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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/12/26. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 2-4 are canceled. Claims 9-10 are added. Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 refers to first, second, and third polymer electrolytes. Since the claim does not specify the composition of the electrolytes, the examiner is interpreting the claims as not requiring that the polymer electrolytes are chemically different. This is consistent with the instant specification, e.g. at [0037] of the published specification, where it is stated that the polymer electrolytes may be the same.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaji et al. (US 2013/0052560) in view of Kurita et al. (US 2008/0241641) and 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); aggregates of a second polymer electrolyte, or first solid polymer electrolyte (56) covering surfaces of catalyst particles; and first fibers consisting of a third polymer electrolyte, or fibrous network structure formed of second solid polymer electrolyte (72) (Figures 2-3 and 5-7, [0040], [0069]-[0070], [0092], [0098], [0100]).
Further regarding claim 1, Kurita is silent on second fibers consisting of carbon.
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.
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.
With further regard to claim 1, Kawaji teaches that the fibrous substance is polymer electrolyte fibers having proton conductivity and having a fiber diameter of about 100nm and length of about 1µm ([0043], [0125]).
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]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaji in view of Kurita and Hasegawa as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Ozawa (WO 2019189891, with US 2021/0013518 used as translation).
The teachings of Kawaji, Kurita and Hasegawa as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kawaji in view of Kurita and Hasegawa obviates the membrane electrode assembly of claims 1 and 5. Kawaji further teaches that the solid electrolyte is, for example, a sulfonated polyether sulfone ([0080]-[0082]).
Ozawa teaches a membrane electrode assembly including a catalyst layer having fibers consisting of a polymer electrolyte, or proton conductive fibers, wherein the polymer electrolyte may be, for example, sulfonated polyether sulfone or acid-doped polybenzoazole.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to substitute acid-doped polybenzoazole for sulfonated polyether sulfone as the polymer electrolyte of Kawaji such as suggested by Ozawa and the results of the substitution, i.e. providing a polymer electrolyte material, would have been predictable. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I (B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kawaji does not teach the claimed first fiber dimensions based on [0041]. The examiner regrets that this citation is a typographical error, and that the intended citation is [0043] as corrected above. However, the rejection is made over the entirety of Kawaji, and the teachings relied upon from Kawaji, to the aspect ratio of the fibers, are found merely ten lines below [0041] and in the same column. The examiner maintains that the Kawaji anticipates the limitation.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights