DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The applicant’s amendment dated 06 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 16 has been amended to include an electrode as part of the membrane electrode assembly. The applicant has previously cancelled Claims 1-15. Currently, Claims 16-30 pending and under examination.
Drawings
3. Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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 nonobviousness.
6. Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. and Farrington et al.
Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0020502 A1) is directed toward a high temperature fuel cell system (title). Farrington et al. (WO 2014/111745 A2) is directed toward fuel cell assemblies and preparation methods therefore (title).
Regarding Claim 16, Cho et al. discloses an electrochemical cell 1000 comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (“MEA”) depicted in FIG. 1 which includes: two electrodes (i.e.: an anode 20 and a cathode 30 as depicted in FIG. 1), a proton exchange electrolyte membrane 10 and two retaining plates 41 and 42 (¶21). Cho et al. further indicates the retaining plate 41 and 42 are situated on both sides of the membrane electrode assembly and have distribution channels for distributing reactive fluids to the electrodes as per ¶21. Cho et al. also discloses a single seal (i.e.: element 71 or 72) which is positioned along a thickness axis orthogonal to a main plane of the electrochemical cell, wherein said seal extends around the membrane electrode assembly in the main plane and is in contact with the two retaining plates (as depicted in FIG. 1). Cho et al. teaches the electrochemical cell has at least one intermediate leak-tight sheet (elements 51 and 52), which is made of a leak-tight material with respect to the electrolyte in the distribution channels, with the intermediate leak-tight sheet extending around the membrane electrode assembly in the main plane and is between the membrane electrode assembly and the seal, and is joined in a leak-tight manner to the membrane and to the seal as depicted in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3. However, Cho et al. does not disclose the use of retaining ribs as required by Claim 16.
Farrington et al. is directed toward fuel cell assemblies and preparation methods (title) making it analogous as to Cho et al. Farrington et al. further describes a fuel cell assembly with seals. Farrington et al. discloses the use of plastic (film) frames (elements 41 and 42) adhesively bound to the sealing features as depicted in FIG. 3 and explained on pg. 8 lines 14-15 as well as pg. 10 lines 16-28. These plastic film frames are often employed at fluid transition areas as a means to prevent differential fluid pressure. A similar construction also with improved sealing is depicted in FIG. 4 of Farrington et al. On pg. 11 lines 26-30, Farrington et al. indicates the film frames are held in tension by the fluid in the cavities improving the shear strength. Given the description of the plastic (film) frames, Farrington et al. discloses a part that is analogous to the retaining ribs of Claim 16.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell with different seals and leak-tight sheets with the retaining ribs (i.e.: the plastic film frame) taught by Farrington et al. with the reasonable expectation of improving the leak-proof nature of the electrochemical cell.
In light of the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. the limitation of Claim 16 wherein the retaining plates include retaining ribs protruding with respect to the main plane and coming into contact with the seal; and the intermediate leak-tight sheet is joined to a surface of the seal, wherein the surface of the seal is situated: radially between the membrane electrode assembly and the retaining ribs; and radially at a non-zero distance from the membrane electrode assembly and the retaining ribs is met.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the intermediate leak-tight sheet is joined to the seal by bonding, overmolding, or welding as evidenced by ¶26 and ¶27 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the intermediate leak-tight sheet is bonded to the membrane with an adhesive material as evidenced by ¶23 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the intermediate leak-tight sheet is made of a different material from the material of the seal as illustrated by ¶23 and ¶24 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the membrane has two faces opposite each other and parallel to the main plane of the electrochemical cell, the intermediate leak-tight sheet extending over one of said faces of the membrane as depicted in FIG. 1 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 20, wherein the intermediate leak-tight sheet is made of a material different from the material of the seal and wherein the intermediate leak-tight sheet is bonded to one of said faces of the membrane as depicted in FIG. 1 and described in ¶23 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the peripheral leak-tight sheets extends in a peripheral zone of the electrochemical cell surrounding, in the main plane, an active zone where an electrochemical reaction is intended to occur as depicted in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG.3 of Cho et al. The different types of chemical reaction for fuel cells (or electrolyzers) are discussed in ¶5-11 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the retaining ribs are arranged offset from each other as depicted in FIG. 4 of Farrington et al.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the retaining ribs are arranged offset from each other as depicted in FIG 3 and FIG 4 in Farrington et al. with an explanation on pg. 10 lines 16-28.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 16, wherein the membrane has first and second faces opposite each other and parallel to the main plane of the electrochemical cell, and having first and second intermediate leak-tight sheets superimposed on each other, each intermediate leak tight sheet being joined in a leak-tight way to the membrane and to the seal, the first intermediate leak-tight sheet extending over the first face of the membrane, and the second intermediate leak-tight sheet extending over the second face of the membrane as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 25, wherein the first intermediate leak-tight sheet is bonded to the first face of the membrane, and the second intermediate leak-tight sheet is bonded to the second face of the membrane as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses an electrochemical reactor comprised comprising a stack of electrochemical cells of Claim 16 as indicated in ¶21 of Cho et al. where multiple unit cells are stacked to make a fuel cell (i.e.: electrochemical reactor is a fuel cell as required by the limitations of Claim 27). Cho et al. further explains the types of chemical reactions that may be operation in a fuel cell (using hydrogen and air as fuel) in ¶5-10.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses a method for manufacturing an electrochemical cell according to Claim 16, comprising a first step of joining the intermediate leak-tight sheet to the seal, followed by a second step of joining the intermediate leak-tight sheet to the membrane as illustrated in FIG. 1 and explained in ¶21-32 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. discloses the method of Claim 28, wherein the first assembly step is carried out by bonding, welding, or overmolding, and the second assembly step is carried out by bonding as evidenced by ¶26 and ¶27 of Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 30, Cho et al. in view of Farrington et al. discloses the method of Claim 29, wherein the second assembly step is carried out by bonding at a temperature lower than or equal to 200 degrees C as evidenced by ¶24-27 where the thermal decomposition of the gaskets are discussed as being greater than 130 degrees C and greater than or equal to 200 degrees C. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
Response to Arguments
7. The applicant’s arguments in their response dated 06 July 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As a result, the obviousness rejections of Claims 16-30 in view of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. have been maintained.
8. The applicant has argued that both Cho et al. and Farrington et al. teach the use of a double seal which is different than the single seal as required by Claim 16. The examiner disagrees with this interpretation with respect to Cho et al. As depicted the assembly cross-section in FIG. 1 of Cho et al., the sealing elements labeled as 71/72 would form a single seal in the actual assembly as they wrap completely around the part stack comprised of elements 53, 54, and 60 forming one piece. The applicant may consider more clearly defining the direction and orientation of the elements in Claim 16 in accordance with the axes depicted in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B.
9. The applicant has further argued that the combination of Cho et al. and Farrington et al. fail to teach “a maintenance rib.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a rib is simply defined as “an elongated projection on a shape, forging, or casting to provide stiffening” as supported by the engineering dictionary from ENGNET. The applicant has not provided a special definition in their disclosure for the term “rib,” so the interpretation of said term falls under the standard technical understanding (i.e.: the engineering definition). The plastic (film) frames of Farrington et al. protrude from the surface and are employed at fluid transition areas as a means to prevent differential fluid pressure. Additionally, these structures are held in tension by the fluid in the cavities improving the shear strength. Given the description of the plastic (film) frames, Farrington et al. discloses a part that is analogous to the ribs of Claim 16 rending the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
10. The applicant has argued that skilled artisan would not “conceive an electrochemical cell incorporating the features of Claim 16 having a "radial shift” as the examiner has asserted by the combination of Cho et al. in Farrington et al. However, the examiner finds this argument unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. When combining prior art elements, the skilled artisan is required to lay out the combined structures within the physical limits of the system. As such, the introduction of Farrington’s protruding frame elements (i.e.: the plastic film frames) into the Cho’s basic cell architecture, the skilled artisan must account for Cho’s intermediate leak-tight structures (elements 51 and 52). As result, Cho’s intermediate leak-tight structures already occupy the intermediate perimeter of the MEA and the radial shift would be an inherent part of the combination. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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.
13. 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 SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights