Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/541,647

INTERMITTENT DIRECT DEPOSITION PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A COMPONENT OF A MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
TALBOT, BRIAN K
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
680 granted / 1151 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1209
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.0%
+22.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1151 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The amendment filed 7/18/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 2 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1,3-19 and 21-26 remain in the application for prosecution thereof. Considering the amendment filed 7/18/25, the 35 USC 112, 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claims 1,3-19,21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (2015/0266052) in combination with JP 07-275786. Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches intermittent coating method and apparatus. Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches an electrolyte membrane travelling continuously in a roll-to-roll process, a catalyst ink in intermittently applied to the front surface of the electrolyte membrane from a coating nozzle. TA the start of the coating the coating nozzle moves toward the membrane at a contact gap different from a coating gap which is closer to the membrane (abstract). Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a drive part that moves the slit nozzle close to or apart from the backup roller and the membrane [0017] or advance toward the membrane for coating and away from the membrane for no-coating [0045]. Takagi (2015/0266052) fails to teach the movement of the slit nozzle to be vertical directions and the pump being in the OFF position when no coating and ON position when coating. JP 07-275786 teaches a similar process whereby intermittent coating method of a substrate whereby the slit nozzle head is moved toward the substrate (coating position) and away from the substrate (non-coating position) in a vertical direction whereby when the coating supply is stopped (OFF position of pump) and simultaneously moved away from the substrate and the coating supply is supplied (ON position of pump) and simultaneously moved toward the substrate (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takagi (2015/0266052) process to arrange the slit nozzle to move in the vertical direction and stopping and starting coating supply simultaneously with movement away and toward the substrate with the pump in Takagi (2015/0266052) as evidenced by JP 07-275786 with the expectation of proving an intermittent coating that is linear. Regarding claim 1, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches moving the slit nozzle toward and away from the substrate for intermittent coating which would equate to the coating and non-coating positions of the slit nozzle. Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a pump in communication with the slit nozzle to supply or stop supply of the coating material [0052]. Regarding claim 3, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches the coating position of the slit nozzle to be closer to the substrate than the non-coating position [0017]. Regarding claims 5 and 8, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches the pump or coating supply is changed from off to on before the slot die is moved to the coating position [0058]. Regarding claim 10, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a control part (90) to control the coating parameters of the intermittent coating process. Regarding claims 12 and 22, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches the substrate to include a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) [0041]. Regarding claim 13, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches forming a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) [0006]. Regarding claim 14, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a catalyst coated membrane (CCM) [0006]. Regarding claims 15 and 16, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a catalyst ink including a noble metal (platinum) and an ionomer [0048]. Regarding claim 17, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches forming a cathode and/or anode [0038]. Regarding claims 18 and 19, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches catalyst particles and up to 50% weight supported particles in the solution or paste [0051]. Regarding claim 21, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches controlling the thickness of the coating to be determined by the gap from which the slit nozzle is apart from the membrane substrate (abstract, [0077]-[0078] and Figs. 9 and 10). Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (2015/0266052) in combination with JP 07-275786 in combination with Bashyam et al. (2022/0209250). Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Takagi (2015/0266052) in combination with JP 07-275786 are incorporated here. Takagi (2015/0266052) in combination with JP 07-275786 fails to teach the coated membrane be used for water electrolysis device. Bashyam et al. (2022/0209250) teaches a catalyst coated membrane whereby applying a catalyst ink to a proton exchange membrane to form a cathode or anode include a water electrolysis catalyst for use in such device (abstract). Regarding claim 12, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches the substrate to include a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) [0041]. Regarding claim 13, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches forming a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) [0006]. Regarding claim 14, Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a catalyst coated membrane (CCM) [0006] and Bashyam et al. (2022/0209250) teaches a catalyst coated membrane (CCM). Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3-19 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argued Takagi (2015/0266052) fails to teach movement of the slot die in the vertical position from an OFF non coating position to a ON coating position. The Examiner agrees and has applied a combination rejection with JP 07-275786 which teaches movement in a vertical position toward and away from the substrate to apply intermittent coating and Takagi (2015/0266052) teaches a pump in communication with the slit nozzle to supply or stop supply of the coating material [0052]. 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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. /BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597658
SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY PACK, AND AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595564
METHOD OF FORMING SURFACE TREATMENT FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR RADIALLY-ZONED CATALYST COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586846
SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583016
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE, CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, AND, ELECTRODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+31.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1151 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month