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 .
Specification
The use of the terms "Nafion" in [0015] and [0016] and "Rheocor" in [0024], which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “adhesion strength” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adhesion strength” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no given metric for interpretation or measurement of "adhesion strength" and as a consequence there is no way to compare if an invention falls within the bounds of what is claimed. This is due to the absence of the necessary bounds. For the sake of continued examination, "adhesion strength" will be interpreted as measurable by pulling layers in opposite directions until they are separated or torn.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180006315 A1 (henceforth referred to as “Pierpont”) in view of US 10158140 B2 (henceforth referred to as "Zaffou") as evidenced by "Characterization of gas diffusion layer transport properties by limiting current approach" by Yakovlev et. al. (henceforth referred to as “Yakovlev”) and the webpage https://www.fuelcellstore.com/freudenberg-h2315-i2-c3 (referred to as “fuel cell store website).
In regards to claim 1: Pierpont teaches in [0028] – [0041] a membrane electrode assembly demonstrated in figure 2A comprising an electrolyte membrane (item 230), two catalyst layers (items 220 and 240), two microporous layers (items 105 “second major surface” of gas diffusion layer), and two gas diffusion layers (items 100 and 250). In those paragraphs Pierpont further teaches the configuration of the electrolyte membrane between the catalyst layers, the microporous layers adjoining the catalyst layers opposite the electrolyte membrane, and the gas diffusion layers adjoining the microporous layers opposite the catalyst layers and depicts them in figure 2A. In [0041] Pierpont teaches the adhesion strength between the catalyst layer and the microporous layer being stronger than the adhesion strength between the gas diffusion layer and the microporous layer. This is demonstrated by the exemplary membrane electrode assembly of figure 2 with microporous adhesive attached to a catalyst layer (item 107) meanwhile the microporous adhesive layer attaching the gas distribution layer (item 202) is optional. Furthermore, the area of overlap of the adhesive is highly adjustable in [0036] – [0040] showing that there are only minimum areas of overlap so a reasonable configuration has far more adhesive overlap with the catalyst layer (item 220) than adhesive overlap with the gas diffusion layer (item 250).
Pierpont fails to teach the separator components and the different sized electrodes.
Zaffou teaches a redox flow cell that demonstrates electrodes of different sizes (items 62 and 64) in figure 3 (described as different sizes in column 2 lines 3-4) and teaches the use of separators between electrodes in its own claim 1. Zaffou teaches that the effective area of the electrode is determined by the catalytically active portions in column 4, line 56-column 5 line 2.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure of the membrane electrode assembly of Pierpont with separators such as those of Zaffou, and to have different sized electrodes as described in Zaffou. Making these modifications would result in the water electrolysis cell of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Pierpont states in [0334] that the gas dispersion layer used is Freudenberg H2315I2C3, now referred to as Freudenberg H23C3 as indicated in the fuel cell store website. These layers feature a microporous layer with pore diameters of 10 to 40 micrometers as taught by Yakovlev. Therefore, the gas diffusion layers in the prior art have a pore diameter between 10 and 100 micrometers.
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 8:00-6:00 M-Th.
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