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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0293977 to Nitta et al.
Regarding claim 1, Nitta et al. teaches a framed membrane electrode assembly 26 comprising: a membrane electrode assembly 26a including an electrolyte membrane 36, a first electrode or anode 38 and a second electrode or cathode 40 (Figs. 2 and 3; [0038]); and
a resin frame sheet member or frame shaped insulating member 24 surrounding an entire periphery of the membrane electrode assembly (Fig. 3; [0042]), wherein
the first electrode and the second electrode extend outwardly of an entire outer peripheral end of the electrolyte membrane as a first gas diffusion layer 38b of the anode 38 and a second gas diffusion layer 40b of the cathode 40 are larger in size than the electrolyte membrane 36 (Fig. 3; [0039]; [0040]).
an outer peripheral portion of the first electrode is joined to one surface of the frame sheet member along an entire periphery of the first electrode, and an outer peripheral portion of the second electrode is joined to another surface of the frame sheet member along an entire periphery of the first electrode, as an inner edge of the frame shaped insulating member 42 is sandwiched between outer edges of the first gas diffusion layer 38b of the anode 38 and the second gas diffusion layer 40b of the cathode 40 (Fig. 3; [0042]).
Below is Fig. 3 of Nitta et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Nitta et al. teaches that the anode 38 and the cathode 40 are adhered to the frame shaped insulating member 42 ([0061]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Nitta et al. teaches that the frame sheet member includes a first joining portion, to which the first electrode and the second electrode are joined (Fig. 3), but does not expressly teach that the first joining portion has a width of 0.4 mm or
more in a direction from an outer side to an inner side of the frame sheet member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because the skilled artisan would have experimented and optimized the width of the first joining portion so that the frame sheet member and the electrodes are bonded securely and would have obtained expected results.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2022/0311019 to Oda et al.
Regarding claim 3, Nitta et al. teaches that the first electrode includes a first inclined portion along an entire periphery of the first electrode, and the second electrode includes a second inclined portion along an entire periphery of the second electrode, the first inclined portion is inclined to approach the second electrode from an outer side toward an inner side, as an inner edge of the frame shaped insulating member 42 is sandwiched between outer edges of the first gas diffusion layer 38b of the anode 38 and the second gas diffusion layer 40b of the cathode 40 (Fig. 3; [0042]).
Nitta et al. does not expressly teach that the second inclined portion is positioned outwardly of the first inclined portion and inclined to separate from the first electrode from the outer side toward the inner side.
Oda et al. also relates to a framed membrane electrode assembly and teaches that the framed membrane electrode assembly 12 comprises a first electrode or anode 24 and a second electrode or cathode 26 sandwiching a resin frame member 22 ([0022]; [0023]), where the first electrode includes a first inclined portion along an entire periphery of the first electrode, the second electrode includes a second inclined portion along an entire periphery of the second electrode, the first inclined portion is inclined to approach the second electrode from an outer side toward an inner side, and the second inclined portion is positioned outwardly of the first inclined portion and inclined to separate from the first electrode from the outer side toward the inner side (see annotated Fig. 2 below; [0023]; [0044]; [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Oda et al. demonstrates an alternative arrangement of the framed membrane electrode assembly, where the claimed inclined portions occur at different positions when the electrodes follow the contour of the frame member and sandwich the frame member (abstract; Fig. 2; [0041-51]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results modifying prior art elements in a known way.
Below is annotated Fig. 2 of Oda et al
PNG
media_image2.png
251
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (first inclined portion)][AltContent: textbox (second inclined portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 4, although Nitta et al. and Oda et al. do not expressly teach that a width of the second inclined portion in a direction from an outer side to an inner side of the frame sheet member is smaller than a width of the first inclined portion in the direction from the outer side to the inner side of the frame sheet member over the entire periphery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because the width of the inclined portion depends on the number of layers and/or thicknesses of the layers that the respective electrodes wrap around at the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion. For example, the thicknesses of the layers in the frame member may be different from each other ([0043]) and that can lead to a smaller width in the second inclined portion than the first inclined portion.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0273269 to Ebato et al.
Regarding claim 5, Nitta et al. teaches that the membrane electrode assembly includes a first catalyst layer 38a provided between the electrolyte membrane 36 and the first electrode (the first gas diffusion layer 38b), and a second catalyst layer 40a provided between the electrolyte membrane 36 and the second electrode (the second gas diffusion layer 40b (Fig. 3; [0039]).
Nitta et al. does not expressly teach that an outer peripheral end of the first catalyst layer (anode) is positioned inwardly of an outer peripheral end of the second catalyst layer (cathode) over the entire periphery.
Ebato et al. also relates to a framed membrane electrode assembly and teaches that the framed membrane electrode assembly 10 includes a first electrode or anode 20 and a second electrode or cathode 22 sandwiching a frame member 24 (Fig. 2; [0035]; [0043]), wherein the first electrode or anode 20 includes a first catalyst layer 20a provided between an electrolyte membrane 18 and the first electrode 20, and a second catalyst layer 22a provided between the electrolyte membrane 18 and the second electrode 22, and an outer peripheral end of the first catalyst layer 20a is positioned inwardly of an outer peripheral end of the second catalyst layer 22a over the entire periphery (Fig. 2; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Ebato et al. demonstrates that the surface size of the first electrode catalyst layer 20a of the anode 20 is smaller than that of the cathode 22 (Fig. 2; [0038]), resulting in a more inward position of the outer peripheral end, and the anode often requires less catalyst loading than the cathode due to its faster reactions. The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results modifying the prior art electrode in a known way.
Regarding claim 6, Ebato et al. teaches that the outer peripheral end of the first catalyst layer 20a of the anode 20 is positioned between the frame sheet member 24 and the first electrode 20 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Nitta et al. does not expressly teach that the outer peripheral end of the electrolyte membrane is positioned between the second electrode (cathode) and the frame sheet member over the entire periphery.
Ebato et al. also relates to a framed membrane electrode assembly and teaches that the framed membrane electrode assembly 10 includes a first electrode or anode 20 and a second electrode or cathode 22 sandwiching a frame member 24 (Fig. 2; [0035]; [0043]), wherein the outer peripheral end of an electrolyte membrane 18 is positioned between the second electrode (cathode 22) and the frame sheet member 24 over the entire periphery (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention, because Ebato et al. demonstrates that the frame member 24 sandwiched by the membrane electrode assembly in the shown manner makes it possible to suppress deformation of the frame member in the presence of the differential pressure applied from the first electrode, and improve the durability of the frame member (Fig. 2; [0087]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results modifying the prior art assembly in a known way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights