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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 1/2/26. Claim 1 is amended. The rejections of claim 1 over Morimoto and Woo in view of Sakamoto are withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, new rejections are made in view of Bauer. Claims 1-11 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 2009/0142641) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2014/0302418).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches a membrane-electrode assembly for fuel cells comprising:
a pair of electrodes (46a, 46b);
an electrolyte membrane (44) having a membrane extension member, i.e. exposed at the outer periphery of an electrode section (abstract, Fig. 3);
a sub-gasket, or frame (47a, 47c), bonded to both surfaces of the extension member and extending outside the extension member and bonded to each other (Figs. 3 and 6);
an opening, or aperture (50), formed in the upper gasket (47c) and adjacent to the extension member (Fig. 3, [0061]).
As to the functional limitation of claim 1, describing the function of the opening, the examiner finds that the structure of Morimoto anticipates the claimed structure, and the structure of Morimoto will inherently function as the claimed invention functions. MPEP 2112, 2114
With further regard to claim 1, Morimoto fails to teach the claimed void.
Bauer teaches a membrane electrode assembly including a void, or cavity volume (150), provided between upper and lower gaskets, or sealing cover sections (125, 135) (Figure 2, [0045]). Bauer further teaches that the void is desirable for creating a buffer to allow for swelling and shrinkage of the membrane, thereby reducing the risk of damage to the membrane ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to provide a void in the membrane electrode assembly of Morimoto such as suggested by Bauer in order to reduce the risk of damage to the membrane.
As for claim 2, it is seen in Figure 3 of Morimoto that a plurality of openings (50) are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction.
As for claim 3, the openings are adjacent to an upper surface of the extension member (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, it is seen in Figure 3 that the openings (5) extend through the gasket.
With regard to claim 5, it is seen in Figure 3 that the openings (50) are less wide than the extension member.
Regarding claim 10, Morimoto teaches the MEA of claim 1 in a fuel cell (claim 3 of Morimoto).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2020/0075982) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2014/0127608)and Bauer.
The teachings of Bauer as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 1, Woo teaches a membrane electrode assembly for fuel cells comprising:
a pair of electrodes (100a, 100b);
an electrolyte membrane (50) with extension member extending outside the electrodes (see Fig. 4);
a subgasket (200a, 200b) bonded to both surfaces of the membrane extension member, comprising an upper and (200a) and lower (200b) gasket (Fig. 1);
and an opening, or moisture drain hole (205a, 205b), in both gaskets, to discharge moisture generated in the membrane (Fig. 3, [0002], [0042]).
Further regarding claim 1, Woo fails to teach that the upper and lower gasket extend outside the membrane extension membrane and are bonded to each other.
Sakamoto teaches a membrane electrode assembly as in claim 1, including electrodes (6), a membrane (5) having membrane extension member, and gaskets (1) (Figure 4). It is seen in Figure 6 that the gaskets extend beyond the membrane extension member and are bonded together.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the known structure of Sakamoto of extending gaskets beyond the edge of the membrane in the assembly of Woo and the results, i.e. a gasketed MEA, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
With further regard to claim 1, Woo in view of Sakamoto fails to teach the claimed void.
Bauer teaches a membrane electrode assembly including a void, or cavity volume (150), provided between upper and lower gaskets, or sealing cover sections (125, 135) (Figure 2, [0045]). Bauer further teaches that the void is desirable for creating a buffer to allow for swelling and shrinkage of the membrane, thereby reducing the risk of damage to the membrane ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to provide a void in the membrane electrode assembly of Woo in view of Sakamoto such as suggested by Bauer in order to reduce the risk of damage to the membrane.
As for claim 2, it is seen in Figure 1 of Woo that the openings (205) are plural and spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the membrane.
As for claims 2-5, it is seen in Figures 3 and 4 that the openings (205) are provided and extend completely though both gaskets and have a width less than the width of the extension member.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, it is seen in Figure 4 of Sakamoto that the gaskets include base film layers (1) and adhesive layers (2).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto teaches that the adhesive layers have an adhesive strength of 0.5N/mm, or 5 N/cm and is made of epoxy resin ([0042], [0070]). As to the water content, the examiner finds that, since the material of Sakamoto is the same as the disclosed material and has the same adhesive strength, it would inherently have the same water content. MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 9, it is seen in Figure 2 of Woo that the gaskets (200a, 200b) cover edges of the electrodes (100a, 100b).
As for claims 10 and 11, Woo teaches the MEA in a PEMFC, which is known for use in vehicles ([0003], [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended claim(s) 1 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, see above.
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