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 .
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2006/0201800) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0021787).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa teaches an electrode/anode comprising: a power feeder layer (40) including an electric conductive material (paragraphs 37, 59-60), the power feeder layer including a porous structure including porosity of 10% or more and 50% or less (paragraphs 38, 55, 60); and
a catalyst layer (44a) provided on the power feeder layer (40; as shown in figure 2), the catalyst layer including a ruthenium or platinum catalyst layer (paragraphs 9, 37).
Nakazawa fails to teach wherein the catalyst layer includes a porous catalyst layer including a porous precious metal or sheet-like precious metal, a metallic content per area of the catalyst layer being not less than 0.02 mg/cm² and not more than 1.0 mg/cm², a film thickness of the catalyst layer being 0.1 µm or more and 2 µm or less, and a porosity of the catalyst layer being 30 % or more and 70 % or less.
Wu discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising an anode catalyst layer, a cathode catalyst layer and a membrane sandwiched between the catalyst layers (paragraphs 16-20). The porous catalyst layers include: a porous precious metal, i.e. ruthenium, platinum or gold, among others (paragraph 42), a metallic content per area/load of the catalyst layer of 1.0 mg/cm² (paragraphs 88-89), a film thickness of the catalyst layer being 0.1 µm or more and 2 µm or less (50-300nm ~ 0.05 to 0.3 µm - paragraph 83), and a porosity of the catalyst layer being 30 % or more and 70 % or less (as shown in table 1 on pages 6-7). As a result of this arrangement, the efficiency of catalyst metal utilization in a catalyst layer can be improved in the electrode of the electrochemical cell (paragraphs 22, 28, 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use porous catalyst layers in the assembly of Nakazawa comprising the properties taught by Wu, in order to improve the efficiency of catalyst metal utilization in the catalyst layers in the electrode of the electrochemical cell.
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa in view of Wu teaches a membrane electrode assembly using the electrode according to claim 1 (abstract; paragraphs 37, 59).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa in view of Wu discloses an electrochemical cell using the electrode according to claim 1 (paragraphs 33, 36, 62).
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa in view of Wu further teaches a stack using the electrode according to claim 1 (paragraphs 7, 33).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa in view of Wu discloses an electrolyzer using the electrode according to claim 1 (paragraphs 33, 36, 62).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0399319).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Nakazawa teaches all the features discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the power feeder layer is a metal non-woven fabric having the fiber diameter of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less.
Sakai discloses a stack of electrochemical cells comprising an electrode including a power feeder and a catalyst, wherein the power feeder is composed of non-woven fabric having fibers to appropriately follow the displacement and deformation of the components which may occur during the operation of the electrochemical hydrogen pump due to the pressure difference between the electrodes (paragraphs 50-52). Even though Sakai fails to explicitly teach the particular diameter, it has been held by courts that limitations relating to the size of an element is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, if the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04. IV.A.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a power feeder made of a metal non-woven fabric in the device of the modified Nakazawa, as taught by Sakai, in order to appropriately follow the displacement and deformation of the components which may occur during the operation of the electrochemical hydrogen pump due to the pressure difference between the electrodes.
Regarding claim 3, even though the modified Nakazawa fails to explicitly teach the particular thickness of the power feeder, it has been held by courts that limitations relating to the size of an element is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, if the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04. IV.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach “a porous catalyst layer including a porous precious metal or sheet-like precious metal, a metallic content per area of the catalyst layer being not less than 0.02 mg/cm² and not more than 1.0 mg/cm², a film thickness of the catalyst layer being 0.1 µm or more and 2 µm or less, and a porosity of the catalyst layer being 30 % or more and 70 % or less”, as amended.
After further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Wu et al.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights