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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C, encompassing all of the claims (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 1, 2024 and August 14, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3 and 6-7 are 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the four gas inflow side grooves disposed adjacently to each other" in lines 1-2, claim 3 recites the limitation “the two gas inflow side grooves disposed adjacently two each other” in lines 1-2 and depends on claim 2, claim 6 recites the limitation "the four gas outflow side grooves disposed adjacently to each other" in lines 1-2, and claim 3 recites the limitation “the two gas outflow side grooves disposed adjacently two each other” in lines 1-2 and depends on claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in these claims. It is noted that claim 1 defines a plurality of gas inflow and outflow side grooves, but does not specify any specific number of them, or require them to be adjacent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP2017-016942; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a gas diffusion layer comprising a fluid supply diffusion layer 41 (taken to be the claimed sheet-shaped porous body layer having conductivity, the porous body layer allowing permeation and diffusion of a gas therethrough) (machine translation at page 4, third paragraph), a plurality of gas flow path grooves formed on one surface of the porous body layer in a direction directed from a gas inflow side to a gas outflow side (top of figure 8 is gas inflow side and bottom of figure 8 is gas outflow side), wherein the plurality of gas flow paths include a plurality of gas inflow side grooves 55 on the gas inflow side, and a plurality of gas outflow side grooves 56 formed on the gas outflow side, and the plurality of gas inflow side grooves include two or more kinds of gas inflow side grooves that have different lengths (there are four different lengths of grooves 55 at the top of the figure, as well as additional grooves with different lengths further down in the figure) (machine translation at page 8, last paragraph – page 9, first paragraph; figure 8).
Regarding claims 2-3, Watanabe teaches four adjacent gas inflow side grooves 55 which all differ in length from each other (top set of four grooves 55) (figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches a shortest gas inflow side groove having a length less than 30% of a length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (top rightmost groove 55) and a longest gas inflow side groove having a length greater than 40% of the length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (right groove 51, bottom groove 51A and leftmost groove 55 extending up from bottom groove 51A) (figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches that the plurality of gas outflow side grooves 56 include two or more kinds of gas outflow grooves having different lengths (figure 8).
Regarding claims 6-7, Watanabe teaches four adjacent gas outflow side grooves 56 which all differ in length from each other (bottom set of four grooves 56) (figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches a shortest gas outflow side groove having a length less than 30% of a length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (bottom leftmost groove 56) and a longest gas outflow side groove having a length greater than 40% of the length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (left groove 52 – not numbered in this figure but clear based on position, description and other figures, top groove 52A and rightmost groove 56 extending down from top groove 52A) (machine translation at page 4, fifth paragraph and page 8, last paragraph – page 9, first paragraph; figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe teaches that all or some of the plurality of gas flow path grooves have a branching portion or a merging portion (figure 8).
Regarding claims 15-19, Watanabe teaches that the gas diffusion layer is a fuel gas supply diffusion layer for a cathode gas, a separator comprising a gas shield plate and the gas diffusion layer set forth above, that an electrochemical reactor which is a fuel cell stack is formed by stacking a separator set forth above and a membrane electrode assembly, where the membrane electrode assembly is positioned on a surface of the gas diffusion layer where the plurality of gas flow path grooves are not formed (machine translation at pages 2-3; figures 4 and 12).
Claims 1-9, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanai (WO2019/239605; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Yanai teaches a gas diffusion layer comprising a fluid supply diffusion layer 42i (taken to be the claimed sheet-shaped porous body layer having conductivity, the porous body layer allowing permeation and diffusion of a gas therethrough), a plurality of gas flow path grooves formed on one surface of the porous body layer in a direction directed from a gas inflow side to a gas outflow side (bottom of figure 16 is gas inflow side and top of figure 16 is gas outflow side), wherein the plurality of gas flow paths include a plurality of gas inflow side grooves on the gas inflow side, and a plurality of gas outflow side grooves formed on the gas outflow side, and the plurality of gas inflow side grooves include two or more kinds of gas inflow side grooves that have different lengths (bypass groove 59A being a longer inflow groove than the small vertical gas inflow grooves at the bottom of the figure) (machine translation at pages 17-19, modification 9; figure 16).
Regarding claims 2-3, Yanai teaches seven adjacent gas inflow side grooves, the leftmost groove being bypass groove 59A which is longer than the other grooves (machine translation at page 17; figure 16).
Regarding claim 4, Yanai teaches a shortest gas inflow side groove having a length less than 30% of a length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (small vertical grooves at bottom) and a longest gas inflow side groove (bypass groove 59A) having a length greater than 40% of the length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (figure 16).
Regarding claim 5, Yanai teaches that the plurality of gas outflow side grooves include two or more kinds of gas outflow grooves having different lengths (figure 16).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yanai teaches seven adjacent gas outflow side grooves, the rightmost groove being bypass groove 59B which is longer than the other grooves (machine translation at page 17; figure 16).
Regarding claim 8, Yanai teaches a shortest gas outflow side groove having a length less than 30% of a length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (small vertical grooves at top) and a longest gas outflow side groove (bypass groove 59B) having a length greater than 40% of the length of the porous body layer from a gas inflow to outflow side (figure 16).
Regarding claim 9, Yanai teaches a plurality of relay grooves 55i formed between the gas inflow and outflow side grooves (machine translation at pages 17-19, modification 9; figure 16).
Regarding claim 12, Yanai teaches that the inflow, outflow and relay grooves are formed therebetween the gas diffusion layer (machine translation at pages 17-19, modification 9; figure 16).
Regarding claim 13, Yanai teaches that bypass groove 59A has a branching portion and bypass groove 59B has a merging portion (figure 16).
Regarding claims 15-19, Yanai teaches that the gas diffusion layer is a fuel gas supply diffusion layer for a cathode gas, a separator comprising a gas shield plate and the gas diffusion layer set forth above, that an electrochemical reactor which is a fuel cell stack is formed by stacking a separator set forth above and a membrane electrode assembly, where the membrane electrode assembly is positioned on a surface of the gas diffusion layer where the plurality of gas flow path grooves are not formed (machine translation at pages 2-4; figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (WO2019/239605; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 14, Yanai teaches a range of rate of area of 60% or more (machine translation at page 6, second paragraph), overlapping the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rate of area of 60% or more because Yanai teaches such a range (see machine translation at page 6, second paragraph).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Konakawa (JP2004-146230; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 10-11, Yanai does not specifically disclose that the relay grooves communicate with each other. Konakawa teaches allowing perpendicular communication portions 15 between grooves in a gas diffusion layer 12 (machine translation at paragraphs [0038]-[0040]; figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use communication portions as taught by Konakawa in the relay grooves of the gas diffusion layer of Yanai in order to prevent flow from stopping in the layer (see Konakawa machine translation at paragraph [0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 2, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights