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
Claim 6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 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 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 1-13 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.
Particularly, the use of the term “rest part”, as used in claim 1, line 10, is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the structure, composition, function and location of the term “rest part”, and as applicable the term “non-reaction region”, as used in claim 1, lines 9-10 is ambiguous.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okabe US-20080213649-A1, and further in view of Ko US-20200212457-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Okabe US-20080213649-A1 teaches a membrane-electrode assembly comprising
…
wherein the electrolyte membrane (2) comprises:
…
the electrolyte membrane (2) comprises: a reaction region (portion outside W1 + W2) ... located in a central part of the electrolyte membrane (2); and a non-reaction region (W1+W2) that is a rest part except for the reaction region; and
wherein the non-reaction region (W1+W2) comprises a depression part (see FIG. 1A of Okabe anticipates wherein the non-reaction region (W1+W2) of the electrolyte membrane (2) comprises a depression part) depressed by a predetermined depth in a thickness direction from at least one surface of the electrolyte membrane (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1A of Okabe anticipates wherein the non-reaction region (W1+W2) of the electrolyte membrane (2) comprises a depression part.
Further regarding claim 1, Okabe is silent on the membrane-electrode assembly comprising an anode layer.
However, Ko teaches an anode layer (bottom portion 500; see FIG. 1 of Ko anticipates an electrolyte membrane (100) wherein the anode layer (500; bottom) and the cathode layer (500; top) are stacked on opposing surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (100))
Okabe is silent on the membrane-electrode assembly comprising a cathode layer.
However, Ko teaches a cathode layer (top portion 500; see FIG. 1 of Ko anticipates an electrolyte membrane (100) wherein the anode layer (500; bottom) and the cathode layer (500; top) are stacked on opposing surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (100))
Okabe teaches an electrolyte membrane (2) having a sheet shape, but is silent on wherein the electrolyte membrane is interposed between the anode layer and the cathode layer.
However, Ko teaches wherein the electrolyte membrane (2 of Okabe, or alternatively 100 of Ko) is interposed between the anode layer (bottom portion 500; see FIG. 1 of Ko anticipates an electrolyte membrane (100) wherein the anode layer (500; bottom) and the cathode layer (500; top) are stacked on opposing surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (100)) and the cathode layer (top portion 500; see FIG. 1 of Ko anticipates an electrolyte membrane (100) wherein the anode layer (500; bottom) and the cathode layer (500; top) are stacked on opposing surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (100)).
PNG
media_image2.png
336
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of Ko anticipates an electrolyte membrane (100) wherein the anode layer (500; bottom) and the cathode layer (500; top) are stacked on opposing surfaces of the electrolyte membrane (100).
Modification of the disclosure of Okabe by inclusion of an anode and cathode layer layered on the top and bottom surfaces of the electrolyte membrane, as suggested by Ko, would benefit the disclosure of Okabe by allowing for an electrochemical reaction to be caused (Ko, (0086)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of Okabe by inclusion of an anode and cathode layer layered on the top and bottom surfaces of the electrolyte membrane, as suggested by Ko.
Okabe teaches an electrolyte membrane, but is silent on wherein the electrolyte membrane comprises an antioxidant.
However, Ko teaches using an antioxidant in the electrolyte membrane in order to mitigate chemical degradation of the electrolyte membrane and enhance durability of the fuel cell (Ko, (0003), “various technologies to mitigate chemical degradation of the electrolyte membrane have been proposed and, for example, a method of adding various kinds of antioxidants to the electrolyte membrane has been proposed”).
Modification of the disclosure of Okabe by inclusion of an antioxidant in the electrolyte membrane, as suggested by Ko, would therefore benefit the disclosure of Okabe by mitigating chemical degradation of the electrolyte membrane and enhancing durability of the fuel cell
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of Okabe by inclusion of an antioxidant in the electrolyte membrane, as suggested by Ko.
Regarding claim 2, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the antioxidant comprises ions of a metal element, and the metal element comprises at least one of cerium, manganese, ... or any combination thereof (Ko, (0011), "The metal salt hydrate may suitably include one or more selected from the group consisting of a cerium salt hydrate ... and a manganese salt hydrate").
Regarding claim 3, modified Okabe teaches a depression part depressed in the non-reaction region, but is silent on explicitly stating that the depression part is located along a pair of opposite sides of the reaction region.
However, Okabe FIG. 1(A) only shows a single side portion of the membrane-electrode assembly comprising a depression part on a single side. Absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that the single side portion depicted in FIG. 1(A) of Okabe would also apply to the opposite, unshown side portion of the membrane-electrode assembly of Okabe.
Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that it is inherent in Okabe that the depression part is depressed in the non-reaction region along a pair of opposite sides of the reaction region.
Regarding claim 4, Okabe teaches a reaction region (portions outside W1+W2), but is silent on explicitly stating that the reaction region comprises a pair of long sides and a pair of short sides, and the pair of opposite sides comprises at least one of the pair of long sides and the pair of short sides.However, Okabe FIG. 1(A) only shows a single side portion of the membrane-electrode assembly comprising a long side (along the direction of the arrows of W1+W2) and a short side (going in/out of the page of FIG. 1(A)).
Absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that long side portion and short side portion depicted in FIG. 1(A) of Okabe would also apply to the opposite, unshown side portions of the membrane-electrode assembly of Okabe.Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that it is inherent in Okabe that the reaction region comprises a pair of long sides and a pair of short sides, and the pair of opposite sides comprises at least one of the pair of long sides and the pair of short sides.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein a depth of the depression part is deepened in a stepwise manner (see FIG. 1(A) of Okabe shows the depression part deepened in a stepwise) extending away from a side end portion of the reaction region (portions outside W1 + W2).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1(A) of Okabe shows the depression part deepened in a stepwise manner.
Regarding claim 7, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the antioxidant per unit volume of the non-reaction region increases as it extends away from a side end portion of the reaction region (Ko, see (0096); the Examiner notes that the openings 356 as disclosed in FIG. 12 are on the far ends of the non-reaction region away from a side end portion of the reaction region, whereas the cerium ion migration preventive surface is located in the center of the reaction region (see (0018)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the non-reaction region comprises a non-depression part (See FIG. 1(A) of Okabe anticipates a non-depression part) formed at an end of the non-reaction region not to be depressed.
PNG
media_image4.png
443
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1(A) of Okabe anticipates a non-depression part
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuta US-20140287339-A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, but is silent on wherein a depth of the depression part is 10% to 80% of a thickness of the reaction region.However, Mitsuta teaches that the thickness and width of the depression part can be routinely optimized to control permeability in the depression part when used with a filling or blocking part (see (0040), "Optimizing the thickness T and the width W in accordance with the material of the filler allows adjusting the permeability of the filling layer 40").Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized the depth of the depression part to be within the claimed range while optimizing permeability of a filling or blocking part contained in the depression part.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuta US-20140287339-A1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the membrane-electrode assembly further comprises a blocking part which is accommodated in the depression part and comprises a proton donor polymer.Mitsuta teaches wherein membrane-electrode assembly further comprises a blocking part (filling layer 40) which is accommodated in the depression part (38 in Mitsuta) and comprises a proton donor polymer (See (0037); "Examples of the material suitable for forming the filling layer 40 are ... polyphenylene oxide (PPO)").Modification of the disclosure of Okabe by inclusion of a blocking part in the non-reaction region W1+W2, as shown by Mitsuta, would benefit the disclosure of Okabe by preventing oxygen from reaching unintended regions within/outside the non-reaction region W1+W2 (Mitsuta, See (0048)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 10, wherein the proton donor polymer comprises at least one of ... modified polyphenylene oxide (Mitsuta, see (0037), "Examples of the material suitable for forming the filling layer 40 are ... polyphenylene oxide (PPO)").
Regarding claim 12, modified Okabe teaches a non-reaction region that deepens as it extends a way from a side end portion of the reaction region (see FIG. 1(A) of Okabe anticipates a depression in portion W1 followed by a further deeper depression in portion 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
443
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1(A) of Okabe anticipates a depression in portion W1 followed by a further deeper depression in portion 8
Modified Okabe further teaches wherein the blocking part is accommodated in a depression part of the non-reaction region (see claim 10 rejection).Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Okabe inherently teaches the blocking part is thickened as it extends away from a side end portion of the reaction region when the blocking part is accommodated in the depression part so that there is no step difference between the reaction region and the non-reaction region.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Okabe as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mitsuta US-20140287339-A1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Okabe teaches the membrane-electrode assembly of claim 10, comprising a blocking part accommodated in the depression part, but is silent on wherein the blocking part is formed so that there is no step difference between the reaction region and the non-reaction region.However, Mitsuta teaches that the thickness and width of the blocking part can be routinely optimized to control permeability (Mitsuta; See (0040), "Optimizing the thickness T and the width W in accordance with the material of the filler allows adjusting the permeability of the filling layer 40").Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized the blocking part such that there is no step difference between the reaction region and non-reaction region when making routine optimizations for permeability in the depression part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
EVAN ABELSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights