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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210328245A1) in view of Klug(US20020174782A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus 100(Fig. 1. ¶[0060]) for manufacturing a membrane-electrode assembly containing two electrode film sheet unwinders (10) and a membrane sheet unwinder (20) as a first, second and third transportation unit respectively, a pair of roll presses (i.e. driving bonding roll (30), a driven bonding roll (40) that compress the films and membranes as they are pulled therebetween(¶[0076]) and a primary-reaction-section pattern protruding from the roll press(i.e. embossed portion 37), but does not disclose a first auxiliary-reaction-section.
Klug, related to membrane manufacturing, teaches embossing rollers 12 and 14(Fig. 3) which press a sheet 16 with an embossing pattern 32 and stabilization areas 34 and 36(¶[0070]) and the stabilization areas improve the grip of the rollers on the film(¶[0016]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the stabilization areas to the roller of Lee would have improved grip on the film thereby providing a first and second auxiliary-reaction-section pattern.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added stabilization areas to the roller of Lee to improve grip on the film.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the system of claim 1, and Klug further teaches the wherein the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns(34 and 36 stabilization areas) each comprise a polygonal shape(see rectangle in Fig. 2 and 3), and wherein the shape of each the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns correspond in shape to the primary-reaction-section pattern(where the shape accommodates the shape of the pattern within the auxiliary patten and thereby corresponds to it).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses a total sum of a length of the primary-reaction-section pattern in a lengthwise direction of a rotational shaft of the roll press and a length of each of the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns in the lengthwise direction of the rotational shaft of the roll press on the same line as the arbitrary point is kept constant as seen in Fig. 1 of Lee and Fig. 2 of Klug where both shapes are constant in the length direction.
Furthermore a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the system of claim 1 and Klug further teaches reach embossing region contains multiple columns within the plurality of the primary-reaction-section patterns(Fig. 2, ¶[0067]).
Claims 2-4, 7-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210328245A1) in view of Klug(US20020174782A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of
Kiuchi (US20140030614A1).
Regarding claim 2-4 and 13-14, Lee discloses the system of claim 1 and Lee further discloses wherein the primary-reaction-section pattern comprises a plurality of primary-reaction-section patterns arranged to be spaced apart from each other(Fig. 1, see multiple embossing portions 37 spaced apart) and Klug further teaches the auxiliary-reaction patterns are spaced apart(Fig. 2-4) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the primary-reaction-section pattern comprises at least one of a polygonal shape and a curve shape and the shape of the auxiliary-reaction section is triangular.
Kiuchi, related to manufacturing of membranes, teaches pressure bonding rollers 21 and 211(Fig. 1) with protrusions 25(Fig. 7) spaced apart and these protrusions are a polygonal shape(¶[0012]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a common polygonal shape has 6 or 8 sides and angles(ex. hexagon, octagon) and that the choice of shape is based on the specific need of the application and material of the membrane and a hexagon or octagon shape type shape would lead to a first and second protrusion protruding from a first and second end of the embossed body(i.e. points on each side of the polygon) along a lengthwise direction of a rotational shaft of the roll press.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to shape the auxiliary-reaction section to provide the ideal level of grip and orientation with the primary-reaction-section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a polygonal shape within the primary-reaction-section pattern and a triangle in the auxiliary-reaction section.
Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 7-9, Lee discloses the system of claim 1, and Kiuchi further teaches the height of the protrusion(i.e. the thickness) is dependent on the other components of the membrane including a gasket and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the relative thickness of the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns relative to the primary-reaction-section pattern and the materials present within the film/material being manufactured to improve the action on the pressure roller(¶[0039]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 1 and Klug further teaches a primary reaction pattern with multiple columns spaced apart (Fig. 2) which may be any shape to suit the needs of a fuel cell(¶[0067]) and
wherein the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns correspond in shape to the plurality of primary-reaction-section patterns, but the sum of a width of the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns in a widthwise direction of the electrolyte membrane at an arbitrary point on each of the plurality of primary-reaction-section patterns and a width of the first and second auxiliary-reaction-section patterns is kept constant as seen in Fig. 1 of Lee and Fig. 2 of Klug where both shapes are constant in the width direction but does not explicitly teach a hexagonal shape.
Kiuchi, related to manufacturing of membranes, teaches pressure bonding rollers 21 and 211(Fig. 1) with protrusions 25(Fig. 7) spaced apart and these protrusions are a polygonal shape(¶[0012]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a common polygonal shape has 6 sides (ex. hexagon) and that the choice of shape is based on the specific need of the application and material of the membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to shape the auxiliary-reaction section to provide the ideal level of grip and orientation with the primary-reaction-section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a polygonal shape within the primary-reaction-section pattern.
Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210328245A1) in view of Klug(US20020174782A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of
Kim(KR20160123457A, reference made to attached English translation)
Regarding claims 10-12, modified Lee discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose an elastic body.
Kim, related to fabricating membranes, teaches upper and lower roller 65 and 75 with pressing surfaces 67 and 77 and an elastic body(protective films 7 and 12, Fig. 6) arranged between the roll press and the first electrode film(i.e. first electrode layer 6) and between the roll press and the second electrode film(i.e. second electrode layer 7) and that these layers may be made of PET(¶[0036]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the addition of the protective films of Kim to the system of modified Lee would add protection of the films while improving the speed and cost of manufacturing(¶[0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added the protective films of Kim to the system of modified Lee to add protection while improving the speed and cost of manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights