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 without traverse of Group I and with traverse of species (ii), claims 1-2 and 5-9, in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant notes that the difference between Species (i) and Species (ii) of Groups I and II is merely a difference in the detailed pattern as to whether adjacent through-holes have different cross-sectional areas (Species (i)) or whether the cross-sectional area increases toward a downstream direction of a channel (Species (ii)). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that since the two species (i) and (ii) substantially share the same technical concept and are in an obvious variation relationship with each other, examining them together in a single application would not significantly expand the field of prior art search or substantially increase the examination burden. This is not found persuasive because any differences in scope requires a different analysis which can lead to a different field of search and application of prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 3-4 (species) and 10-18 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 19, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (“Performance Improvement of Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer Cells by introducing In-Plane Transport Enhancement Layers,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Sep 1), Vol. 316, pp. 43-51).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a porous base layer (= TT-GDLs (TT-PTLs) comprising:
• a porous base portion (=
PNG
media_image1.png
12
103
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) provided between a
membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a separator1 including a channel (=
PNG
media_image2.png
14
20
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) and a land (=
PNG
media_image3.png
16
17
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
• a channel area defined on the porous base portion to correspond to the channel (=
PNG
media_image4.png
80
99
media_image4.png
Greyscale
);
• a land area defined on the porous base portion to correspond to the land and provided to be in contact with the land (=
PNG
media_image5.png
117
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
); and
• at least one through-hole provided in the land area (=
PNG
media_image6.png
124
285
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
so that a target fluid passes through the at least one through-hole.2
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.
I. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (“Performance Improvement of Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer Cells by introducing In-Plane Transport Enhancement Layers,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Sep 1), Vol. 316, pp. 43-51) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baumgartner et al. (“Narrow Pressure Stability Window of Gas Diffusion Electrodes Limits the Scale-Up of CO2 Electrolyzers,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering,” (2022 Mar 29), Vol. 10, No. 14, pp. 4683-4693).
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches the layer of at least claim 1 as applied above. The reference does not explicitly teach wherein the porous base portion is defined to include a pore
of 9 to 16 µm.
Kang teaches that interestingly, by using the TT-LGDLs/PTLs with smaller pore sizes
(<300mm) [page 44, right column, lines 14-15].
Baumgartner teaches that:
In a typical GDE, gaseous reactants diffuse through the gas diffusion layer (GDL), which consists of the carbon fiber substrate( CFS) and the microporous layer (MPL) [page 4683, right column, line 6-8).
Typically, the pores of the CFS have a size of 10 μm9 or larger (page 4683, right column, line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous base portion taught by Kang with wherein the porous base portion is defined to include a pore of 9 to 16 µm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kang teaches using TT-LGDLs/PTLs with smaller pore sizes (<300mm) on page 44, right column, lines 14-15, where a pore size of 9 to 16 µm would have matched the interstitial spaces of a carbon fiber substrate of a gas diffusion layer (GDL) as taught by Baumgartner on page 4683, right column, line 10; and page 4687, Fig. 4.
II. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (“Performance Improvement of Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer Cells by introducing In-Plane Transport Enhancement Layers,” Electrochimica Acta (2019 Sep 1), Vol. 316, pp. 43-51) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (“Investigating Design Parameters of a Perforated Metal Gas Diffusion Layer in a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel
Cell,” Journal of Power Sources (2019 Feb 15), Vol. 413, pp. 198-208).
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches the layer of at least claim 1 as applied above. The
reference does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one through-hole is defined to include a diameter of 20 to 50 µm.
Kang teaches thin/tunable liquid/gas diffusion layers (TT-LGDLs) or porous transport layers (TT-PTLs) [page 43, abstract].
Tanaka teaches geometric models used to simulate the M-GDL fuel cell with the pore diagonal ranging from 30 to 250 μm and the frame width in the range 30–70μm:
PNG
media_image7.png
231
315
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 202, Fig. 1(c)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one through-hole taught by Kang with wherein the at least one through-hole is defined to include a diameter of 20 to 50
µm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kang teaches gas diffusion layers on page 43, abstract, where adjusting
the design of a GDL with hole diagonals from 30 µm ~ 250 µm, especially in terms of the pore
size and frame width of the GDL structure, as taught by Tanaka on page 199, bridging paragraph, and page 202, Fig. 1, would have controlled diffusion loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the porous base layer of claim 1, wherein a porosity of the land area increases in a direction from an inlet portion to an outlet portion of the channel in a longitudinal direction of the channel.
Claims 5 and 6 define over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the porous base layer of claim 1, wherein the at least one through-hole is in plural and the plurality of through-holes is defined to include a cross-sectional area that increases in a direction from an inlet end portion to an outlet end portion of the channel in a longitudinal direction of the channel.
Claim 9 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the porous base layer of claim 1, wherein the channel area is
defined to include a predetermined reference porosity, and the land area including the at least
one through-hole is defined to include a porosity of 120 to 200% of the reference porosity.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lai et al. (“In-Situ Membrane Hydration Measurement of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells,” Journal of Power Sources (2015 Jan 15), Vol. 274, pp. 324-337) is cited to teach the cross-sectional layout of the fuel cell materials under the lands and channels:
PNG
media_image8.png
206
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 329, Fig. 6).
Tanaka et al. (“Numerical and Experimental Study of the Effects of the Electrical Resistance and Diffusivity Under Clamping Pressure on the Performance of a Metallic Gas-Diffusion Layer in Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell,” Journal of Power Sources (2016 Oct 31), Vol.
330, pp. 273-284) is cited to teach geometric model for the simulation of fuel cells with land widths of (a) 100 µm and (b) 30 µm (page 276, Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image9.png
273
800
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).
Park et al. (“Performance Comparison of Proton Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis Cell Using Channel and PTL Flow Fields Through Three-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow
Simulation,” Membranes (2022 Dec 13), Vol. 12, No. 12, pp. 12601-12618) is cited to teach the schematic of the PEMWE (page 3, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) and MPEP § 2114.
2 The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Prosecution Insights