edDETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 12/22/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 9/27/24, 5/28/25, and 9/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejection(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 First Paragraph or AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being as failing to comply with the written description requirement on claims 1-22 is withdrawn because the claim have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE on claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 15, 19 and 21 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by lsoproyl Alcohol Safety Data Sheet hereinafter SDS on claim 3 is withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE on claims 1-2, 4-5, 14-20, and 21-22 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced bylsoproyl Alcohol Safety Data Sheet hereinafter SDS on claim 3 is withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanimura et al. US PGPub 2017/0012297 hereinafter TANIMURA on claims 10-13 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 15, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE.
As for claim 1, LO teaches "Methods of preparing a fluid diffusion layer comprise continuously applying a loading material to a substrate and continuous compacting the substrate and loading material applied thereto with at least one compaction roller. Methods of preparing an electrode comprise continuously applying an electrocatalyst to a fluid diffusion layer and continuously compacting the fluid diffusion layer and electrocatalyst applied thereto with at least one compaction roller" (abstract, lines 1-8), and "the substrate may be pretreated with a hydrophobic polymer before the step of continuously applying a loading com position to the substrate" (paragraph 16, lines 1-4), i.e. A method of modifying an electrode, comprising: providing the electrode ... pretreating the electrode by applying a first solution to the electrode comprising ... a first hydrophobic polymer ... and after the pretreating, applying a second solution.
LO teaches "the substrate is a paper or board-like porous material and is a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric, or a mesh (a continuous sheet of substantially nonporous material that has been perforated). For example, an electrically conductive material such as ... carbon fiber non-woven or graphite fiber nonwoven, is preferred" (paragraph 29, lines 3-9), i.e. the electrode comprising a non-woven substrate including fibers comprising carbon.
LO teaches "A hydrophobic polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is typically coated on the substrate to impart water repellency " (paragraph 32, lines 1-3) and "First, a continuous roll of substrate was immersed in a reel-to-reel fashion in a dilute solution of DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B so that the substrate was soaked with this suspension" (paragraph 56, lines 4-8), i.e. pretreating the electrode by applying a first solution to the electrode, the first solution comprising ... a first hydrophobic polymer.
LO is silent on the first hydrophobic polymer comprising hydrophobic particles having an average particle size of greater than or equal to 500 nanometers and less than or equal to 100 microns. However, as mentioned above, LO does teach “DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B” (paragraph 56, lines 7-8).
JAPP teaches “PTFE is understood to mean polytetrafluorethylene. duPont has a business location at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Del. "Teflon PTFE 30" is a negatively charged, hydrophobic colloid containing polytetrafluoroethylene resin particles (0.05-0.5 microns) suspended in water” (paragraph 41, lines 3-14) and see further paragraph 56, lines 1-4 and paragraph 55, lines 1-4, which establishes that DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B has a particle size of 0.05-0.5 microns, which when converted to nanometers is 50 nanometers to 500 nanometers which overlaps with the first hydrophobic polymer comprising hydrophobic particles having an average particle size of greater than or equal to 500 nanometers and less than or equal to 100 microns. It is therefore inherent that LO teaches an overlapping 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
LO is silent on the solvent used to prepare the solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein isopropyl alcohol was a known solvent for PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the vapor pressure of the solvent used. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the vapor pressure does not provide patentable distinction as the vapor pressure appears to be incidental absent evidence.
LO teaches "The loading material generally comprises electrically conductive material and preferably improves the conductivity of the electrode, reduces porosity, and reduces surface roughness. Preferred components of the loading material include carbon particles such as carbon black" and "the loading material may comprise hydrophilic or hydrophobic components to alter the water transport characteristics of the electrode or portions thereof. Preferably, the loading material comprises a binder to bind particulate components of the loading material together and to retain the loading material in the substrate. Polytetrafluoroethylene is a suitable binder" (paragraph 36, lines 1-7), i.e. after the pretreating, applying a second solution comprising a second hydrophobic polymer and/or PTFE binder and an active material comprising carbon to the electrode.
As for claim 2, As for claim 2, LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises an organic solvent. Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises an organic solvent because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 4, LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises an alcohol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the organic solvent comprises an alcohol because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 5, LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises isopropyl alcohol because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 9, LO teaches "The substrate may be pre-treated and then sintered to impart water repellency, for example, by applying a solution of a PTFE or other hydrophobic polymer to the substrate, allowing it to dry overnight at ambient room conditions, and then sintering it at temperatures of about 400° C" (paragraph 32, lines 3- 8), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode after the pretreating but before the applying the second solution.
As for claim 10, LO teaches "Additionally, the fluid diffusion layers may be sintered by heat-treating at an elevated temperature, such as at a temperature from about 200° C. to about 420° C" (paragraph 45, lines 7-10), i.e. a range that overlaps with further comprising heating the electrode after the applying the second solution, wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere having a temperature of greater than or equal to 380 degrees C.
As for claim 15, LO is silent on wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 19, LO is silent on the solvent.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5) i.e. wherein the first solution comprises particles of the first hydrophobic polymer suspended in isopropyl alcohol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the first solution comprises particles of the first hydrophobic polymer suspended in isopropyl alcohol because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 21 , LO is silent on the solvent.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of wherein the liquid has a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 5 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid has a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 5 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the vapor pressure of the solvent used. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the vapor pressure does not provide patentable distinction as the vapor pressure appears to be incidental absent evidence.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by lsoproyl Alcohol Safety Data Sheet hereinafter SDS.
As for claim 3, LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner notes that SOS shows that the molecular structure of isopropyl alcohol includes OH group which is polar, wherein the organic solvent comprises a polar organic solvent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises a polar organic solvent because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE.
As for claim 1, GYENGE teaches "Various embodiments provide a method of manufacturing an oxygen electrode. The method comprises: providing an electrically conductive substrate; depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate" (abstract, liens 1-4), wherein the electrically conductive substrate is analogous to the electrode of the claim, i.e. a method of modifying an electrode.
GYENGE further teaches "In an embodiment, the electrically conductive substrate comprises any one of the following: carbon cloth, carbon fiber paper, graphite felt" (paragraph 14), wherein the graphite felt is a non-woven substrate including fibers comprising carbon, i.e. providing the electrode comprising a non-woven substrate including fibers comprising carbon.
GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8, where n in SOS on page 7 of 12, the vapor pressure of isopropyl alcohol is 43 hPa at 20°C, converted to 4.3 kPa to match claim units), wherein the PTFE powder is a hydrophobic polymer i.e. treating the electrode by applying a ... solution comprising a ... hydrophobic polymer and/or PTFE binder and an active material comprising carbon to the electrode.
GYENGE is silent on pretreating the electrode by applying a first solution comprising a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa and a first hydrophobic polymer to the electrode prior to the application of the electrocatalyst. GYENGE does teach "Gas Diffusion Electrode (GOE) Preparation" (paragraph 79).
LO teaches "Methods of preparing a fluid diffusion layer comprise continuously applying a loading material to a substrate and continuous compacting the substrate and loading material applied thereto with at least one compaction roller. Methods of preparing an electrode comprise continuously applying an electrocatalyst to a fluid diffusion layer and continuously compacting the fluid diffusion layer and electrocatalyst applied thereto with at least one compaction roller" (abstract, lines 1-8), and "the substrate may be pretreated with a hydrophobic polymer before the step of continuously applying a loading composition to the substrate" (paragraph 16, lines 1-4).
LO teaches "A hydrophobic polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is typically coated on the substrate to impart water repellency " (paragraph 32, lines 1-3) and "First, a continuous roll of substrate was immersed in a reel-to-reel fashion in a dilute solution of DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B so that the substrate was soaked with this suspension" (paragraph 56, lines 4-8), i.e. pretreating the electrode by applying a first solution to the electrode, the first solution comprising ... a first hydrophobic polymer.
LO is silent on the first hydrophobic polymer comprising hydrophobic particles having an average particle size of greater than or equal to 500 nanometers and less than or equal to 100 microns. However, as mentioned above, LO does teach “DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B” (paragraph 56, lines 7-8).
JAPP teaches “PTFE is understood to mean polytetrafluorethylene. duPont has a business location at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Del. "Teflon PTFE 30" is a negatively charged, hydrophobic colloid containing polytetrafluoroethylene resin particles (0.05-0.5 microns) suspended in water” (paragraph 41, lines 3-14) and see further paragraph 56, lines 1-4 and paragraph 55, lines 1-4, which establishes that DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B has a particle size of 0.05-0.5 microns, which when converted to nanometers is 50 nanometers to 500 nanometers which overlaps with the first hydrophobic polymer comprising hydrophobic particles having an average particle size of greater than or equal to 500 nanometers and less than or equal to 100 microns. It is therefore inherent that LO teaches an overlapping 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
LO is silent on the solvent used to prepare the solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein isopropyl alcohol was a known solvent for PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes pretreating the electrode by applying a first solution to the electrode, the first solution comprising a liquid having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C, and a first hydrophobic polymer because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the vapor pressure of the solvent used. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the vapor pressure does not provide patentable distinction as the vapor pressure appears to be incidental absent evidence.
As for claim 2, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1 .
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises an organic solvent. Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range having a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 1kpa measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises an organic solvent because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
As for claim 4, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1.
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein the organic solvent in the first solution comprises an alcohol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the organic solvent in the first solution comprises an alcohol because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
As for claim 5, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1 .
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises isopropyl alcohol because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
As for claim 6, GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8) and Examiner further draws attention to the rejection above, i.e. wherein the second solution comprises water.
As for claim 7, GYENGE is silent on the ink containing a surfactant. However, GYENGE does teach that "Surfactants are active surface agents that can significantly change the surface coverage and morphology of electrodeposited materials by mainly adsorbing to the solid/ liquid interface, acting as a deposition tern plate, reducing the interfacial energy and controlling the nucleation and growth of the particles, resulting in distinctive electrochemical activities for the deposited particles" (paragraph 145, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the surfactant in the electrocatalyst ink of GYENGE such that wherein the second solution comprises a surfactant because GYENGE teaches that such a component reduces interfacial energy and controls the nucleation and growth of particles during processes of forming electrochemical layers.
As for claim 8, GYENGE further teaches "In an embodiment, the electrically conductive substrate comprises any one of the following: carbon cloth, carbon fiber paper, graphite felt" (paragraph 14), i.e. wherein the non-woven substrate comprises a carbon felt.
As for claim 9, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1 .
LO teaches "The substrate may be pre-treated and then sintered to impart water repellency, for example, by applying a solution of a PTFE or other hydrophobic polymer to the substrate, allowing it to dry overnight at ambient room conditions, and then sintering it at temperatures of about 400° C" (paragraph 32, lines 3-8), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode after the pretreating but before the applying the second solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO in the process of GYENGE such that it includes further comprising heating the electrode after the pretreating but before the applying the second solution because LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
As for claim 10, GYENGE is silent on a pretreatment step.
Examiner draws attention to the rejection of claim 1 for the combination of LO and GYENGE.
LO teaches "The substrate may be pre-treated and then sintered to impart water repellency, for example, by applying a solution of a PTFE or other hydrophobic polymer to the substrate, allowing it to dry overnight at ambient room conditions, and then sintering it at temperatures of about 400° C" (paragraph 32, lines 3-8), but is silent on repeating the process. However, Examiner notes that in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes
are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). In this case, splitting the application of the gas diffusion layer into two steps instead of one to apply a single thickness of solution is identical in terms of form and function.
As for claim 15, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1.
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surf ace for later active layers.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the vapor pressure of the solvent used. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the vapor pressure does not provide patentable distinction as the vapor pressure appears to be incidental absent evidence.
As for claim 16, GYENGE is silent on the pretreatment.
LO teaches the pretreatment, when combined with IWASAKI, but is silent on the PTFE used for the pre-treatment being particles. LO is actually entirely silent on the shape of the PTFE in its process.
GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8; emphasis added), i.e. forming a treatment solution with PTFE powder/particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date to have wherein the first hydrophobic polymer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles in the combined process of GYENGE, LO and IWASAKI because GYENGE teaches that such powders were known for forming treatment solutions for electrode substrates.
As for claim 17, GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8; emphasis added) and Examiner further draws attention to the rejection above, i.e. wherein the second hydrophobic polymer comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles.
As for claim 18, GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8; emphasis added), i.e. wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles of the first and/or second hydrophobic polymer are from a PTFE powder and/or micropowder.
As for claim 19, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1.
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5) i.e. wherein the first solution comprises particles of the first hydrophobic polymer suspended in isopropyl alcohol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa in the first solution when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
As for claim 20, GYENGE, LO and IWASAKI are silent on the pretreating produces a pretreated substrate comprising first hydrophobic polymer that coats at least a portion of a surface of the substrate and/or infiltrates at least 5% of a depth of the substrate.
However, LO does teach "The present continuous methods are effective, efficient methods that use one or more rollers for a compacting step. In doing so, it is possible to improve and/or control penetration and adhesion and to achieve more uniform distribution of carbon and/or electrocatalyst on substrates and electrodes" (paragraph 51, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the applying the pressure and ensuring penetration of the solution can achieve the desired result of a uniform distribution of a material on a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the penetration of the first treatment solution such that the desired uniform treatment is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
GYENGE is silent on the pretreating.
LO teaches "hydrophobic polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is typically coated on the substrate to impart water repellency. The substrate may be pretreated and then sintered to impart water repellency, for example, by applying a solution of a PTFE or other hydrophobic polymer to the substrate, allowing it to dry overnight at ambient room conditions" (paragraph 32, lines 1-7), i.e. at least a portion of the liquid of the first solution applied during the pretreating is evaporated before the applying the second solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO in the process of GYENGE such that it includes at least a portion of the liquid of the first solution applied during the pretreating is evaporated before the applying the second solution because LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
GYENGE teaches "In an embodiment, the step of depositing an electrocatalyst layer on the substrate comprising spraying an electrocatalyst ink on the substrate. The electrocatalyst ink comprises at least one component selected from a group consisting of ... carbon particles ... polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder or suspension, and water and isopropyl alcohol" (paragraph 8), where in the PTFE powder is a hydrophobic polymer i.e. the applying the second solution produces a catalyst layer on at least a portion of the pretreated substrate, wherein the catalyst layer comprises the second hydrophobic polymer and/or PTFE binder and the active material comprising carbon.
LO is silent on the solvent.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of wherein the liquid has a vapor pressure of
greater than or equal to 5 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of LO such that it includes wherein the liquid has a vapor pressure of greater than or equal to 5 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and useful in the process of forming layers in the electrode.
As for claim 21, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1.
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner points to NOTE which shows that isopropyl alcohol, at 25°C, has a vapor pressure of 5.7508, which falls within the claimed range of wherein the liquid has a vapor pressure of
greater than or equal to 5 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the liquid in the first solution has a vapor pressure of less than or equal to 30 kPa when measured at 25 degrees C because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surf ace for later active layers.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the vapor pressure of the solvent used. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the vapor pressure does not provide patentable distinction as the vapor pressure appears to be incidental absent evidence.
As for claim 22, GYENGE is silent on the first solution. Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1.
LO is silent on the concentration of the PTFE in the solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The polytetrafluoroethylene contained in the water-repellent layer preferably has a composition ratio ranging from 10 to 40 weight%. If the composition ratio of the PTFE were less than 10 weight %, then the water-repellent layers would not be water-repellent enough to prevent the liquid electrolyte from seeping from the composite electrolyte. If the composition ratio of the PTFE were greater than 40 weight%, then the water-repellent layers would be too water-repellent to coat an electrode catalyst layer paste easily thereon. As a result, the bonding strength between the water-repellent layer and the electrode catalyst layer would not be sufficient" (paragraph 30), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the first hydrophobic polymer is present in the first solution in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein the first hydrophobic polymer is present in the first solution in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt% because IWASAKI teaches that such a concentration produces desirable results and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by lsoproyl Alcohol Safety Data Sheet hereinafter SDS.
As for claim 3, GYENGE is silent on the pretreating.
LO is silent on the solvent in the first solution.
IWASAKI teaches "The fuel cell has an anode electrode and a cathode electrode comprising a gas diffusion layer" (abstract, lines 2-3).
IWASAKAI teaches "The water-repellent layer is produced by coating a gas diffusion layer of carbon paper or the like with a solution which has been prepared by dissolving a porous carbon material and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in a solvent such as water, isopropyl alcohol, or the like" (paragraph 21, lines 1-5). Examiner notes that SOS shows that the molecular structure of isopropyl alcohol includes OH group which is polar, wherein the liquid in the first solution comprises a polar organic solvent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the pre-treatment of LO with isopropyl alcohol as the solvent in the process of GYENGE such that it includes wherein organic solvent comprises a polar organic solvent because IWASAKI teaches that such a solvent was known for forming solutions as desired in LO and LO teaches the such a process can provide a water repellant surface for later active layers.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanimura et al. US PGPub 2017/0012297 hereinafter TANIMURA.
As for claim 10, GYENGE is silent on further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere having a temperature of greater than or equal to 380 degrees C.
TANIMURA teaches "A gas diffusion electrode substrate that is used in a fuel cell" ( abstract, line 1).
TANIMURA further teaches "Therefore, as the electrode substrate, an electrically conductive porous material, specifically, a porous material such as carbon fiber woven fabric, carbon fiber non-woven fabric or carbon fiber papermaking substrate, or a metal porous material such as sinter foamed metal, metal mesh or expanded metal is used. Among them, a carbon fiber containing porous material is preferably used because of its excellent corrosion resistance. As the carbon fiber woven fabric, a woven fabric obtained by weaving carbon fiber or a woven fabric obtained by baking woven fabric obtained by weaving precursor fiber of carbon fiber may be used. Also, as the carbon fiber non-woven fabric, a non-woven fabric obtained by processing carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric or a so-called felt-type non-woven fabric obtained by applying processing such as compression to a non-woven fabric obtained by processing precursor fiber of carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric, as necessary, and then baking the resultant may be used" (paragraph 19, lines 1-18).
TANIMURA further teaches "After impregnating the carbon fiber-containing papermaking substrate with the resin composition, the resulting papermaking substrate is baked in an inert atmosphere to perform carbonization. For this baking, a batch type heating furnace or a continuous heating furnace can be used. Further, the inert atmosphere can be obtained by allowing an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or argon gas to flow in the heating furnace" (paragraph 81 ), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode.
TANIMURA also teaches "The highest temperature in the baking is preferably in the range of 1300° C. or more and 3000° C. or less, more preferably in the range of 1700° C. or more and 3000° C. or less, and further preferably in the range of 1900° C. or more and 3000° C. or less. When the highest temperature is 1300° C. or more, carbonization of the resin component is facilitated, so that the electrode substrate attains excellent electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity, which is preferred. Meanwhile, when the highest temperature is 3000° C. or less, the operating cost of the heating furnace is reduced, which is also preferred" (paragraph 82), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere having a temperature of greater than or equal to 380 degrees C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See M PEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date to include further comprising heating the electrode to a range that overlaps with wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere having a temperature of greater than or equal to 380 degrees C in the process of GYENGE because TANIMURA teaches that it is an integral step for producing carbon non-woven substrates, like those used by GYENGE, which have corrosion resistance and excellent electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity.
As for claim 11, GYENGE is silent on further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in a non-oxidative atmosphere.
TANIMURA teaches "A gas diffusion electrode substrate that is used in a fuel cell" ( abstract, line 1).
TANIMURA further teaches "Therefore, as the electrode substrate, an electrically conductive porous material, specifically, a porous material such as carbon fiber woven fabric, carbon fiber non-woven fabric or carbon fiber papermaking substrate, or a metal porous material such as sinter foamed metal, metal mesh or expanded metal is used. Among them, a carbon fiber containing porous material is preferably used because of its excellent corrosion resistance. As the carbon fiber woven fabric, a woven fabric obtained by weaving carbon fiber or a woven fabric obtained by baking woven fabric obtained by weaving precursor fiber of carbon fiber may be used. Also, as the carbon fiber non-woven fabric, a non-woven fabric obtained by processing carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric or a so-called felt-type non-woven fabric obtained by applying processing such as compression to a non-woven fabric obtained by processing precursor fiber of carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric, as necessary, and then baking the resultant may be used" (paragraph 19, lines 1-18).
TANIMURA further teaches "After impregnating the carbon fiber-containing papermaking substrate with the resin composition, the resulting papermaking substrate is baked in an inert atmosphere to perform carbonization. For this baking, a batch type heating furnace or a continuous heating furnace can be used. Further, the inert atmosphere can be obtained by allowing an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or argon gas to flow in the heating furnace" (paragraph 81 ), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in a non-oxidative atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in a non-oxidative atmosphere in the process of GYENGE because TANIMURA teaches that it is an integral step for producing carbon non-woven substrates, like those used by GYENGE, which have corrosion resistance and excellent electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity (paragraph 82, lines 6-8).
As for claim 12, GYENGE is silent on further comprising heating the electrode and wherein the non-oxidative atmosphere contains less than or equal to 1 wt% oxygen.
TANIMURA teaches "A gas diffusion electrode substrate that is used in a fuel cell" (abstract, line 1).
TANIMURA further teaches "Therefore, as the electrode substrate, an electrically conductive porous material, specifically, a porous material such as carbon fiber woven fabric, carbon fiber non-woven fabric or carbon fiber papermaking substrate, or a metal porous material such as sinter foamed metal, metal mesh or expanded metal is used. Among them, a carbon fiber containing porous material is preferably used because of its excellent corrosion resistance. As the carbon fiber woven fabric, a woven fabric obtained by weaving carbon fiber or a woven fabric obtained by baking woven fabric obtained by weaving precursor fiber of carbon fiber may be used. Also, as the carbon fiber non-woven fabric, a non-woven fabric obtained by processing carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric or a so-called felt-type non-woven fabric obtained by applying processing such as compression to a non-woven fabric obtained by processing precursor fiber of carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric, as necessary, and then baking the resultant may be used" (paragraph 19, lines 1-18).
TANIMURA further teaches "After impregnating the carbon fiber-containing papermaking substrate with the resin composition, the resulting papermaking substrate is baked in an inert atmosphere to perform carbonization. For this baking, a batch type heating furnace or a continuous heating furnace can be used. Further, the inert atmosphere can be obtained by allowing an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or argon gas to flow in the heating furnace" (paragraph 81 ), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode and, as the atmosphere is described as inert and the only gases that are described as entering the heating furnace are nitrogen and argon, wherein the nonoxidative atmosphere contains less than or equal to 1 wt% oxygen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising heating the electrode and wherein the nonoxidative atmosphere contains less than or equal to 1 wt% oxygen in the process of GYENGE because TANIMURA teaches that it is an integral step for producing carbon non-woven substrates, like those used by GYENGE, which have corrosion resistance and excellent electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity (paragraph 82, lines 6-8).
As for claim 13, GYENGE is silent on further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere comprising N2 and/or Ar.
TANIMURA teaches "A gas diffusion electrode substrate that is used in a fuel cell" ( abstract, line 1).
TANIMURA further teaches "Therefore, as the electrode substrate, an electrically conductive porous material, specifically, a porous material such as carbon fiber woven fabric, carbon fiber non-woven fabric or carbon fiber papermaking substrate, or a metal porous material such as sinter foamed metal, metal mesh or expanded metal is used. Among them, a carbon fiber containing porous material is preferably used because of its excellent corrosion resistance. As the carbon fiber woven fabric, a woven fabric obtained by weaving carbon fiber or a woven fabric obtained by baking woven fabric obtained by weaving precursor fiber of carbon fiber may be used. Also, as the carbon fiber non-woven fabric, a non-woven fabric obtained by processing carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric or a so-called felt-type non-woven fabric obtained by applying processing such as compression to a non-woven fabric obtained by processing precursor fiber of carbon fiber to a non-woven fabric, as necessary, and then baking the resultant may be used" (paragraph 19, lines 1-18).
TANIMURA further teaches "After impregnating the carbon fiber-containing papermaking substrate with the resin composition, the resulting papermaking substrate is baked in an inert atmosphere to perform carbonization. For this baking, a batch type heating furnace or a continuous heating furnace can be used. Further, the inert atmosphere can be obtained by allowing an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or argon gas to flow in the heating furnace" (paragraph 81 ), i.e. further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere comprising N2 and/or Ar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising heating the electrode and wherein heating the electrode occurs in an atmosphere comprising N2 and/or Ar in the process of GYENGE because TANIMURA teaches that it is an integral step for producing carbon non-woven substrates, like those used by GYENGE, which have corrosion resistance and excellent electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity (paragraph 82, lines 6-8).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO in view of Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marple USRE41886E hereinafter MARPLE.
As for claim 23, LO does teach “DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B” (paragraph 56, lines 7-8).
JAPP teaches “PTFE is understood to mean polytetrafluorethylene. duPont has a business location at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Del. "Teflon PTFE 30" is a negatively charged, hydrophobic colloid containing polytetrafluoroethylene resin particles (0.05-0.5 microns) suspended in water” (paragraph 41, lines 3-14) and see further paragraph 56, lines 1-4 and paragraph 55, lines 1-4, which establishes that DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B has a particle size of 0.05-0.5 microns, which is outside of the range of wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns.
MARPLE teaches “We have further discovered that through the incorporation of certain slip agents and rheological modifiers, the calendering force required to achieve the desired cathode porosity and coating thickness can be minimized, further enabling the anode to cathode input ratio of the cell of the within invention” (column 3, lines 25-30) and “In the preferred cathode slurry formulation, micronized TEFLON®, or micronized polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is incorporated as a slip agent. The micronized TEFLON® preferably has a mean particle size of 2.0 to 4.0 microns and a maximum particle size of 12.0 microns” (column 4, lines 48-52), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of a range that overlaps with greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns in the process of LO because MARPLE teaches that the incorporation of such slip agents improves porosity, coating thickness and input ratio.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyenge et al. US PGPub 2017/0207464 hereinafter GYENGE in view of Lo et al. US PGPub 2002/0192383 hereinafter LO as evidenced by Japp et al US PGPub 20060180936 hereinafter JAPP and Iwasaki et al US PGPub 2003/0022057 hereinafter IWASAKI as evidenced by Application Note 179 by Micrometeritics hereinafter NOTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marple USRE41886E hereinafter MARPLE.
As for claim 23, GYENGE is silent on the particle size. LO does teach “DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B” (paragraph 56, lines 7-8).
JAPP teaches “PTFE is understood to mean polytetrafluorethylene. duPont has a business location at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Del. "Teflon PTFE 30" is a negatively charged, hydrophobic colloid containing polytetrafluoroethylene resin particles (0.05-0.5 microns) suspended in water” (paragraph 41, lines 3-14) and see further paragraph 56, lines 1-4 and paragraph 55, lines 1-4, which establishes that DuPont Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) homopolymer Product 30B has a particle size of 0.05-0.5 microns, which is outside of the range of wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns.
MARPLE teaches “We have further discovered that through the incorporation of certain slip agents and rheological modifiers, the calendering force required to achieve the desired cathode porosity and coating thickness can be minimized, further enabling the anode to cathode input ratio of the cell of the within invention” (column 3, lines 25-30) and “In the preferred cathode slurry formulation, micronized TEFLON®, or micronized polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is incorporated as a slip agent. The micronized TEFLON® preferably has a mean particle size of 2.0 to 4.0 microns and a maximum particle size of 12.0 microns” (column 4, lines 48-52), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the hydrophobic particles have an average particle size of a range that overlaps with greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 100 microns in the process of GYENGE because MARPLE teaches that the incorporation of such slip agents improves porosity, coating thickness and input ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717