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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 17th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-4 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh et al. (US 20080118806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Endoh teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Par. 0001; “membrane-electrode assembly”) comprising: a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (Par. 0001); an anode catalyst layer disposed on one surface of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (Par. 0045, a catalyst layer is placed on each side of the membrane; Par. 0046, one catalyst layer functions as an anode); and a cathode catalyst layer disposed on the other surface of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (Par. 0045, a catalyst layer is placed on each side of the membrane; Par. 0046, one catalyst layer functions as a cathode), wherein the anode catalyst layer at least comprises an electrode catalyst (Par. 0046, the anode catalyst layer contains a catalyst; Par. 0047, the catalyst is either platinum or a platinum alloy), an ionomer having sulfonate group (Par. 0049; catalyst layer contains an ion-exchange resin, made of a perfluorocarbon polymer having sulfonic acid groups), cerium ions (Par. 0049; the catalyst layer contains an ion-exchange resin, which contains cerium ions), and a host compound capable of forming an inclusion compound with the metal ion (Par. 0049, the catalyst layer’s ion-exchange resin may contain an organic compound (X); Par. 0013, the organic compound (X) is capable of forming an inclusion compound with the cerium metal ions, therefore the organic compound (X) serves as a host compound). Endoh teaches that a crown ether is used and that a crown ether other than the exemplary compositions can be used (Par. 0021-22). However, Endoh teaches 12-crown-4,15-crown-5 or 18-crown-6, and dibenzo-18-crown-6, dicyclohexano-18-crown-6, and (+)-(18-crown-6)-2,3,11,12-tetracarboxylic acid, and does not specifically provide 21-crown-7-ether, 24-crown-8-ether, or benzo-18-crown-6-ether. However, Endoh teaches that crown ethers and their derivatives having a crown ether structure may be used (Par. 0021; “it may, for example, be a crown ether such as … 18-crown-6, a crown ether derivative such as dibenzo-18-crown-6, dicyclohexano-18-crown-6 or (+)-(18-crown-6)-2,3,11,12-tetracarboxylic acid, or a crown ether other than the above”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode catalyst layer taught by Endoh by incorporating benzo-18-crown-6-ether, which is a derivative of 18-crown-6-ether, as the host compound. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the derivative benzo-18-crown-6-ether is a suitable material for a host compound, as stated in Endoh.
Regarding claim 5, modified Endoh teaches the membrane electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the ionomer is a perfluoro sulfonic acid polymer (Par. 0049; catalyst layer contains an ion-exchange resin, made of a perfluorocarbon polymer having sulfonic acid groups).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Endoh have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Endoh.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights