CTNF 18/462,070 CTNF 95667 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-19 are pending. Election/Restrictions 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-13 and 17-19 , drawn to a membrane electrode assembly , classified in C25B 9/23 . II. Claim s 14-16 , drawn to a laminating method , classified in B32B 37/00 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-18 AIA Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the process of group II could be used to make a product different from that of group I, such as one excluding the first seal, where it has been peeled off, and the product of group I could be made by a method other than that of group II, such as by pressure or adhesive bonding without heating . 08-21 Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: Groups I and II have different classifications. Group I would require a unique text search regarding the specific assembled structure, and group II would require a unique text search regarding the specific lamination method steps. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with John Mulcahy on 05/19/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I , claim s 1-13 and 17-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-13 and 17-19 are under consideration in this Office action. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 09/20/2022 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2022-149622 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: In Fig. 3, the arrow spans defining the lengths indicated as “L5” and “L6” and widths indicated as “W5” and “W6” shown ending at the edges of opening 4A are not consistent with the description of paragraphs 0056-0057, which states that they should extend to the ends of noble metal region 3A. In Fig. 4, the arrow spans defining the lengths indicated as “L13” and “L14” and widths indicated as “W13” and “W14” shown ending at the edges of opening 5B are not consistent with the description of paragraphs 0071-0072, which states that they should extend to the ends of noble metal region 3B. In Fig. 5, the length and widths L3(L4) and W3(W4) do not match the identified elements 2(3)/2A(3A)/2B(3B), particularly second electrode “2” is described in paragraph 0066 as having length “L4” and width “W4”, and length and width “L3” and “W3” are described in paragraph 0050 as being those of first electrode “1”. It appears that 2(3), 2A(3A) and 2B(3B) in the Figure should instead be 1(2), 1A(2A) and 1B(2B). The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “51” and “47” in paragraph 0118. 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “41” in Fig. 19 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 8, 12-13 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 , lines 8-9, “membrane or the first” should read “membrane , or the first” to make the distinction between the alternative limitations clear. In claim 3 , line 7, “W1” should read “L1” to be consistent with the rest of the claim. In claim 3 , line 2, “W1 and” should read “W1 , and”. In claim 3 , line 5, “L1 and” should read “L1 , and”. In claim 8 , line 11, “with surface” should read “with a surface”. In claim 8 , line 17, “stacked, and” should read “stacked, and ”. In claim 8 , line 23, “with surface” should read “with a surface”. In claim 12 , line 5, “L1 and” should read “L1 , and”. In claim 13 , line 5, “L1 and” should read “L1 , and”. In claim 17 , line 3, “electrode is anode” should read “electrode is an anode”. In claim 18 , line 3, “electrode is anode” should read “electrode is an anode”. In claim 19 , line 3 “electrode is anode or cathode” should read “electrode is an anode or a cathode” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8, 11 and 19 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inner surface of the resin sheet" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations of “a first resin sheet”, “an inner surface of the resin sheet” and “a second resin sheet” are previously introduced in lines 2, 12 and 14-15 of the claim. It is therefore unclear which “resin sheet” is being referred to by the later recitation. For examination purposes, based on the context of the claim and paragraph 0090 of the instant specification, this limitation has been interpreted to refer to an inner surface of the second resin sheet”. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the amount of metal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit or implicit indication of any “amount of metal” being present in the catalyst layer. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first electrode is anode or cathode" in line 3. The limitation of “the first electrode is anode” is previously introduced in line 3 of claim 18. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation of claim 18 is still required in claim 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 9, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (U.S. 2018/0274110) . Regarding claim 1 , Nakano discloses a membrane electrode assembly (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, membrane electrode assembly 200; Paragraph 0037, lines 1-3) comprising: a first electrode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, second electrode (anode) 4; Paragraph 0038, line 4); a second electrode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, first electrode (cathode) 3; Paragraph 0038, line 1); an electrolyte membrane provided between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrolyte membrane 100; Paragraph 0037, lines 3-5); and a first seal provided on a peripheral portion of the first electrode, having a first opening, housing the first electrode in the first opening, and being in contact with the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 5, gasket (seal) 10 with opening containing electrode 4 and in contact with membrane 100; Paragraph 0049, lines 4-7), and a second seal provided on a peripheral portion of the second electrode, having a second opening, housing the second electrode in the second opening, and being in contact with the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 5, gasket (seal) 9 with opening containing electrode 3 and in contact with membrane 100; Paragraph 0049, lines 4-7). Regarding claim 2 , Nakano discloses the electrolyte membrane including a noble metal region on the first electrode side containing noble metal particles containing one or more selected from the group consisting of Pt, Rh, Ir, Pd and Ru (see e.g. Paragraph 0038, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0039, lines 24-28, and Paragraphs 0040 and 0043, catalyst layer of second electrode/anode in contact with electrolyte membrane comprising nano-sized particles or nanosheets of said noble metals). Regarding claim 9 , Nakano discloses the first seal being in contact with a region of the electrolyte membrane where the noble metal region does not exist (see e.g. Fig. 5, gasket 10 in contact with membrane 100 at edges without electrode 4 and its catalyst layer; Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7). Regarding claim 11 , Nakano discloses the first electrode including a substrate and a catalyst layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0038 and 0073, second electrode/anode comprising support and catalyst layer), the amount of metal per area of the catalyst layer being 0.15 mg/cm 2 (see e.g. Paragraph 0073), and a porous ratio of the catalyst layer being 50-90% (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, last 5 lines). Regarding claim 17 , Nakano discloses an electrochemical cell comprising the membrane electrode assembly according to claim 1 (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrolysis cell 300 comprising MEA 200; Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7), wherein, the first electrode is anode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, second electrode (anode) 4; Paragraph 0038, line 4). Regarding claim 18 , Nakano discloses a stack comprising the membrane electrode assembly according to claim 1 (see e.g. Fig. 6, stack 400 comprising a plurality of membrane electrode assemblies 200; Paragraph 0052), wherein, the first electrode is anode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, second electrode (anode) 4; Paragraph 0038, line 4). Regarding claim 19 , Nakano discloses an electrolyser comprising the stack according to claim 18 (see e.g. Fig. 7, electrolysis apparatus, i.e. electrolyser, comprising stack 400; Paragraph 0053, lines 1-3), wherein, the first electrode is anode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, second electrode (anode) 4; Paragraph 0038, line 4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Zuber et al. (U.S. 2012/0012457) . Regarding claim 3 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano does not explicitly teach, when a width of the electrolyte membrane is W1 and a width of the noble metal region is W2, W1-W2 being 0.01 times or more and 0.98 times or less of W1, and, when a length of the electrolyte membrane is L1 and a width of the noble metal region is L2, L1-L2 being 0.01 times or more and 0.98 times or less of L1. Nakano does however teach the noble metal region having dimensions smaller than the electrolyte membrane and accommodating the seal in the formed periphery (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrode 4 and catalyst layer being smaller than membrane 100 with gasket (seal) 10 fit in the periphery thereof; Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7), as well as the noble metal region having exemplary length and width dimensions of 20 mm x 20 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0073 and Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, catalyst coated anode electrode cut to 20 mm square). Zuber teaches membrane electrode assemblies for electrolysis of water (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the membrane has a free margin not in contact with a catalyst layer that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to a sealing material in the peripheral region of the MEA (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, free membrane surface 6 without catalyst layer 2 with sealing material 7; Paragraphs 0024-0025), this margin having a width of at least 0.5 mm and limited to a maximum of 5 mm for cost reasons (see e.g. Paragraph 0026). In combination with the 20x20 mm noble metal region of Nakano, W1-W2 and L1-L2 would each be 0.024 to 0.2 times of W1 and L1, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the dimensions of the noble metal region be 0.5 to 5 mm less than the membrane dimensions, resulting in W1-W2 and L1-L2 each being 0.024 to 0.2 times W1 and L1, as taught by Zuber as a suitable exposed membrane margin dimension for an MEA that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to the peripheral seal while being cost-effective. Regarding claim 5 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano further teaches the noble metal region on the first electrode side being entirely surrounded by a region which is not the noble metal region (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrode 4 and catalyst layer being smaller than membrane 100 with gasket (seal) 10 fit in the periphery thereof, i.e. entirely surrounding; Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7). Nakano does not explicitly teach, when a width of the electrolyte membrane is W1, a width of the noble metal region is W2, a length of the electrolyte membrane is L1, and a length of the noble metal region is L2, W2 is 0.8 time or more and less than 1.0 times of W1 and L2 is 0.8 times or more and less than 1.0 times of L1. Nakano does however teach the noble metal region having exemplary length and width dimensions of 20 mm x 20 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0073 and Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, catalyst coated anode electrode cut to 20 mm square). Zuber teaches membrane electrode assemblies for electrolysis of water (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the membrane has a free margin not in contact with a catalyst layer that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to a sealing material in the peripheral region of the MEA (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, free membrane surface 6 without catalyst layer 2 with sealing material 7; Paragraphs 0024-0025), this margin having a width of at least 0.5 mm and limited to a maximum of 5 mm for cost reasons (see e.g. Paragraph 0026). In combination with the 20x20 mm noble metal region of Nakano, W2 and L2 would each be 0.8 to 0.98 times of W1 and L1, respectively It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the dimensions of the noble metal region be 0.5 to 5 mm less than the membrane dimensions, resulting in W2 and L2 each being 0.8 to 0.98 times of W1 and L1, as taught by Zuber as a suitable exposed membrane margin dimension for an MEA that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to the peripheral seal while being cost-effective. Regarding claim 12 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano does not explicitly teach, when a width of the electrolyte membrane is W1, and a width of the first electrode is W3, W1-W3 satisfies 0.01 time or more and 0.2 times or less of W1, and when a length of the electrolyte membrane is L1 and a length of the first electrode is L3, L1-L3 satisfies 0.01 time or more and 0.2 times or less of L1. Nakano does however teach the first electrode having dimensions smaller than the electrolyte membrane and accommodating the seal in the formed periphery (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrode 4 being smaller than membrane 100 with gasket (seal) 10 fit in the periphery thereof; Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7), as well as the first electrode having exemplary length and width dimensions of 20 mm x 20 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, anode electrode cut to 20 mm square). Zuber teaches membrane electrode assemblies for electrolysis of water (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the membrane has a free margin not in contact with an electrode catalyst layer and gas diffusion layer that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to a sealing material in the peripheral region of the MEA (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, free membrane surface 6 without catalyst layer 2/gas diffusion layer 4 with sealing material 7; Paragraphs 0024-0025), this margin having a width of at least 0.5 mm and limited to a maximum of 5 mm for cost reasons (see e.g. Paragraph 0026). In combination with the 20x20 mm first electrode of Nakano, W1-W3 and L1-L3 would each be 0.024 to 0.2 times of W1 and L1, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the dimensions of the first electrode be 0.5 to 5 mm less than the membrane dimensions, resulting in W1-W3 and L1-L3 each being 0.024 to 0.2 times of W1 and L1, as taught by Zuber as a suitable exposed membrane margin dimension for an MEA that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to the peripheral seal while being cost-effective. Regarding claim 13 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano does not explicitly teach, when a width of the electrolyte membrane is W1, and a width of the second electrode is W4, W1-W4 satisfies 0.01 time or more and 0.2 times or less of W1, and when a length of the electrolyte membrane is L1 and a length of the second electrode is L4, L1-L4 satisfies 0.01 time or more and 0.2 times or less of L1. Nakano does however teach the second electrode having dimensions smaller than the electrolyte membrane and accommodating the seal in the formed periphery (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrode 3 being smaller than membrane 100 with gasket (seal) 9 fit in the periphery thereof; Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7), as well as the second having exemplary length and width dimensions of 20 mm x 20 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, cathode electrode cut to 20 mm square). Zuber teaches membrane electrode assemblies for electrolysis of water (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the membrane has a free margin not in contact with an electrode catalyst layer and gas diffusion layer that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to a sealing material in the peripheral region of the MEA (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, free membrane surface 6 without catalyst layer 2/gas diffusion layer 4 with sealing material 7; Paragraphs 0024-0025), this margin having a width of at least 0.5 mm and limited to a maximum of 5 mm for cost reasons (see e.g. Paragraph 0026). In combination with the 20x20 mm second electrode of Nakano, W1-W4 and L1-L4 would each be 0.024 to 0.2 times of W1 and L1, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the dimensions of the second electrode be 0.5 to 5 mm less than the membrane dimensions, resulting in W1-W4 and L1-L4 each being 0.024 to 0.2 times of W1 and L1, as taught by Zuber as a suitable exposed membrane margin dimension for an MEA that provides improved adhesion and gastightness to the peripheral seal while being cost-effective . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Abouatallah et al. (U.S. 2020/0173037) . Regarding claim 4 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano further teaches, when a width of the electrolyte membrane is W1, a width of the noble metal region is W2, and a width of the first electrode is W3, W1>W2 and W1>W3 is satisfied, and when a length of the electrolyte membrane is L1, a length of the noble metal region is L2, and a length of the first electrode is L3, L1>L2 and L1>L3 is satisfied (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, square dimensions of electrode 4 and catalyst layer being smaller than membrane 100 with gasket (seal) 10 fit in the periphery thereof; Paragraphs 0038 and 0075 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7). Nakano does not explicitly teach W2>W3 and L2>L3. Abouatallah teaches an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a catalyst layer and porous support, i.e. electrode, surrounded by a sealing frame for contacting a membrane (see e.g. Fig. 1, catalyst layer 20 and porous support 22 surrounded by frame 26 on membrane 18; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0015 and Paragraph 0018, lines 1-4), wherein the catalyst layer may extend being the edge of the porous support to overlap the sealing frame to form a stronger seal between the frame and membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the length and width of the first electrode smaller than the noble metal region, which extends to overlap the seal, as taught by Abouatallah to form a stronger seal between the first seal and the membrane. Regarding claim 10 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 2 as stated above. Nakano further teaches the first seal being in contact with a region of the electrolyte membrane where the noble metal region does not exist (see e.g. Fig. 5, gasket 10 in contact with membrane 100 at edges without electrode 4 and its catalyst layer; Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1- 7). Nakano does not teach the first seal being in contact with a region of the electrolyte membrane where the noble metal region exists. Abouatallah teaches an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a catalyst layer and porous support, i.e. electrode, surrounded by a sealing frame for contacting a membrane (see e.g. Fig. 1, catalyst layer 20 and porous support 22 surrounded by frame 26 on membrane 18; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0015 and Paragraph 0018, lines 1-4), wherein the catalyst layer may extend being the edge of the porous support to overlap the sealing frame to form a stronger seal between the frame and membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane electrode assembly of Nakano to have the noble metal region extended such that the first seal in contact with a portion of the electrolyte membrane with the noble metal region as taught by Abouatallah to form a stronger seal between the first seal and the membrane . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Lentz et al. (U.S. 2025/0243590) . Regarding claim 6 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Nakano does not teach the first seal including a first rubber sheet, a first resin sheet and a second rubber sheet, the first rubber sheet, the first resin sheet, and the second rubber sheet being stacked, the first resin sheet being provided between the first rubber sheet and the second rubber sheet, the second seal including a third rubber sheet, a second resin sheet, and a fourth rubber sheet, the third rubber sheet, the second resin sheet, and the fourth rubber sheet being stacked, and the second resin sheet being provided between the third rubber sheet and the fourth rubber sheet. Lentz teaches a frame for a PEM electrolysis cell and cell stack (see e.g. Abstract) which comprises two outer layers of rubber sealing material (see e.g. Fig. 3b, top and bottom sealing material 22 of rubber; Paragraph 0029) stacked with an inner core layer which may be polytetrafluoroethylene, which is a resin (see e.g. Fig. 3b, central core 21 which may be PTFE; Paragraph 0030, lines 3-8), this structure providing both mechanical stability and sealing effect for the electrolytic cell and stack (see e.g. Paragraph 0028, lines 15-17, and Paragraph 0030, lines 3-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second seals of Nakano to each comprise outer rubber sealing layers stacked with a core PTFE resin layer therebetween as taught by Lentz as a sealing structure suitable for a PEM electrolysis cell/stack that provides both mechanical stability and the desired sealing effect. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 8 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Nakano further teaches an inside surface of the first seal being in contact with a side surface of the first electrode, and an inside surface of the second seal being in contact with a side surface of the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 5, inside surfaces of gaskets 10 and 9 in contact with sides of electrodes 4 and 3; Paragraph 0049, lines 4-7). Nakano does not teach the first seal including a first rubber sheet, a first resin sheet and a second rubber sheet, the first rubber sheet, the first resin sheet, and the second rubber sheet being stacked, the first resin sheet being provided between the first rubber sheet and the second rubber sheet, a surface of the first rubber sheet facing to the electrolyte membrane being in contact with a surface of the electrolyte membrane, an inside surface of the resin sheet being in