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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/11/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (Third Part Observation issued in corresponding Korean Patent Application). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (JP 2007-073415 A, hereinafter Higuchi, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Higuchi teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Fig. 1), comprising
a polymer electrolyte membrane (item 16, para. 2 & 21);
a first electrocatalyst layer (one of item 15, para. 2) and a second electrocatalyst layer (the other of item 15) sandwiching the polymer electrolyte membrane while being in contact therewith;
a fuel electrode diffusion layer (one of items 13 & 14, para. 2) which is a gas diffusion layer laminated on the first electrocatalyst layer to form a fuel electrode; and
an air electrode diffusion layer (the other of items 13 & 14) which is a gas diffusion layer laminated on the second electrocatalyst layer to form an air electrode,
wherein the air electrode diffusion layer has a Gurley value of 80 seconds or less in a thickness direction thereof (para. 11 & 86, Table 2), which is smaller than a Gurley value of the fuel electrode diffusion layer in a thickness direction thereof, the Gurley value indicating air permeability (para. 11 & 12), and
the fuel electrode diffusion layer has the Gurley value of 75 seconds in the thickness direction thereof (para. 86, Table 1).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 5. Higuchi teaches a polymer electrolyte fuel cell (Fig. 1), comprising
the membrane electrode assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1); and
a pair of separators (item 11, para. 2) sandwiching the membrane electrode assembly.
Re Claim 6. Higuchi teaches wherein the Gurley value of the fuel electrode diffusion layer is 75 seconds (para. 86 & Table 1), the Gurley value of the air electrode diffusion layer is 5 seconds (para. 11) and the Gurley value of the fuel electrode diffusion layer is 70 seconds greater than the Gurley value of the air electrode diffusion layer.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamada (US 2020/0335808 A1).
The teachings of Higuchi have been discussed above.
Re Claim 2. Higuchi further teaches that that the first electrocatalyst layer and the second electrocatalyst layer each contain a catalytic material (para. 23) but fails to specifically teach that the first electrocatalyst layer and the second electrocatalyst layer each contain polymer electrolyte aggregates, and a fibrous material.
The invention of Hamada encompasses membrane assembly for solid polymer fuel cell. Hamada teaches that the first electrocatalyst layer and the second electrocatalyst layer (Fig. 3, item 8) each contain a catalytic material (item 10), carbon particles (item 11), polymer electrolyte aggregates (item 12), and a fibrous material (item 13).
In view of Hamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Higuchi to have the first electrocatalyst layer and the second electrocatalyst layer each contain a catalytic material, carbon particles, polymer electrolyte aggregates, and a fibrous material, since Hamada teaches the advantage of using them, which is to have excellent adhesion at an interface between a catalyst layer and a polymer electrolyte membrane (para. 15).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the fibrous material contained in each of the electrocatalyst layers comprises at least either of electron-conducting fibers and proton-conducting fibers (Hamada, para. 44).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the first electrocatalyst layer and the second electrocatalyst layer each comprise carbon fibers corresponding to the fibrous material; and the carbon fibers contained in each of the electrocatalyst layers comprise at least either of carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers (Hamada, para. 45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly applied reference, Higuchi addresses the new limitations.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights