is in the range of 0.5 to 10% by mass, p.6, wherein the inorganic particles includes the ionomer and, thus, the weight of the ion transfer material/separator is greater than a weight of the inorganic particles containing the ionomer/polymer).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation, as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 17-19 above, in view of JP2005093233A, refer to English machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, JP2011044250A does not disclose the inorganic particle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below,
MXa, wherein: [Chemical Formula 1]
M comprises cerium (Ce), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), or any combination thereof;
X comprises at least one of halogen atoms; and
a is the same number as an oxidation number of M.
JP2005093233A discloses an electrolyte membrane electrode assembly for a polymer electrolyte fuel cell, at least one of the electrolyte membrane and the pair of electrodes includes a hardly soluble fluoride including, for example, CeF3 for decomposing hydrogen peroxide to suppress deterioration of electrolyte membranes caused by hydrogen peroxide and improve the durability of fuel cells (p.1, 3).
JP2011044250A and JP2005093233A are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely suppressing oxidation by radicals in fuel cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inorganic particles of JP2011044250A with hardly soluble fluorides such that CeF3 because JP2005093233A teaches suppressing deterioration and improving fuel cell durability.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation.
Regarding claim 6, JP2011044250A discloses a method for manufacturing an antioxidant for fuel cells (method for producing antioxidant particles, see p.5), comprising:
wherein the shell comprises the ionomer, wherein the ionomer comprises a polymer and a proton conductive functional group bonded to the polymer (inorganic particles coated/covered with polymer, see p.3-4, Fig. 2; polymer having a phosphorus-containing functional group has a proton conductive group, see p.4).
Further regarding claim 6, although JP2011044250A does not expressly disclose “preparing a dispersion solution comprising an ionomer; and adding a core comprising an inorganic particle to the dispersion solution to form a shell covering at least a portion of a surface of the core”, the reference discloses a method in which a polymer is added to and mixed with the inorganic particles dispersed in a solvent (see p.5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the order of the method steps since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 7, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the preparing the dispersion solution comprises: preparing an admixture comprising a precursor of the proton conductive functional group and a solution comprising the polymer; and stirring the admixture (see p.5).
Regarding claim 8, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the polymer comprises a main chain and a side chain (polymer has main chain and side chain, see p.4); the proton conductive functional group is bonded to the side chain; and the proton conductive functional group has more proton transfer sites than the side chain (phosphorus-containing functional group and proton conducting group introduced/transduced simultaneously/separately, see p.4).
Regarding claim 9, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the polymer comprises a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer (perfluorosulfonic acid resin, see p.5).
Regarding claim 10, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the proton conductive functional group comprises a phosphoric acid group (—PO4H3) (phosphoric acid, see p.2-3,5).
Regarding claim 11, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the admixture comprises about 0.00188 parts by weight and 0.188 parts by weight of the precursor, based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer (content of the antioxidant in the coating layer is 0.005 to 10 wt%, p.5; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 12, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. JP2011044250A further discloses the admixture is stirred at a temperature of about 30° C. to 140° C (stirred at room temperature and dried at 60 ° C, p.7).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation, as applied to claims 6-10 above, in view of JP2005093233A, refer to English machine translation.
Regarding claim 13, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, JP2011044250A does not disclose the inorganic particle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below,
MXa, wherein: [Chemical Formula 1]
M comprises cerium (Ce), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), or any combination thereof;
X comprises at least one of halogen atoms; and
a is the same number as an oxidation number of M.
JP2005093233A discloses an electrolyte membrane electrode assembly for a polymer electrolyte fuel cell, at least one of the electrolyte membrane and the pair of electrodes includes a hardly soluble fluoride including, for example, CeF3 for decomposing hydrogen peroxide to suppress deterioration of electrolyte membranes caused by hydrogen peroxide and improve the durability of fuel cells (p.1, 3).
JP2011044250A and JP2005093233A are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely suppressing oxidation by radicals in fuel cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inorganic particles of JP2011044250A with hardly soluble fluorides such that CeF3 because JP2005093233A teaches suppressing deterioration and improving fuel cell durability.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation, as applied to claims 6-10 above, in view of Kim (US 2020/0203745A1).
Regarding claim 14, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, JP2011044250A does not further disclose an amount of about 10 parts by weight to 1,000 parts by weight of the core is added to the dispersion solution, based on 100 parts by weight of the ionomer.
Kim discloses a weight ratio of the first ionomer to the antioxidant range from 1:1 to 1:50 ([0055]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses heat-treating a resultant, after forming the shell covering the surface of the core (dried [0064]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of about 100° C. to 200° C (25 to 280° C [0064]; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011044250A, refer to English machine translation, as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 17-19 above, in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0313213A1).
Regarding claim 20, JP2011044250A discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, JP2011044250A does not disclose a vehicle comprising a fuel cell of claim 17.
Park discloses antioxidant for fuel cells and fuel cell comprising the same (see Title, Abstract), and a vehicle including the fuel cell which can simultaneously secure both excellent antioxidation capability and acid resistance of the antioxidant in an acid atmosphere of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell for vehicles ([0026], [0047], [0066], [0109]).
JP2011044250A and Park are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells incorporating antioxidants.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fuel cell of JP2011044250A in a vehicle powered by the fuel cell because Park teaches securing performance in acid atmosphere of fuel cells for vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 12/22/2025