METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY
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
In response to communication filed on 12/23/2025:
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended; claim 7 has been newly added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 under Kosako has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka et al. (US 2021/0226223 A1) and further in view of Kosako et al. (US 2003/0158273 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morioka et al. teach a method for manufacturing a membrane electrode assembly (Paragraph 0174-0182 disclose a method of preparing a membrane electrode assembly, MEA.) including a pair of electrodes (Fig. 1; paragraph 0141 discloses two electrocatalyst layers, elements 2 and 3.) and an electrolyte membrane interposed between the pair of electrodes (Fig. 1; paragraph 0141 disclose a polyelectrolyte film, element 1, sandwiched between the two electrocatalyst layers, element 2 and 3.), each electrode of the pair of electrodes including a catalyst layer bonded to the electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 0182 disclose the electrocatalysts being bonded to the polyelectrolyte film.), and a gas diffusion layer bonded to the catalyst layer (Fig. 1; paragraph 0201 disclose gas diffusion layers, elements 4 and 5, being bonded to the assembled MEA, element 11.), the method comprising:
bonding the catalyst layer and a catalyst layer support by placing the catalyst layer support into contact with the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0176 discloses preparing a catalyst ink. Paragraph 0177 discloses further using a substrate configuring a transfer sheet. Paragraph 0180 discloses coating the catalyst ink onto the substrate by doctor blading.);
bonding the electrolyte membrane and the catalyst layer by placing the electrolyte membrane into direct contact with the catalyst layer, the catalyst layer being bonded to the catalyst layer support (Paragraph 0182 discloses the substrate on which an electrocatalyst layer serving as an anode was formed, and the substrate on which an electrocatalyst layer serving as a cathode was formed were each punched into a 5 cm by 5 cm square, and were transferred to respective surfaces of a polyelectrolyte film under conditions of 130° C. transfer temperature and 5.0×106 Pa transfer pressure, thereby preparing a membrane electrode assembly.). While Morioka et al. disclose removing the catalyst layer support in a state where the electrolyte membrane is in direct contact with the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0087 and figure 1 disclose if transfer sheets are used as the substrates, electrode films, i.e., coating films from which the solvent has been removed, may be bonded to the polyelectrolyte film, element 1, and then the transfer sheets may be separated, thereby forming a membrane electrode assembly, element 11, provided with electrocatalyst layers, elements 2 and 3, on respective surfaces of the polyelectrolyte film, element 1), however, they do not disclose that the removal of the support is via sublimation and that the catalyst layer support is made of a sublimation material.
Kosako et al. disclose a production method of an electrolyte membrane-electrode assembly wherein the catalyst layer and a catalyst layer support are bonded together and the support is made of a sublimation material and further removed by sublimation (Paragraph 0110 discloses wherein the first step is forming a coating layer on a catalyst layer. Further, paragraph 0111 discloses the coating layer is formed of a material which sublimates.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the transfer sheet of Morioka via sublimation as disclosed by Kosako in order to reduce adhesion force between the base material and electrolyte membrane. If adhesion force is reduced, then electrolyte breakage is prevented.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morioka and Kosako et al. teach the method according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the catalyst layer support is molten in the bonding of the catalyst layer support and the catalyst layer.
Morioka and Kosako disclose that after the gas diffusion layer is formed on the catalyst layer, the electrolyte membrane-electrode assembly is formed by the conventional method. Subsequent examples 2-1 (Morioka) and examples 1-5 (Kosako) disclose hot pressing the membrane which is what paragraphs 0037-0038 of the filed specification state in order to produce a molten state. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that through hot pressing, as disclosed in Morioka and Kosako, would produce a molten state.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (US 2021/0226223 A1) and Kosako et al. (US 2003/0158273 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2010/0151298 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of Morioka and Kosako et al. teach the method according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the electrode is made of polybenzimidazole or wherein the electrolyte membrane includes phosphoric acid, and the phosphoric acid is a proton conductor.
Hong et al. teach an electrolyte membrane included in a membrane electrode assembly which can include a phosphoric acid-based material and a proton conductor. Further, the electrolyte membrane can comprise polybenzimidazole (Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morioka and Kosako with Hong in order to increase oxygen concentration which accelerates oxygen reduction and improves overall cell performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 2, the cited prior art of record does not disclose adding an ionomer to the surface of the catalyst layer after bonding the catalyst layer and catalyst support and prior to bonding the electrolyte membrane to the catalyst layer. Therefore, it is considered allowable. In regards to claim 4, the cited prior art of record does not disclose wherein the sublimation material is naphthalene, paradichlorobenzene, or camphor. Kosako discloses the sublimating material can comprise napthol which is structurally different from naphthalene. Subsequent searches have not disclosed a support layer comprising these materials for use in a fuel cell. Finally, claim 7 contains the allowable subject matter of claim 4 and is thus considered allowable.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ula Tavares-Crockett 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 18th, 2026