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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. (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 , 2, 4, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Castro et al (US 2005/0106450 A1) . As to claim s 1 and 2 , Castro discloses a porous transport layer for a cathode (Title “Gas diffusion materials”, Abstract “gas diffusion layers” where the recitation “for a cathode” is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 as a statement of the preamble reciting intended use. NOTE: the order of claim limitations has been rearranged for citation convenience for the structure of each layer provided in the “wherein” clauses , with Example 1 cited below with respect to each layer ) comprising: a lower substrate layer comprising carbon fibers and polymer resin ([0022] “A carbon cloth… The resulting dispersions were mixed with an aqueous suspension of PTFE to form different carbon/binder suspensions, four of which consisted of SAB and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 60 to 10% by weight, and the remaining three consisting of Pt on carbon black (20% Pt on Vulcan XC-72, hereafter indicated as "20% Pt/C") and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 50 to 10% by weight. The seven suspensions were sequentially applied by hand to the carbon web , with a drying step in ambient air after each coat and final sintering at 340.degree. C. for 20 minutes. ” Where each suspension applied results in a new layer. Where the carbon cloth and carbon web are interpreted to be carbon fiber and reads on instant claim 2) ; wherein the lower substrate layer comprises: a first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 3”) ; and a second lower substrate layer disposed on the first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 4) an intermediate substrate layer disposed on the lower substrate layer and comprising carbon fibers; and wherein the intermediate substrate layer is disposed on the second lower substrate layer ([0022] Table Layer 5 ) . a microporous layer disposed on the intermediate substrate layer ([0022] Table Layer 6 ) As to the recitation “having an average density lower than an average density of the first lower substrate layer” each layer has a decreasing porosity based on the depth from layer 1 to layer 7 as evidenced in the table following [0023] “ The porosity of the resulting sample has been checked by capillary flow porometry , whereby five measures were taken across the 100 micron thick structure, and the mean flow pore resulted to decrease quite regularly from 35 µ m (value at 20 µ m depth) to 0.08 µ m (100 µ m depth), as shown in the following table (gas side being 0 µ m and catalyzed side being 100 µ m) ”. Further claim 6, recites the decrease in porosity. Thus, since density is defined as mass per volume, since there is more volume in layers corresponding to layers 1 than layer 2, i.e. the outermost layer, the density is deemed to also be lower in layers corresponding to layer 2 since there is less volume, i.e. lower porosity. As to claim 4, Castro discloses wherein the lower substrate layer further comprises a third lower substrate layer having an average density that is lower than the average density of the first lower substrate layer and higher than the average density of the second lower substrate layer, and wherein the third lower substrate layer is disposed between the first lower substrate layer and the second lower substrate layer (Layers 1-2-3 of [0022] can be defined as first lower substrate layer as layer 1, third lower substrate layer as layer 2, and second lower substrate layer as claim 3 where the density gradient described above with respect to the porosity satisfies the instant claim language). As to claims 11, 12, and 13, Castro discloses using PTFE as explicitly recited as a water repellant (Example 1 [0022]) with a specific amount of 10 % by weight ([0022] lower end of range where since the amount is in the particular layer at the particular weight, the recitation is deemed anticipated in accordance with MPEP 2131.03 I). As to claim 14 and 15, Castro discloses decreasing amounts of PTFE in the dispersion from 60 to 40 % as shown in Table after [0022], thus satisfying the instant claim limitations of claim 15 requiring the content to be between 51-95% in the first lower substrate layer (Layer 1 of the table [0022]) and 5-49% in the second lower substrate layer (Layer 2 of the table [0022]). As to claim 16, the recitation “ wherein a thickness ratio of the first lower substrate layer and the second lower substrate layer is in a range from 1:0.5 to 1:1.5 ” is deemed satisfied because each layer with the gradient of Castro may be arbitrarily defined for a given thickness of the gradient. Further, each layer is deposited and dried and each given depth measurement of the table after [0023] are interpreted as a 20 micrometer thick layer which satisfies the instantly claimed structure providing a 1:1 ration as required by the instant claim limitation. As to claim 17, Castro discloses A water electrolysis cell (claim 14, [0003],[0006]) comprising: A first layer ( a porous transport layer for a cathode (Title “Gas diffusion materials”, Abstract “gas diffusion layers” where the recitation “for a cathode” is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 as a statement of the preamble reciting intended use. NOTE: the order of claim limitations has been rearranged for citation convenience for the structure of each layer provided in the “wherein” clauses, with Example 1 cited below with respect to each layer) comprising: a lower substrate layer comprising carbon fibers and polymer resin ([0022] “A carbon cloth… The resulting dispersions were mixed with an aqueous suspension of PTFE to form different carbon/binder suspensions, four of which consisted of SAB and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 60 to 10% by weight, and the remaining three consisting of Pt on carbon black (20% Pt on Vulcan XC-72, hereafter indicated as "20% Pt/C") and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 50 to 10% by weight. The seven suspensions were sequentially applied by hand to the carbon web , with a drying step in ambient air after each coat and final sintering at 340.degree. C. for 20 minutes. ” Where each suspension applied results in a new layer. Where the carbon cloth and carbon web are interpreted to be carbon fiber and reads on instant claim 2); wherein the lower substrate layer comprises: a first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 3”); and a second lower substrate layer disposed on the first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 4) an intermediate substrate layer disposed on the lower substrate layer and comprising carbon fibers; and wherein the intermediate substrate layer is disposed on the second lower substrate layer ([0022] Table Any Layer 3). a microporous layer disposed on the intermediate substrate layer ([0022] Table Layer 5) As to the recitation “having an average density lower than an average density of the first lower substrate layer” each layer has a decreasing porosity based on the depth from layer 1 to layer 7 as evidenced in the table following [0023] “ The porosity of the resulting sample has been checked by capillary flow porometry , whereby five measures were taken across the 100 micron thick structure, and the mean flow pore resulted to decrease quite regularly from 35 µ m (value at 20 µ m depth) to 0.08 µ m (100 µ m depth), as shown in the following table (gas side being 0 µ m and catalyzed side being 100 µ m) ”. Further claim 6, recites the decrease in porosity. Thus, since density is defined as mass per volume, since there is more volume in layers corresponding to layers 1 than layer 2, i.e. the outermost layer, the density is deemed to also be lower in layers corresponding to layer 2 since there is less volume, i.e. lower porosity. 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 3- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro et al in view of LaConti et al (US 2004/0016638 A1). As to claims 3 -8 , Castro discloses a third lower substrate layer disposed beneath the first lower substrate layer (Layer 1 Example 1 with Layers 2 and 3 being first and second lower substrate layer as required by instant claim 5) OR a third lower substrate layer disposed on top of the second lower substrate layer (Layer 3 Example 1 with Layers and 2 being first and second lower substrate layer as required by instant claim 5) but fails to disclose the explicit density of the layers as claimed. LaConti discloses a porous transport layer (Fig. 3 #105) with a density of about 0.2-1.5 g/c m 3 , more preferably about 0.35-0.77 g/cm 3 , even more preferably about 0.55-0.77 g/cm 3 ([0016],[0057]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a density of the lower substrate layer within the ranges as taught by LaConti in the method of Castro because such densities provide greater pressure capability with less deformation ([0078] LaConti ). Thus, the density is identified as a result effective variable and would have been obvious to optimize the density with the ranges disclosed in LaConti in the porous transport layer of Castro in order to optimize the pressure deformation and porosity of each given layer through routine optimization in order to provide each layer of the lower substrate of Castro. See MPEP 2144.05 I, II A. Claim s 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieser et al (US in view of Castro et al (US 200 5/0106450 A1). As to claims 1, 9, and 10, Wieser discloses a porous transport layer for a cathode (Fig. 4 #26 where the recitation “for a cathode” is interpreted under MPEP 2111.02 as a statement of the preamble reciting intended use. NOTE: the order of claim limitations has been rearranged for citation convenience for the structure of each layer provided in the “wherein” clauses) comprising: a lower substrate layer comprising carbon fibers and polymer resin (#s40 and 42 [0034] “resin containing layers” with the further disclose the layer includes carbon fiber [0029], [0037], claim 12); wherein the lower substrate layer comprises: a first lower substrate layer (#42); and a second lower substrate layer disposed on the first lower substrate layer (#40) an intermediate substrate layer disposed on the lower substrate layer and comprising carbon fibers; and wherein the intermediate substrate layer is disposed on the second lower substrate layer (#28 [0034] “resin containing layers” with the further disclose the layer includes carbon fiber [0029], [0037], claim 12). a microporous layer disposed on the intermediate substrate layer (#30), wherein the lower substrate layer has an average thickness in a range of 200 to 1000 µm ([0006] which overlaps the instantly claimed range thus prima facie obvious see MPEP 2144.04 I) as required by instant claim 9) wherein the polymer resin comprises a phenolic polymer ([0037] as required by instant claim 10). Wieser disclose the different amounts of binders to resins result in different porosities of the layers ([0039] Fig. 5), but fails to explicitly disclose “having an average density lower than an average density of the first lower substrate layer”. Castro discloses using a porosity gradient within the gas diffusion layer. Castro further discloses a lower substrate layer comprising carbon fibers and polymer resin ([0022] “A carbon cloth… The resulting dispersions were mixed with an aqueous suspension of PTFE to form different carbon/binder suspensions, four of which consisted of SAB and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 60 to 10% by weight, and the remaining three consisting of Pt on carbon black (20% Pt on Vulcan XC-72, hereafter indicated as "20% Pt/C") and PTFE, with PTFE content ranging from 50 to 10% by weight. The seven suspensions were sequentially applied by hand to the carbon web , with a drying step in ambient air after each coat and final sintering at 340.degree. C. for 20 minutes. ” Where each suspension applied results in a new layer. Where the carbon cloth and carbon web are interpreted to be carbon fiber and reads on instant claim 2); wherein the lower substrate layer comprises: a first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 3”); and a second lower substrate layer disposed on the first lower substrate layer ([0022] Table “Layer 4) As to the recitation “having an average density lower than an average density of the first lower substrate layer” each layer has a decreasing porosity based on the depth from layer 1 to layer 7 as evidenced in the table following [0023] “ The porosity of the resulting sample has been checked by capillary flow porometry , whereby five measures were taken across the 100 micron thick structure, and the mean flow pore resulted to decrease quite regularly from 35 µ m (value at 20 µ m depth) to 0.08 µ m (100 µ m depth), as shown in the following table (gas side being 0 µ m and catalyzed side being 100 µ m) ”. Further claim 6, recites the decrease in porosity. Thus, since density is defined as mass per volume, since there is more volume in layers corresponding to layers 1 than layer 2, i.e. the outermost layer, the density is deemed to also be lower in layers corresponding to layer 2 since there is less volume, i.e. lower porosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a porosity gradient, and thusly separate densities, as taught by Castro in the diffusion layer of Wieser because the gradient promotes efficient gas transport, water removal, and enhanced performance of electrode assemblies (Castro Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7716 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8521 . 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. /LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795