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 statements filed 9/1/23 and 11/7/25 have been considered by the examiner. 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. Claim s 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaji et al. (US 2013/0052560) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2012/0148732) . Regarding claim 1, Kawaji teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising: a polymer electrolyte membrane (14); a pair of electrode catalyst layers (13, 15), with the membrane therebetween and in contact with, and a gas diffusion layer (12, 16) laminated on the electrodes (Figure 1, [0064]); wherein each of the electrode catalyst layers includes catalytic substances, or catalyst metal particles (22), carbon particles, or primary carbon particles (21), polymer electrolyte agglomerates, or first solid polymer electrolyte (56) covering surfaces of catalyst particles, and fibrous substances, or fibrous network structure formed of second solid polymer electrolyte (72) (Figures 2-3 and 5-7, [0040], [0069]-[0070], [0092], [0098], [0100]). With further regard to claim 1, Kawaji is silent on the Gurley value of the gas diffusion layer. Hasegawa teaches a gas diffusion layer having a Gurley value of preferable 1 second for securing excellent gas diffusion properties ([0027]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the gas diffusion layer of Kawaji with a Gurley value of 1 second such as suggested by Hasegawa in order to secure excellent gas diffusion properties. Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, Kawaji teaches that the fibrous substance is polymer electrolyte fibers having proton conductivity and having a fiber diameter of about 0.1µm and length of about 1µm ([0041], [0125]). Further regarding claim 5, Kawaji is silent on the relative amount of polymer electrolyte fibers to carbon particles in the electrode catalyst layers. Kawaji teaches that the polymer electrolyte fibers (polymer A, second polymer electrolyte), is used to conduct protons or OH - ions over the entire electrode in order to keep ion resistance of over the entire electrode low ([0073]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use routine experimentation to find a workable amount of the second polymer electrolyte in the electrode in order to ensure that it properly functions to keep ion resistance of the electrode low. It has been held that discovering workable ranges by routine experimentation is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 As for claim 6, Kawaji teaches that the catalytic substances are particulate having a mean particle diameter of 20-30nm ([0075]). The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 With regard to claim 7, Kawaji teaches that the carbon particles have a mean particle diameter of 20-40nm ([0069]). The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 As for claim 8, Kawaji teaches separators (11) to form a fuel cell (Figure 1, [0001]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaji in view of Hasegawa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2008/0241641) . The teachings of Kawaji and Hasegawa as discussed above are incorporated herein. Kawaji in view of Hasegawa teaches the assembly of claim 2 but is silent on carbon fibers as the fibrous substances. Kurita teaches a membrane electrode assembly having an electrode catalyst layer (31) having carbon fibers provided therein, along with a catalyst; carbon particles, or a particulate auxiliary electrically conductive substance; polymer electrolyte aggregates, or ionically-conductive substance ([0057]). Kurita further teaches that the carbon fibers are included in order to improve dischargeability of the electrode to water ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include carbon fibers in the electrode catalyst layers of Kawaji in view of Hasegawa such as suggested by Kurita in order to improve dischargeability of the electrode to water. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1101 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30am - 4:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729