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 with traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicants argue a prima facie case that the product can be made by another material different apparatus has been made. Applicants state no evidence or line of reasoning in the Restriction explains why the claim 18 cutting module is materially different than a manually operated cutting module operated by a user manipulating a set of controls, and that no limitations in claim 18 are identified in the Restriction that exclude the claimed cutting module from being the alleged manual cutting module, and that the assertion that the product could be made by a materially different apparatus is merely a conclusory statement. However, the apparatus of Group II includes language directed towards “modules”. The apparatus comprises a number of these modules, in particular, with reference to instant Figures 19 and 20. These modules disclose an automated operation of the structure of the apparatus, as stated at P22/[0104] of the instant specification. A user operating manual controls is an altogether different and distinct apparatus from an apparatus utilizing automated modules therein and would be recognized as such by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue a prima facie case of mutual exclusiveness is not argued in the species Restriction, and as such is improper and should be withdrawn. As stated in the 1/28/2026 office action, the different structures of Species A and Species B may be classified in different areas. However, even assuming, arguendo, that both Species A and Species B are classified in the same area, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention. See MPEP 806.05. In this instance, a first invention, to Species A, a three stripe adhesive configuration, would not infringe on the second invention, to Species B, with a two strip adhesive configuration, as the adhesive and placement / structure of the third stripe is distinct from that of the two stripe configuration. As such, this argument is not found persuasive and Species A and Species B are considered mutually exclusive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the first and second stripes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the first and second stripes” will be interpreted as “the first and second adhesive stripes”.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al. (EP 4,068,433).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a conductor assembly (ref 1) for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (Abstract), comprising: first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 below) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 below) of gas diffusion layer (GDL) material (ref 3, [0039]), wherein each of the first (ref 3E, left side) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side) has a respective first surface (bottom surface planar portion of top ref 3, Fig 4), respective opposed first (“1st L.E.”, Fig 4 below) and second longitudinal edges (“2nd L.E, Fig 4 below), and respective first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 below), second (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 below) and third stripes (“Third”, Fig 42, Fig 4 below) of an adhesive material ([0049], [0060]-[0062]) applied onto the respective first surface (bottom surface planar portion of top ref 3, Fig 4) along a respective length (Fig 4, lengthwise direction below) of the respective first surface (bottom surface planar portion of top ref 3, Fig 4), wherein for each of the first ((ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 below) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 below) the respective first stripe (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 below) runs along and is proximate to the respective first longitudinal edge (“1st L.E., Fig 4 below), the respective second stripe runs (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 below) along and is proximate to the respective second longitudinal edge (“2nd L.E., Fig 4 below), and the respective third stripe (“Third”, Fig 42, Fig 4 below) runs between (Fig 4 below) the respective first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 below) and second stripes (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 below); and a generally planar subgasket (ref 15, Fig 4) having a window ([0037], Fig 1) therethrough bounded by a window periphery ([0037]-[0038], Fig 4) surrounding the window ([0037], Fig 4); wherein the generally planar subgasket (ref 15) is sandwiched between (Fig 4) the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 below) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 below) with the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 below) and second cut segments (ref 3E, rights side, Fig 4 below) oriented with their respective first surfaces facing and covering (depicted in Fig 4 below) the window ([0037]-[0038]) and with their respective first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 below) and second stripes (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 below) being disposed in contact with (Fig 4 below) the window periphery ([0037]-[0038], Fig 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 above) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 above) are oriented such that (Fig 4) the first, second and third stripes of one of the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 above) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 above) are registered with (vertical alignment of refs 41, 42, depicted in Fig 4 above) the first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 above), second (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 above) and third stripes (“Third” ref 42, Fig 4 above) of the other of (Fig 4) the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 above) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses for each of the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 above) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 above) the respective first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 above), second (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 above) and third stripes (“Third” ref 42, Fig 4 above) are parallel with each other (depicted in Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 5, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the adhesive material is an ionomer solution ([0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the ionomer solution is a perfluorosulfonic acid polymer ([0061], Nafion® disclosed).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the respective first (“First” ref 41, Fig 4 above) and second stripes of adhesive (“Second” ref 41, Fig 4 above) of the first (ref 3E, left side, Fig 4 above) and second cut segments (ref 3E, right side, Fig 4 above) are disposed in contact with less than an entirety (depicted in Fig 4 above) of the window periphery ([0037]-[0038]).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (EP 4,068,433) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Stanley et al. (US 2005/0250002).
Regarding claim 7, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the ionomer solution contains an electrically conductive additive therein.
Stanley et al. discloses in Figs 1-12, a fuel cell (Abstract) MEA ([0014]) including gas diffusion layers bonded thereto via a binder and conductive particles ([0014]). This configuration enhances the conductivity and bonding / structural integrity of the fuel cell MEA structure ([0014], [0003], [0007], Abstract).
Stanley et al. and Takagi et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the conductive particles of Stanley et al. into the adhesive material of Takagi to enhance the conductivity and bonding / structural integrity of the fuel cell MEA structure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (EP 4,068,433) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gulla et al. (US 2006/0234111).
Regarding claim 4, Takagi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the respective third stripes of the first and second cut segments are adhered to each other.
Gulla et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a fuel cell (Abstract) gas diffusion layer (ref 100) including binder coated (ref 200) thereon. The binder (ref 200) has a patterned structure (Figs 1-3) and the binder is adhered all together (depicted in Fig 3) in the patterned structure. This configuration enhances the bonding of the gas diffusion layer to the fuel cell MEA structure enhancing overall performance and structural integrity ([0016], [0028], [0033]).
Gulla et al. and Takagi et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell gas diffusion layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate into the structure of the third adhesive stripes of Takagi et al. the continuous binder pattern application structure disclosed by Gulla et al. to enhance the bonding of the gas diffusion layer to the fuel cell MEA structure enhancing overall performance and structural integrity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2022/0181661) discloses in Figs 1-4, a fuel cell (Abstract) including a MEA comprising gas diffusion layers including perfluorosulfonic acid adhesives ([0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights