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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120094215 A1 (Henceforth referred to as "Satou").
Regarding claim 1, Satou teaches in [0142] and in figure 2, a fuel cell comprising a working and counter electrode, particularly gas diffusion electrodes. While the electrodes are not labeled in figure 2, Satou teaches in [0142] that the membrane electrode assembly has electrodes on its surfaces and in [0149] that the separators function to electrically connect the membrane electrode assemblies. As such, the connectors are interpreted as the electrodes. Satou further teaches in [0098] that the gas diffusion electrodes have controllable porosity and further teaches in [0226] that the material that the gas diffusion layer material is not limited. By having identical gas diffusion layers on the cathode and anode, the volume porosity is equal.
Satou’s figure 2, modified to include label names:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Satou teaches in [0128] that the gas diffusion layer is made of "sheet-like materials having conductivity and porosity" and as shown in figure 2, the gas diffusion layers are analogous to the working electrode film and the counter electrode film of the present application's figure 3. Satou further teaches in figure 2 the "hydrophilic porous layer" attached to the anode side gas diffusion layer (counter electrode film) which would result in the porosity of the working electrode film having either the same or greater porosity than the counter electrode film.
The present application’s figure 3, modified to include label names:
PNG
media_image2.png
232
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Satou teaches in [0128] that the gas diffusion layer is made of "sheet-like materials having conductivity and porosity" so by nature of having more than one pore, a plurality is met. Satou further teaches in [0278] that the average pore diameter of the gas diffusion layer is 20-60 um and in [0373] and figure 14 that the hydrophilic porous layer has an average pore diameter of 0.003 - 1 μm. Due to the placement of the hydrophilic porous layer being a part of the anode side gas diffusion layer (counter electrode film), the average circle equivalent diameter of the working electrode film is larger than the average circle equivalent diameter of the counter electrode film.
Regarding claim 4, Satou teaches in [0128] that the gas diffusion layer is made of "sheet-like materials having conductivity and porosity" so by nature of having more than one pore, a plurality is met. Satou teaches in [0177] that ideally the pores of the gas diffusion layer are at minimum 1 μm diameter. At room temperature and atmospheric pressure, the mean free path of CO2 is 0.0431 μm which means that the gas diffusion layer has an average circle diameter more than 4 times the mean free path of CO2, an example target gas.
λ
=
μ
p
π
k
T
2
m
so, at 20 degrees C and 1 atm pressure, CO2 has a μ of 0.0148 cP and a m of 44.01 amu resulting in a mean free path, λ, of 0.0431 μm.
Regarding claim 5, Satou teaches in [0128] that the gas diffusion layer is made of "sheet-like materials having conductivity and porosity" and as shown in figure 2, the gas diffusion layers are analogous to the working electrode film and the counter electrode film of the present application's figure 3. Satou’s film is not formed by pressure molding. However, as per MPEP 2113 (I) "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Regarding claim 6, Satou teaches in the [0128] that the thickness of the das diffusion layer is not particularly limited. In Satou's figure 2, the thickness of the cathode gas diffusion layer (working electrode film) is the same as the thickness of the anode gas diffusion layer plus the hydrophilic porous layer (counter electrode film).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou.
Regarding claim 7, in the present application's figure 11 and in the specification [0066] - [0067], the film thickness at which the CO2 adsorption rate reaches a maximum is 30 μm. Satou teaches in [0128] that the thickness of the gas diffusion layer (a film made of "sheet-like material" placed adjacent to the electrode) including the working electrode side gas diffusion layer, is preferably 30-500 μm. This is considered to meet the claimed thickness for the working electrode film having a thickness that is equal to or less than a film thickness at which an adsorption rate of the recovery target gas becomes an upper limit value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/A.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights