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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species claim 3 in the reply filed on April 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 30, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al (JP H09316675 A; English translation of record in IDS filed September 11, 21023).
Regarding claim 1, Miyake teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a solid electrolyte membrane between positive and negative electrode plates. Platinum-family metal grains P (or grains carrying the platinum-family metal grains) are arranged at the intermediate part of the membrane and electrically insulated from a porous plating layer on the membrane surface (abstract; Fig. 9). While Miyake does not appear to expressly differentiate between the electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to place the insulated catalyst layer between the anode and the electrolyte layers as the purpose of the electrically insulated platinum group containing catalyst layer is to purify the oxygen by recombining hydrogen (as an impurity) with oxygen to form water (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the electrically insulated platinum-family layer is considered to have proton conductivity as a basic function of the MEA, which performs by allowing protons to pass through the membrane. Indeed, the problem addressed by Miyake (and the instant invention) is due to hydrogen passing through to the oxygen side at the anode. Such ionomers are conventionally known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, while Miyake teaches carrier grains for the platinum-family metal grains, as shown above, Miyake does not expressly limit said grain/particle size. Absent a showing of criticality, it is considered that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine suitable grain sizes, including those claimed, in order to effectively product a working system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al (JP H09316675 A; English translation of record in IDS filed September 11, 21023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mistry et al (US 2021/0384540).
Miyake teaches a membrane electrode assembly according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
While Miyake generally teaches that the recombination catalyst includes a platinum group metal itself or the like (par. 38), Miyake does not expressly teach an alloy, as claimed.
Mistry, in a similar invention directed toward MEAs including recombination catalysts, teaches the use of a recombination catalyst comprising platinum or platinum alloyed with one or more platinum group elements or those including iron, nickel, or cobalt (pars. 31-37).
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to utilize known recombination catalysts, including platinum alloyed with iron, nickel, or cobalt, as taught by Mistry, as the recombination catalyst of Miyake. One of ordinary skill would have been able to make the combination with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al (JP H09316675 A; English translation of record in IDS filed September 11, 21023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2017-517107 (hereinafter referred to as “JP ‘107;” noting that references made herein are with respect to the 13 page English translation, submitted herewith).
Miyake teaches a membrane electrode assembly according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
While Miyake does teach that the platinum-family metal grains may be supported, Miyake does not expressly teach the oxide supports of instant claim 4.
JP ‘107, in a similar invention directed toward an MEA utilizing a recombination catalyst, teaches that suitable recombination catalysts comprise an oxide support material with a high surface area, including titania (page 8, 4th full par.).
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the carrier material of Miyake with conventionally known carriers, including the titania taught by JP ‘107, in order to effectively produce an MEA. One of ordinary skill would have been able to make the combination with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claimed 5-7, while JP ‘107 does not expressly teach the electrical conductivity of titania, such a property is considered to be inherently present. As Miyake, as combined with JP ‘107, teaches a substantially identical MEA as that claimed, it is considered to exhibit substantially identical properties, including the electrical conductivity of the carrier. Titania typically exhibits conductivity on the scale of 10-9-10-11 Scm-1 at room temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights