CTNF 18/570,246 CTNF 87406 CELL ASSEMBLY FOR CONTROLLED GUIDING OF REACTIVE FLUIDS 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-14 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. Claims 1 and 8 state the microporous layer (105) and/or the catalyst layer (103) of at least one side is profiled in such a way that a surface roug h ness of the catalyst layer (103) differs from a surface roughness of the microporous layer (105), so that the catalyst layer (103) and the microporous layer (105) fit together in parts. However, this statement is vague and unclear because it is not specific about how the layers of different roughness overlap in parts. A rough surface has some kind of irregular profile but the claim does not define how this profile is shaped. Therefore, the desired objective of a fit together in parts (which parts?) is usually achieved or desired in some form. From the specification (paragraph 0019), it appears that the expression means that elevated parts of the profile of the catalyst layer penetrate into flat regions of the microporous layer and vice versa. This claim will be interpreted as such. The expression “wherein microporous layer (105) and/or the catalyst layer (103) of at least one side is profiled in such a way that a surface roughness of the catalyst layer (103) differs from a surface roughness of the microporous layer (105)”. It is necessary to explain how they differ. Claim 5 discloses “components of a material forming the microporous layer (105) are at least partially larger or smaller than components of a material forming the catalyst layer (103)” is unclear because it is not defined which components of the microporous layer are larger or smaller than other components of the catalyst layer. Further, it is not defined which size was measured (e.g. average particle size?). Claim 7 discloses components of the material forming the microporous layer (105) comprise graphite with a grain size greater than 1 µm and the components of the material forming the catalyst layer (103) comprise carbon black with a grain size smaller than 1 µm. However, as with claim 5, it is unclear if the claim is implying average particle size. Claim 10 discloses profiling (305) the microporous layer (105) by mixing a material forming the microporous layer (105) using a component whose grain size is larger or smaller than a grain size of a component of the catalyst layer (103). However, here neither the respective components nor the method for determining the average particle sizes of the grain of the respective components in the respective layer are defined. Claims 2-4, 6, 9, and 11-14 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claims 1 and 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. (US 2014/0134516 A1) and further in view of Bonakdarpour et al. (WO 2021/064410 A1 using US 2022/0302486 A1 for point of reference.) . Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12 , Okuyama et al. teach a cell assembly (100) for a fuel cell (Title) for controlled guidance of reactive fluids (Abstract; Fig. 1, element 1) , wherein the cell assembly (100) comprises a membrane (101) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Paragraph 0027; Fig. 1, element 10 discloses an electrolyte membrane.) , wherein on the first side and the second side are disposed respectively: - a catalyst layer (103) (Paragraph 0027; Fig. 1, element 20 discloses a catalyst layer.) , - a microporous layer (105) (Paragraph 0027; Fig. 1, element 32 discloses a microporous membrane.) , Okuyama discloses a microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) contains the scale-like graphite having a grain shape as described below and includes inside thereof a region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) where the scale-like graphite is concentrated. The concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) is formed in a belt-like shape or in a striped pattern extending in the direction parallel to the junction surface (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31a) between the gas diffusion layer substrate (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) . Namely, the concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) is formed in a belt-like shape or in a striped pattern extending in the direction parallel to the plane direction of the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) and the electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 10) . This concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) of the scale-like graphite distributed along the electrolyte membrane can reduce contact resistance between the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) and between the gas diffusion layer substrate (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) . The presence of the concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) also contributes to keeping water held in the electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 10) and the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) . However, Okuyama does not necessarily teach the microporous layer (105) and/or the catalyst layer (103) of at least one side is profiled in such a way that a surface roughness of the catalyst layer (103) differs from a surface roughness of the microporous layer (105), so that the catalyst layer (103) and the microporous layer (105) fit together in parts. Bonakdarpour et al. disclose a cell assembly (Abstract discloses a membrane electrode assembly) which comprises a microporous layer applied to a catalyst layer (Abstract; Fig. 2 labels the microporous layer “MPL” and the catalyst layer “CL”.). The microporous layer and the catalyst layer both have differing surface roughness designed to contour (or “fit) to each other in order to prevent gaps from being formed at the interface between the two layers (Paragraph 0096; Figs 2(b), 2(d), 2(f) show SEM images of gap formation prevented between “MPL” and “CL”.