contact with the side surface of the first electrode, the second seal including a third rubber sheet, a second resin sheet, and a fourth rubber sheet, the third rubber sheet, the second resin sheet, the fourth rubber sheet being stacked, the second resin sheet being provided between the third rubber sheet and the fourth rubber sheet, a surface of the third rubber sheet facing to the electrolyte membrane being in contact with a surface of the electrolyte membrane, and an inside surface of the resin sheet being in contact with the side surface of the second electrode. Nakano does however teach surfaces of the first and second seals facing the electrolyte membrane being in contact with the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 5, surfaces of gaskets 10 and 9 facing and in contact with membrane 1100; Paragraph 0049, lines 4-7) Lentz teaches a frame for a PEM electrolysis cell and cell stack (see e.g. Abstract) which comprises two outer layers of rubber sealing material (see e.g. Fig. 3b, top and bottom sealing material 22 of rubber; Paragraph 0029) stacked with an inner core layer which may be polytetrafluoroethylene, which is a resin (see e.g. Fig. 3b, central core 21 which may be PTFE; Paragraph 0030, lines 3-8), this structure providing both mechanical stability and sealing effect for the electrolytic cell and stack (see e.g. Paragraph 0028, lines 15-17, and Paragraph 0030, lines 3-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second seals of Nakano to each comprise outer rubber sealing layers stacked with and sandwiching a core PTFE resin layer, resulting in an inner side of each resin layer contacting sides of each electrode and first and third rubber layers facing and contacting the membrane, as taught by Lentz as a sealing structure suitable for a PEM electrolysis cell/stack that provides both mechanical stability and the desired sealing effect. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Hotta et al. (EP 3575439 A1), as evidenced by JSA (“JIS K 6251: Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastics-Determination of tensile stress-strain properties”, Japanese Standards Association , 2010) . Regarding claim 7 , Nakano teaches all the elements of the membrane electrode assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Nakano does not explicitly teach a Young’s modulus of the first seal within a range of 5 °C or more and 100 °C or less being 0.001 GPa or more and 5 GPa or less, and a Young’s modulus of the second seal within a range of 5 °C or more and 100 °C or less being 0.001 GPa or more and 5 GPa or less. Nakano does however teach the membrane electrode assembly being used in an electrolysis stack (see e.g. Fig. 6, stack 400 comprising a plurality of membrane electrode assemblies 200; Paragraph 0052). Hotta teaches an electrolyzer for water electrolysis (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a zero gap structure of an anode and cathode on either side of a membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, lines 1-4), with anode-side and cathode-side gaskets sandwiching and sealing against the edges of the membrane (see e.g. Paragraph 0037, lines 1-3, and Paragraphs 0249-0250), wherein the gaskets most preferably has an elastic modulus, i.e. Young’s modulus, of 1.0 MPa to 10 MPa, equal to 0.001 to 0.01 GPa, at ~25°C from the perspective of the sealing characteristic and cell strength when cells are stacked (see e.g. Paragraph 0259, elastic modulus measured in accordance with JIS K 6251; which is evidenced by JSA, to be conducted at standard laboratory/room temperature, i.e. ~25°C, see e.g. JSA Page 10, section 7.4.3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second seals of Nakano to each have an elastic modulus, i.e. Young’s modulus, of 0.001 to 0.01 GPa as taught by Hotta to provide good sealing characteristic and cell strength when cells comprising the membrane electrode assembly are stacked . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida et al. (U.S. 2009/0087713) discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising reinforcing/sealing films around the edges of a first electrode side and a second electrode side, the first electrode including a catalyst layer with dimensions 0.91 times that of an electrolyte membrane of the assembly, wherein the dimensions of the membrane, catalyst layer and a gas diffusion layer of each electrode may decrease in that order. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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. /MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 2 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 3 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 4 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 5 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 6 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 7 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 8 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 9 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 10 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 11 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 12 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 13 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 14 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 15 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 16 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 17 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 18 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 19 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 20 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/462,070 Page 21 Art Unit: 1795
Prosecution Insights