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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Claim 1, 3, 6-7, and 9 are amended. Claims 1-11 are pending. The rejection over Morimoto in view of Bauer is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, claims 1-11 remain rejected over Woo in view of Sakamoto and Bauer.
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 1-11 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 (US 2014/0302418).
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]). It is seen in Figure 4 of Woo that the upper gasket (200a) is directly bonded to the upper surface of the upper electrode (100a) and an upper surface of the membrane extension member.
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. Woo does not explicitly teach the structure of the lower gasket with respect to the lower electrode.
Sakamoto teaches a membrane electrode assembly as in claim 1, including electrodes (6), a membrane (5) having membrane extension member, and gaskets (1), and wherein the upper and lower gaskets are directly bonded to the respective upper and lower surfaces of the electrodes (Figure 4). It is seen in Figure 4 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 filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection over Woo in view of Sakamoto and Bauer, Applicant alleges, on pages 8-9 of the Remarks, that the references fails to teach the newly added limitations of claim 1 to the gaskets being directly bonded to the electrodes and membrane extension members. The examiner disagrees, and directs Applicant to the rejection above, and to Figure 4 of Woo and Figures 4-5 of Sakamoto.
With further regard to the teachings of Bauer, and with regard to Applicant’s arguments concerning the teachings of Bauer found on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, the examiner maintains that Bauer obviates the claimed void, or cavity volume, for the reasons provided above and in the Final Rejection of 2/24/26.
Applicant argues that the gaskets, or sealing cover sections (125, 135), of Bauer are not the same as the claimed gaskets. However, the claimed gaskets are obviated by Woo and Sakamoto for the reasons provided above. Bauer is relied upon for the teachings of the void limitation, and provides clear motivation to the skilled artisan to provide a void.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, Applicant is reminded that the skilled artisan is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and is able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle, using the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. MPEP 2141.03 I
Conclusion
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