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Okuyama with Bonakdarpour in order to maintain stability of the entire MEA structure. Regarding claims 2-4 , the combination of Okuyama and Bonakdarpour et al. teach the cell assembly according to claim 1. Further, Okuyama et al. teach wherein the microporous layer (105) is hardened a binder, so that mechanical forces acting on the microporous layer (105) are distributed uniformly in the microporous layer (105) and wherein the binder comprises hydrophobizing agents (Paragraph 0035 discloses the microporous layer comprises a binder such as PTFE which is water-repellant.) . Regarding claims 5-7, 13, and 14 , the combination of Okuyama and Bonakdarpour et al. teach the cell assembly according to claim 1. Further, Okuyama et al. teach where components of a material of a material forming the microporous layer (105) are at least partially larger or smaller than components of a material forming the catalyst layer (103); the components of the material forming the microporous layer (105) comprise graphite with a grain size greater than 1 µm and the components of the material forming the catalyst layer (103) comprise carbon black with a grain size smaller than 1 µm (Paragraphs 0037-0038 disclose the microporous layer comprises scale-like graphite having a mean diameter of 1-10 µm. Paragraphs 0033; 0039 disclose the catalyst layer comprises carbon black with a mean diameter of less than or equal to 1 µm.) . Regarding claim 8, Okuyama et al. teach a manufacturing method (300) for manufacturing a cell assembly (100) (Examples; Abstract; Fig. 1, element 1), wherein the manufacturing method (300) comprises: -disposal (301) of a microporous layer (105) (Example 1; Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0074-0075 disclose making a microporous layer, element 32) on a catalyst layer (103) of a membrane (101) (Example 1; Paragraph 0077 disclose making a catalyst layer (CCM-catalyst layer on both surface of an electrolyte membrane.), element 20, and interposing it between gas diffusion layers containing the microporous layer.). Okuyama discloses a microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) contains the scale-like graphite having a grain shape as described below and includes inside thereof a region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) where the scale-like graphite is concentrated. The concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) is formed in a belt-like shape or in a striped pattern extending in the direction parallel to the junction surface (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31a) between the gas diffusion layer substrate (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) . Namely, the concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) is formed in a belt-like shape or in a striped pattern extending in the direction parallel to the plane direction of the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) and the electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 10) . This concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) of the scale-like graphite distributed along the electrolyte membrane can reduce contact resistance between the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) and between the gas diffusion layer substrate (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 31) and the microporous layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32) . The presence of the concentrated region (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 32a) also contributes to keeping water held in the electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 10) and the catalyst layer (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2, element 20) . However, Okuyama does not necessarily teach the microporous layer (105) and/or the catalyst layer (103) of at least one side is profiled in such a way that a surface roughness of the catalyst layer (103) differs from a surface roughness of the microporous layer (105), so that the catalyst layer (103) and the microporous layer (105) fit together in parts. Bonakdarpour et al. disclose a cell assembly (Abstract discloses a membrane electrode assembly) which comprises a microporous layer applied to a catalyst layer (Abstract; Fig. 2 labels the microporous layer “MPL” and the catalyst layer “CL”.). The microporous layer and the catalyst layer both have differing surface roughness designed to contour (or “fit) to each other in order to prevent gaps from being formed at the interface between the two layers (Paragraph 0096; Figs 2(b), 2(d), 2(f) show SEM images of gap formation prevented between “MPL” and “CL”.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Okuyama with Bonakdarpour in order to maintain stability of the entire MEA structure. Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Okuyama and Bonakdarpour et al. teach the cell assembly according to claim 1. Further, Bonakdarpour et al. teach wherein the manufacturing method (300) comprises: –providing (303) a material forming the microporous layer (105) on a film having a profiled structure (Paragraphs 0082-0087; 0096; Fig. 2(b), 2(d), 2(f)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Okuyama with Bonakdarpour in order to maintain stability of the entire MEA structure. Regarding claim 10 , the combination of Okuyama and Bonakdarpour et al. teach the cell assembly according to claim 1. Further, Okuyama et al. teach wherein the manufacturing method (300) comprises: -profiling (305) the microporous layer (105) by mixing a material forming the microporous layer (105) using a component whose grain size is larger or smaller than a grain size of a component of the catalyst layer (103) (Paragraphs 0037-0038 disclose the microporous layer comprises scale-like graphite having a mean diameter of 1-10 µm. Paragraphs 0033; 0039 disclose the catalyst layer comprises carbon black with a mean diameter of less than or equal to 1 µm.) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30. 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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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 S. Gatewood, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1729 /DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 May 21 st , 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 2 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 3 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 4 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 5 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 6 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 7 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 8 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 9 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 10 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 11 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/570,246 Page 12 Art Unit: 1729
Prosecution Insights