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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claim presented in the previous office action of record, and accordingly those objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 35 U.S.C § 101 arguments, the applicant asserts that where claim 1 has been amended to recite “determining that the degradation increase rate decreases as the average pore size increases” it does not recite any natural correlation or mental steps. The applicant asserts that claim 1 reads on more than a product of nature and that it cannot be performed in a human mind and cannot be an abstract idea.
This argument has been fully considered, but has not been found to be persuasive. The “determining that the degradation increase rate decreases as the average pore size increases” step is something that could be performed mentally under step 2A prong 1 of the 101 rejection determination process. In this case, the clause which cites “determination” steps are directed towards observation or correlation, and are therefore mental steps. Additionally, where the applicant’s figure 4 shows a graph of degradation increase rate and average pore size, one can look at the graph and determine this step mentally, meaning that it is a mental process.
Additionally, in regards to the 35 U.S.C § 102 arguments, the applicant asserts that Miyata fails to teach the scope of Claim 1, specifically that Miyata fails to teach or suggest a method “wherein analyzing the state of the fuel cell includes: analyzing the state of the fuel cell based on a measured pore size of the electrode of the fuel cell, analyzing a degree of degradation of the fuel cell according to a dispersity of an ionomer, determining an average pore size based on a specific surface area exposed of the electrode, and determining that the degradation increase rate decreases as the average pore size increases”.
Here, the applicant has not presented any argument specifically identifying how Miyata fails to teach said structure. Accordingly, the rejection of the claim in view of Miyata is presented below, with Miyata teaching the required elements of the claim.
In regards to the degradation features of the claim, Miyata discloses that the dispersity of the ionomer, based on the size of ionomer particles relative to pore sizes, effects the functionality of the battery, through preventing the entry of the ionomer into the pores (Paragraph 0032, “When the mode radius is less than or equal to 4 nm, for example, even in the case where an ionomer is in contact with the electrode catalyst 1 , the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4.”). Additionally, Miyata discloses that this reduction results a deterioration of the catalyst for the battery being reduced (Paragraph 0045, “because the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4 , the specific surface of the catalyst metal particles 3 covered with the ionomer can be reduced. Thus, the deterioration of the catalyst activity of the electrode catalyst 1 due to the covering of the catalyst metal particles 3 with the ionomer can be reduced.”). Accordingly, where the dispersity of the ionomer is analyzed based on the size relative to the size of the pores, where the results of the analysis provides information regarding a deterioration of the catalyst of the fuel cell battery, this therefore constitutes analyzing a degree of degradation of the fuel cell according to a dispersity of an ionomer.
Additionally, where this means that a low pore size means that deterioration of catalyst activity increases (Paragraph 0045, “because the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4 , the specific surface of the catalyst metal particles 3 covered with the ionomer can be reduced. Thus, the deterioration of the catalyst activity of the electrode catalyst 1 due to the covering of the catalyst metal particles 3 with the ionomer can be reduced.”) the converse is also true, where high pore size means that the deterioration of catalyst activity (Degradation increase rate) decreases, and Miyata therefore teaches that an increased pore size therefore slows the rate of increase of degradation rate in a fuel cell.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Here, claim 3 is objected to due to the phrase “wherein measuring the at least the portion of the electrode”, due to grammatical incorrectness. Here, a suggested rephrasing to overcome this objection is “wherein measuring the at least a portion of the electrode”.
Here, claim 6 is objected to due to the phrase “wherein measuring the at least the portion of the electrode”, due to grammatical incorrectness. Here, a suggested rephrasing to overcome this objection is “wherein measuring the at least a portion of the electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the degradation increase rate" in line 13 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are indefinite as they depend on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) measuring a portion of an electrode of a fuel cell to determine a measured result, and analyzing a state of the fuel cell according to the measured result.
The limitation of Claim 1 of analyzing a state of the fuel cell according to the measured result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that is a mathematical concept. Here, the process of “analyzing a state of the fuel cell”, in light of the interpretation made based on paragraph [0063] (“The apparatus for analyzing a fuel cell may analyze/use a dispersion state/dispersity of a catalyst or ionomer with respect to an electrode of the fuel cell.”) of the specification, comprises mathematical concepts such as performing calculations and/or comparing numerical values to a threshold. Where this step comprises a mathematical analysis, it therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the other elements of the claim are directed toward measuring a portion of an electrode to determine a measured result. Here, this represents measuring any aspect of an electrode in any way, which is data gathering with a high degree of generality. Here, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, or comprise further steps which make use of the analyzed measurement.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of measuring a portion of the electrode to determine a measured result constitutes broad data gathering seemingly without limitation in scope, as long as the electrode is considered. Here, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Additionally, the feature wherein measuring at least the portion of the fuel cell includes measuring a pore size of the electrode of the fuel cell, this limitation further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application, or recite any elements which are specifically more than the abstract idea. Here, this feature is directed towards modifying the measuring step, which does not touch upon the abstract idea of the analyzing step, and further fail to provide any additional required limitations which are enough to be significantly more, as the measurement steps based on those limitations are still directed towards broad data gathering.
Additionally, the feature of analyzing the state of the fuel cell based on a measured pore size of the electrode fuel cell does modify the analyzing step which is the abstract idea, but it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application, as the analyzing step would be, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5, be directed to analyzing the state of the fuel cell in any way which considers any aspect of a measured pore size, while further failing to make use of that analysis in a practical application.
Additionally, the feature of determining that the degradation increase rate decreases as the average pore size increases is directed towards an abstract idea which is not significantly more, being a measuring/analyzing step which is data gathering to be used in the abstract idea, which is an insignificant pre-solution activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Additionally, in regards to claims 3-4 and 6-7, they further fail to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application, or recite any elements which are specifically more than the abstract idea. Here, claims 3-4, 6, and 7 are directed towards modifying the measuring step, which does not touch upon the abstract idea of the analyzing step, and further fail to provide any additional required limitations which are enough to be significantly more, as the measurement steps based on those limitations are still directed towards broad data gathering.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyata (WO 2021117369 A1, with US equivalent US 20220021005 A1 used as a translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyata is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a method of fuel cell analysis comprising measuring at least a portion of an electrode of a fuel cell to determine a measured result (Paragraph 0075, “Commercially available mesoporous carbon having a design pore size of 10 nm (CNovel, manufactured by Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.) was used as a mesoporous material.”), where pore size is measured by determining that it is present, and analyzing a state of the fuel cell according to the measured result (Paragraph 0080, “The specific surface area S1-25 and the mode radius of the mesopores of the mesoporous carbon, before the mesoporous carbon supported the catalyst metal, were determined from an adsorption isotherm of nitrogen gas at a liquid nitrogen temperature.”), where the analysis performed includes the analysis of the mode pore radius and surface area based on an adsorption isotherm of nitrogen gas.
Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein measuring the at least portion of the fuel cell includes measuring a pore size of the electrode fuel cell (Paragraph 0075, “Commercially available mesoporous carbon having a design pore size of 10 nm (CNovel, manufactured by Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.) was used as a mesoporous material.”), where pore size is measured by determining that it is present.
Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein analyzing the state of the fuel cell includes analyzing the state of the fuel cell based on a measured pore size, where Miyata discloses conducting a nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm test on the pores to determine their current pore size (Paragraph 0034, “The pore volume and the mode radius of the mesopores 4 are determined by analyzing nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm measurement data according to a method such as a BJH method, a Non-Localized Density Functional Theory (NLDFT) method, or a Quenched Solid Density Functional Theory (QSDFT) method.”), where this results in an analysis of the state of the fuel cell based on a measured pore size.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the analyzing the state of the fuel includes analyzing a degree of degradation of the fuel cell according to a dispersity of an ionomer, the limitation does not establish any bounds in regards to what is considered a degree of degradation, nor does it establish what element or what bounds or aspects of dispersity are considered in the analyzing of the degree of degradation. Accordingly, where the definition of dispersity is the measure of heterogeneity of sizes of the particles in the mixture, any analysis which analyzes a state of the function of the fuel cell based on any aspect of sizes of ionomer particles would constitute analyzing a degree of degradation of the fuel cell according to a degree of dispersity of an ionomer.
Here, Miyata discloses that their ionomer is a polymer electrolyte covering the outer surface of an electrode catalyst and is made of an ion exchange resin (Paragraph 0054, “The ionomer 6 is a polymer electrolyte covering the outer surface of the electrode catalyst 1 and having proton conductivity and is formed of, for example, an ion exchange resin”).
Additionally, Miyata discloses that the dispersity of the ionomer, based on the size of ionomer particles relative to pore sizes, effects the functionality of the battery, through preventing the entry of the ionomer into the pores (Paragraph 0032, “When the mode radius is less than or equal to 4 nm, for example, even in the case where an ionomer is in contact with the electrode catalyst 1 , the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4.”). Additionally, Miyata discloses that this reduction results a deterioration of the catalyst for the battery being reduced (Paragraph 0045, “because the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4 , the specific surface of the catalyst metal particles 3 covered with the ionomer can be reduced. Thus, the deterioration of the catalyst activity of the electrode catalyst 1 due to the covering of the catalyst metal particles 3 with the ionomer can be reduced.”). Accordingly, where the dispersity of the ionomer is analyzed based on the size relative to the size of the pores, where the results of the analysis provides information regarding a deterioration of the catalyst of the fuel cell battery, this therefore constitutes analyzing a degree of degradation of the fuel cell according to a dispersity of an ionomer.
Additionally, where this means that a low pore size means that deterioration of catalyst activity increases (Paragraph 0045, “because the ionomer is less likely to enter the mesopores 4 , the specific surface of the catalyst metal particles 3 covered with the ionomer can be reduced. Thus, the deterioration of the catalyst activity of the electrode catalyst 1 due to the covering of the catalyst metal particles 3 with the ionomer can be reduced.”) the converse is also true, where high pore size means that the deterioration of catalyst activity (Degradation increase rate) decreases, and Miyata therefore teaches that an increased pore size therefore slows the rate of increase of degradation rate in a fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 3, Miyata anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein measuring the at least the portion of the electrode of the fuel cell includes measuring at least a portion of an air electrode of the fuel cell. Miyata discloses that one of their electrodes is an air electrode (Paragraph 0026, “A membrane-electrode assembly according to a seventh aspect of the present disclosure may include a polymer electrolyte membrane; and a fuel electrode and an air electrode respectively disposed on both main surfaces of the polymer electrolyte membrane,”), which is component 11 in Miyata’s figure 4 (Paragraph 0062, “and an air electrode 11.”). Miyata further discloses that their air electrode comprises a catalyst layer (Paragraph 0068, “The air electrode 11 is a cathode electrode of the fuel battery and includes an electrode catalyst layer (a second electrode catalyst layer 14)”), where the electrocatalyst layer includes a mesoporous material, where the electrocatalyst layer 5 of the air electrode comprises the mesoporous material 4 (Paragraph 0033, “the mesoporous material 2 (i.e., the mesopores 4)”, Paragraph 0062, “At least the electrode catalyst layer of the air electrode 11 includes the electrode catalyst layer 5 of a fuel battery according to the second embodiment or Modification 4 thereof.”). Additionally, Miyata discloses that there if a step of measuring a nitrogen adsorption isotherm of the mesoporous material (Paragraph 0036, “The specific surface area S1-25 of the mesopores 4 is obtained by analyzing a nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm of the mesoporous material 2”). Accordingly, this represents structure wherein the measuring step includes measuring at least a portion of an air electrode of the fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 4, Miyata anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein the method comprises forming at least a portion of the electrode of the fuel cell by at least some of a coating process, a bonding process, and an attaching process. Here, Miyata discloses that the forming of their electrode includes a coating of catalyst metal particles to a mesoporous material (Paragraph 0040, “The catalyst metal particles 3 are supported at least in the mesoporous material 2.”), where the initial state of the mesoporous material does not include catalyst particles (Paragraph 0044, “As in this structure, before supporting the catalyst metal particles 3, the mesoporous material 2 has the mesopores 4 having a mode radius of…”). Accordingly, where the final electrode comprises a mesoporous material coated with catalyst particles, and the initial mesoporous material does not include catalyst particles, Miyata therefore includes structure where the method of forming a portion of the fuel cell includes coating the mesoporous material with the catalyst particles.
Regarding Claim 6, Miyata anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein measuring the at least a portion of the electrode of the fuel cell further includes removing at least one of impurities and moisture located at the least one of the inside and around the electrode of the fuel cell. Here, the measuring of the electrode material includes the forming of the electrode material, and Miyata discloses that in the formation process of the electrode catalyst layer 5, which must be formed to be measured, there is a drying step which removes a solvent comprising water and alcohol (Paragraph 0057, “This electrode catalyst 1 and the ionomer 6 are dispersed in a solvent containing water and/or an alcohol. This dispersion is applied to the base materials such as a polymer electrolyte membrane, gas diffusion layers, and various transfer films and thereafter dried to thereby form the electrode catalyst layer 5.”), which therefore constitutes structure wherein measuring includes removing at least one of impurities and moisture from the inside of the electrode of the fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 7, Miyata anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Miyata discloses structure wherein the measuring of the pore size of the electrode of the fuel cell further includes calculating the pore size based on a result of nitrogen supply to the electrode of the fuel cell, via their disclosure of the measurement of the mode pore radius via analyzing a nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm (Paragraph 0034, “The pore volume and the mode radius of the mesopores 4 are determined by analyzing nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm measurement data according to a method such as a BJH method, a Non-Localized Density Functional Theory (NLDFT) method, or a Quenched Solid Density Functional Theory (QSDFT) method.”), where the nitrogen isotherm is performed by steps which include supplying nitrogen to the electrode of the fuel cell (Paragraph 0036, “This nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm is measured by causing the mesoporous material 2 to adsorb nitrogen at a predetermined temperature such as a liquid nitrogen temperature.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights