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 Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-18 and 20 are withdrawn.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0159510 A1) in view of Yadav et al. (“Yadav”, Nanoscale, 2019, 11, 12755).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim discloses a manufacturing method comprising the steps of: adding a catalyst and a first ionomer to a solvent and dispersing the same, thereby producing a dispersed mixtures, adding a second ionomer to the dispersed mixture, thereby producing a coating composition, and applying the coating composition directly onto at least one side of the polymer electrolyte membrane (abstract).
Kim teaches at least a portion of the second ionomer may not be coated on the surface of the catalyst ([0021]) and may be in the form of particles ([0054]).
Kim teaches a platinum-based metal and/or a non-platinum-based metal is used as the catalyst ([0048]).
Kim teaches a carrier (i.e. supporting material) is impregnated with a catalyst metal ([0052]).
Kim teaches the first and second ionomers may be identical or different from each other ([0011]).
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claim 7, Kim does not teach a heat-dissipating material in the second composite from the list claimed in claim 7.
However, Yadav discloses boron nitride (title) for use in fuel cells (p.12755, col. 2) and teaches h-BN has received much attention as a viable nanofiller for PEMs due to it having better thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties (p.12756, col. 1). The excellent properties of h-BN can improve fuel cell performance with the existing PEMs using h-BN as a filler (p.12756, col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add boron nitride as a nanofiller to the catalyst layer for fuel cell of Kim to improve fuel cell performance with better thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties (p.12756, col. 1), as taught by Yadav.
As to claim 3, Kim teaches each of the first and second ionomers may have an equivalent weight (EW) ranging from 600 g/eq to 1100 g/eq, and the equivalent weight of the first ionomer may be different from the equivalent weight of the second ionomer ([0012]).
As to claim 4, Kim teaches one of the first and second ionomers may be a fluorine-based ionomer, and the other may be a hydrocarbon-based ionomer ([0016]).
As to claim 5, Kim teaches the first ionomer may be a first hydrocarbon-based ionomer, and the second ionomer may be a second hydrocarbon-based ionomer, and the first may be different from the second ([0015]).
As to claim 6, Kim teaches each of the first and second ionomers may be a fluorinated polymer including a fluorinated carbon backbone and may have different side-chain lengths ([0013]).
As to claim 8, Kim teaches the carrier may be (i) a carbon-based carrier, (ii) porous inorganic oxide, or (iii) zeolite ([0053]).
As to claim 9, Kim teaches catalyst particles ([0054]) and teaches the catalyst may be a platinum-based metal and/or a non-platinum-based metal or an alloy ([0048]).
As to claims 10 and 11, Kim teaches adding a functional additive including a radical scavenger, a gas barrier particle, and an oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst ([0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights