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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in the second to last line, “(on” should be changed to “on”. 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 1-9 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 composite" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be similarly changed in line 24 as well.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the respective transfer roller" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (US 2021/0202970).
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a method of producing a MEA comprising providing a roll of first frame material 10a, where gasket material and frame material are interchangeable terms in the MEA art, providing a roll of second frame material 10b, and laminating membrane blanks 20 between the first and second frame materials by bringing the first frame material to a central roller 160a at a bottom point (“first station”), transferring a membrane blank to the first frame material at the central roller downstream from the first station where roller 150 contacts central roller 160a (“second station”), and transferring the second film material 10b to the central roller at the top point (“third station”) downstream from the second station so as to laminate the second frame material on the composite of first frame material and electrolyte blanks (fig. 2; paras. 46, 49, and 56-57).
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches the first frame material and second frame material are provided on protective films 12a and 12b, respectively, where each protective film is delaminated prior to transferring the frame materials to the central roller (paras. 46 and 49; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, LEE teaches forming punched outlines in the frame materials at gasket cutters 120a and 120b without cutting through the protective film (paras. 46 and 49; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, LEE teaches transferring the second frame material to the central roller via transfer roller 160b that rotates synchronously with central roller 160a (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, LEE teaches the first frame material and second frame material are provided on protective films 12a and 12b, respectively, where each protective film is delaminated prior to transferring the frame materials to the central roller (paras. 46 and 49; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, LEE teaches transferring membrane blanks 20 to the central roller 160a with a transfer roller 150 that rotates synchronously with the central roller (fig. 5B).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, LEE teaches the membrane blanks are provided on a protective film 23, and delaminating the blanks (para. 63), but not delaminating the blanks at a roller upstream the transfer roller. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the transfer roller and delaminate the film upstream the transfer of the blanks because there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing the same laminate structure (MPEP 2141), duplication of apparatus components has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04), and rearranging method steps have been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DEBE et al. (US 2008/0142152).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, LEE does not teach transferring a first carrier sheet upstream the first frame material or a second carrier sheet downstream from the second frame material. DEBE teaches another method of producing a frame laminate for an MEA, wherein a first carrier sheet 331 positioned below the laminate and a second carrier sheet 332 above the laminate utilizing compression bonding rollers (para. 64; fig. 3A), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a first carrier upstream the first frame and a second carrier downstream the second frame in the method of LEE in order to apply a first and second carrier to the bottom and top of the laminate to facilitate handing and transport of the laminate components (DEBE; para. 63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: TAKAGI et al. (US 2017/0239925), MEKALA et al. (US 2004/0241525), and TAKAGI et al. (US 2018/0342738).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights