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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 7 recites “an fuel cell”. The word “an” should be “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 19-20 recite the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination, limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9 - 16 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 9, 14, and 15 recite the limitation "the organic solvent." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the organic solvent” is referring to the organic solvent of the cathode electrode, the anode electrode, both electrodes, or at least one of the electrodes. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as instead reciting “the organic solvent of at least one of the cathode electrode or the anode electrode.”
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 recite the limitation "the catalyst layer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the catalyst layer” is referring to the at least one catalyst layer of the cathode electrode, the anode electrode, both electrodes, or at least one of the electrodes. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as instead reciting “the catalyst layer of at least one of the cathode electrode or the anode electrode.”
Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since this claim depends from the claims rejected above and does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, herein referred to as “Budinski”.
Regarding claim 1, Budinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between electrode layers [col. 1 ln. 47 - 50]. The polymer electrolyte membrane is an ion/proton exchange resin membrane [col. 2 ln. 50 - 61]. One electrode layer is an anode and the opposing electrode layer is a cathode [col. 2 ln. 47 - 53]. The electrode layer has a catalyst, electric conductor, and ionomer binder [col. 1 ln. 51 - 52]. The catalyst is platinum and acts as a catalyst active material [col. 3 ln. 37 - 38]. The electric conductor is used to support the catalyst [col. 3 ln. 32 - 35] and can be made of carbon [col. 3 ln. 62 - 64]. Therefore, the electric conductor acts as a carbon support molecule. The electrode layers can be made into a slurry, referred to ask an ink, using a volatile solvent [col. 1 ln. 61]. The slurry is then used to create the electrode [col. 6 ln. 33 - 35]. Fluoroethers, such as 1H,4H,4H-perfluoro(3-oxapentane), are suitable volatile solvents for manufacturing the slurry [col. 4 ln. 51 - 62].
Regarding claim 7, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assemblies can be used in a fuel cell [col. 6 ln. 66 – 68 & col. 7 ln. 1 - 6] and are suitable for use as energy devices [col. 7 ln. 7 - 11].
Regarding claim 8, Budinski additionally discloses the fuel cell made by the membrane electrode assemblies can be used in vehicle engines [col. 7 ln. 7 - 10].
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2 as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Komiya, U.S. 2005/0106440 A1, herein referred to as “Komiya”.
Regarding claim 2, Budinski additionally discloses the ionomer binder can be made of sulfonated fluoropolymers in solutions, such as Nafion Solution and its mixture with a polytetrafluoroethylene dispersion [col. 4 ln. 34 - 27]. Nafion Solution is a known perfluorosulfonic acid solution in the fuel cell art as shown by evidentiary reference Komiya in paragraph 9.
Claims 9 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Haug et al., U.S. 2020/0385879 A1, herein referred to as “Haug”. Safety Data Sheet for 3M Novec 7100 Engineered Fluid is included as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 9 and 16, Haug discloses a membrane electrode assembly for use in an electrolyzer [0038]. The membrane electrode assembly has two electrodes, a cathode and an anode, on opposite ends, and a proton-exchange membrane disposed between the cathode electrode and anode electrode [0038]. The electrodes are comprised of an ionomer binder, acicular particles comprising a microstructured core with a layer of catalytic material, and a solvent [0009 - 0011]. The catalytic material is iridium and ruthenium, a plurality of catalyst active material [0049]. The solvent may be fluorinated solvents such as heptadecafluorooctane sulfonic acid and partially fluorinated or perfluorinated alkanes or tertiary amines such as those available under the trade designations “3M NOVEC ENGINEERED FLUID” or “3M FLUOROINERT ELECTRONIC LIQUID”, available from 3M Co. [0069].
In paragraphs 8 - 10 of the instant application, the organic solvents that decrease the amount of catalyst active material degradation within the catalyst layer by at least 40% compared to a catalyst layer without the organic solvent and without sacrificing performance of the membrane electrode assembly may be hydrofluoroethers. More specifically, the organic solvents may be methyl nonafluorobutyl ether, methyl nonafluoroisobutyl ether, or methyl perfluoropropyl ether. 3M Novec Engineered Fluid comprises methyl nonafluroisobutyl ether and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether as shown on page 2 under section 3 titled “composition/information on ingredients”. The Novec fluid is comprised of the identical required hydrofluoroethers to produce the claimed property of the organic solvent. Therefore, the Novec fluid is considered to be configured to decrease the amount of catalyst active material degradation within the catalyst layer by at least 40% compared to a catalyst layer without the organic solvent and without sacrificing performance of the membrane electrode assembly. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
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.
Claims 3 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, as evidenced by Komiya, U.S. 2005/0106440 A1, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Arai, U.S. 2019/0348684 A1, herein referred to as “Arai”.
Regarding claim 3, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 2. Budinski additionally discloses the ink contains about 0.1 % to 10% by weight ionomer binder and 0.1% to 60% by weight electrically conductive particulate material [col. 5 ln. 3 - 6], the electrically conductive particulate material being carbon [col. 3 ln. 64]. The minimum ratio of electrically conductive particulate material to ionomer binder is 0.001 / .1 = 0.01. The maximum ratio of electrically conductive particulate material ionomer binder is 0.6 / 0.001 = 600. Budinski’s ratio range encompasses the claimed range, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of catalyst layers for membrane electrode assemblies, Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. The carbon carriers of Arai are carbon molecules used for supporting the catalyst platinum, and thus act as carbon support molecules [0007]. The ionomer of Arai is used for promoting proton conductivity and is made of perfluorosulfonic acid-type resin such as Nafion [0007, 0056]. Arai discloses that if the amount of ionomer in the carbon pores is excessive the high humidification performance and hyperhumidification performance of the fuel cell is reduced [0040]. Arai further discloses that if the amount of ionomer in the carbon pores is insufficient the low humidification performance of the fuel cell is reduced [0041].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance.
Regarding claim 4, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 2. Budinski in view of Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056] as discussed above for claim 3, where this ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of about 0.4 to about 0.6, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ratio (MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as discussed above for the purposes making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance.
Regarding claim 5, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 2. Budinski in view of Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056] as discussed above for claim 3, where this ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of about 0.5, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ratio (MPEP 2144.05, I). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as discussed above for the purposes making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, as evidenced by Komiya, U.S. 2005/0106440 A1, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Watabe et al., U.S. 2018/0079872 A1, herein referred to as “Watabe”.
Regarding claim 6, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 2. Budinski disclose hydrofluorocarbons are a suitable volatile solvent for manufacturing an ink [col. 4 ln. 51 - 52]. Budinski does not disclose wherein the hydrofluoroether is methyl nonafluorobutyl ether, methyl nonafluoroisobutyl ether, or methyl perfluoropropyl ether.
In the same field of endeavor of catalyst layers for membrane electrode assemblies, Watabe discloses the use of fluorinated solvent as a solvent to produce a liquid composition suitably used for forming a catalyst layer or polymer electrolyte membrane in a membrane electrode assembly [0011, 0056]. Watabe discloses that the fluorinated solvent can be a hydrofluoroether selected from methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether [0049]. Watabe disclose that when methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether is selected cracking is less likely to occur at the time of forming a catalyst layer [0048, 0049]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether as the organic solvent of Budinski to reduce cracking at the time of forming a catalyst layer as disclosed by Watabe.
Claims 9, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, in further view of Watabe et al., U.S. 2018/0079872 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Budinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between electrode layers [col. 1 ln. 47 - 50]. The polymer electrolyte membrane is an ion/proton exchange resin membrane [col. 2 ln. 50 - 61]. One electrode layer is an anode and the opposing electrode layer is a cathode [col. 2 ln. 47 - 53]. Both the cathode and anode have catalysts comprised of platinum alloy [col. 3 ln. 36 - 39]. The anode and cathode layers can be made into a slurry, referred to ask an ink, using a volatile solvent [col. 1 ln. 61]. The slurry is then used to create the electrode [col. 6 ln. 33 - 35]. Hydrofluorocarbons, an organic solvent, are a suitable volatile solvent for manufacturing the slurry [col. 4 ln. 51 - 52].
The platinum alloy contains platinum and one or more metals selected from the group consisting of platinum group metals other than platinum (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium), gold, silver, chrome, iron, titanium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, zinc and tin, and may contain an intermetallic compound of platinum and a metal alloyed with platinum [col. 3 ln. 50 - 57]. The platinum alloy act as a plurality of catalyst materials.
Therefore, Budinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising: a cathode electrode disposed on one end of the membrane electrode assembly and including: at least one catalyst layer including: a plurality of catalyst active material; and an organic solvent; an anode electrode disposed on an opposite end of the membrane electrode assembly from the cathode electrode and including: at least one catalyst layer including: a plurality of catalyst active material; and an organic solvent; and a proton exchange membrane disposed between the cathode electrode and the anode electrode.
Budinski remains silent regarding wherein the organic solvent is configured to decrease the amount of catalyst active material degradation within the catalyst layer by at least 40% compared to a catalyst layer without the organic solvent and without sacrificing performance of the membrane electrode assembly.
In paragraph 10 of the instant application, the organic solvents that decrease the amount of catalyst active material degradation within the catalyst layer by at least 40% compared to a catalyst layer without the organic solvent and without sacrificing performance of the membrane electrode assembly may be an hydrofluoroethers. More specifically, the organic solvent may be methyl nonafluorobutyl ether, methyl nonafluoroisobutyl ether, or methyl perfluoropropyl ether.
Watabe discloses the use of fluorinated solvent as a solvent to produce a liquid composition suitably used for forming a catalyst layer or polymer electrolyte membrane in a membrane electrode assembly [0011, 0056]. Watabe discloses that the fluorinated solvent can be a hydrofluoroether selected from methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether [0049]. Watabe discloses the identical required hydrofluoroethers to produce the claimed property of the organic solvent. Therefore, Watabe’s disclosed hydrofluoroether is configured to decrease a surface tension of the catalyst layer compared to a catalyst layer which does not include the hydrofluoroether and configured to decrease the degradation amount of catalyst active material within the catalyst layer by at least 40% without sacrificing performance. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether as the hydrofluorocarbon of Budinski to reduce cracking at the time of forming a catalyst layer as disclosed by Watabe.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Budinski in further view of Watabe discloses wherein the organic solvent is a hydrofluoroether including one or more of methyl nonafluorobutyl ether, methyl nonafluoroisobutyl ether, or methyl perfluoropropyl ether [0011, 0049, 0056].
Regarding claim 17, Budinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between electrode layers [col. 1 ln. 47 - 50]. One electrode layer is an anode and the opposing electrode layer is a cathode [col. 2 ln. 47 - 53]. Both the cathode and anode have catalysts comprised of platinum alloy [col. 3 ln. 36 - 39]. The anode and cathode layers can be made into a slurry, referred to ask an ink, using a volatile solvent [col. 1 ln. 61]. The slurry is then used to create the electrode [col. 6 ln. 33 - 35]. Hydrofluorocarbons, an organic solvent, are a suitable volatile solvent for manufacturing the slurry [col. 4 ln. 51 - 52].
The platinum alloy contains platinum and one or more metals selected from the group consisting of platinum group metals other than platinum (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium), gold, silver, chrome, iron, titanium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, zinc and tin, and may contain an intermetallic compound of platinum and a metal alloyed with platinum [col. 3 ln. 50 - 57]. The platinum alloy act as a plurality of catalyst materials. Therefore, Budinski discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising: at least one catalyst layer including: a plurality of catalyst active material; and a hydrofluoroether.
Budinski remains silent regarding wherein the hydrofluoroether is configured to decrease a surface tension of the catalyst layer compared to a catalyst layer which does not include the hydrofluoroether and configured to decrease the degradation amount of catalyst active material within the catalyst layer by at least 40% without sacrificing performance.
In paragraph 10 of the instant application, the hydrofluoroether configured to decrease the surface tension of the catalyst layer compared to a catalyst layer which does not include the hydrofluoroether and configured to decrease the degradation amount of catalyst active material within the catalyst layer by at least 40% without sacrificing performance may be a hydrofluoroethers. More specifically, the organic solvent may be methyl nonafluorobutyl ether, methyl nonafluoroisobutyl ether, or methyl perfluoropropyl ether.
Watabe discloses the use of fluorinated solvent as a solvent to produce a liquid composition suitably used for forming a catalyst layer or polymer electrolyte membrane in a membrane electrode assembly [011, 0056]. Watabe disclose that the fluorinated solvent can be a hydrofluoroether selected from methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether [0049]. Watabe discloses the identical required hydrofluoroethers to produce the claimed property of the organic solvent. Therefore, Watabe’s disclosed hydrofluoroether is configured to decrease a surface tension of the catalyst layer compared to a catalyst layer which does not include the hydrofluoroether and configured to decrease the degradation amount of catalyst active material within the catalyst layer by at least 40% without sacrificing performance. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select methyl-nonafluorobutyl ether or methyl-nonafluoroisobutyl ether as the hydrofluorocarbon of Budinski to reduce cracking at the time of forming a catalyst layer as disclosed by Watabe.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, in further view of Watabe et al., U.S. 2018/0079872 A1, as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, and as further evidenced by Komiya, U.S. 2005/0106440 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Budinski in further view of Watabe discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 9. Budinski further discloses the catalyst layer has electrically conductive particulate material and an ionomer binder [col. 1 ln. 51-52]. The electric conductor is used to support the catalyst [col. 3 ln. 32 - 35] and can be made of carbon nanotubes [col. 4 ln. 6]. Therefore, the electric conductor acts as a carbon support nanoparticle. Budinski additionally discloses the ionomer binder binds the catalyst and the electrically conductive particulate materials together [col. 3 ln. 35-26]. The ionomer binder can be made of sulfonated fluoropolymers in solutions, such as Nafion Solution and its mixture with a polytetrafluoroethylene dispersion [col. 4 ln. 34 - 27]. Nafion Solution is a known perfluorosulfonic acid solution in the fuel cell art as shown by evidentiary reference Komiya in paragraph 9.
Regarding claim 18, Budinski in further view of Watabe discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 17. Budinski further discloses the catalyst layer has electrically conductive particulate material and an ionomer binder [col. 1 ln. 51-52]. The electric conductor is used to support the catalyst [col. 3 ln. 32 - 35] and can be made of carbon nanotubes [col. 4 ln. 6]. Therefore, the electric conductor acts as a carbon support nanoparticle. Budinski additionally discloses the ionomer binder binds the catalyst and the electrically conductive particulate materials together [col. 3 ln. 35-26]. The ionomer binder can be made of sulfonated fluoropolymers in solutions, such as Nafion Solution and its mixture with a polytetrafluoroethylene dispersion [col. 4 ln. 34 - 27]. Nafion Solution is a known perfluorosulfonic acid solution in the fuel cell art as shown by evidentiary reference Komiya in paragraph 9.
Claims 11 – 13 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budinski, U.S. 8,507,151 B2, in view of Watabe et al., U.S. 2018/0079872 A1, and as evidenced by Komiya, U.S. 2005/0106440 A1, as applied to claims 10 and 18 above, and in further view of Arai, U.S. 2019/0348684 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Budinski in view of Watabe discloses the membrane electrode assembly of Claim 10. Budinski additionally discloses the ink contains about 0.1 % to 10% by weight ionomer binder and 0.1% to 60% by weight electrically conductive particulate material [col. 5 ln. 3 - 6], the electrically conductive particulate material being carbon [col. 3 ln. 64]. The minimum ratio of ionomer binder to electrically conductive particulate material is 0.001 / .1 = 0.01. The maximum ratio of ionomer binder to electrically conductive particulate material is 0.6 / 0.001 = 600. Budinski’s ratio range encompasses the claimed range, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additoinally, in the same field of endeavor of catalyst layers for membrane electrode assemblies Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. The carbon carriers of Arai are carbon molecules used for supporting the catalyst platinum, and thus act as carbon support molecules [0007]. The ionomer of Arai is used for promoting proton conductivity and is made of perfluorosulfonic acid-type resin such as Nafion [0007, 0056]. Arai discloses that if the amount of ionomer in the carbon pores is excessive the high humidification performance and hyperhumidification performance of the fuel cell is reduced [0040]. Arai further discloses that if the amount of ionomer in the carbon pores is insufficient the low humidification performance of the fuel cell is reduced [0041].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance. See MPEP 2144.05(I) for discussion on overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 12, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of claim 10 and a ratio range which encompasses the claimed range as described above in the rejection of claim 11, rendering obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance. See MPEP 2144.05(I) for discussion on overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 13, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of claim 10 and a ratio range which encompasses the claimed range as described above in the rejection of claim 11, rendering obvious the claimed ratio. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance. See MPEP 2144.05(I) for discussion on overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 19, Budinski discloses the membrane electrode assembly of claim 18 and a ratio range which encompasses the claimed range as described above in the rejection of claim 11, rendering obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance. See MPEP 2144.05(I) for discussion on overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 20, discloses the membrane electrode assembly of claim 18 and a ratio range which encompasses the claimed range as described above in the rejection of claim 11, rendering obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, Arai discloses a weight ratio of carbon carrier to ionomer of 1.0:0.5 [0056]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ionomer binder and electrically conductive particulate material weight ratios as disclosed by Arai to Budinski’s broad ratio range for the purposes of making the resulting fuel cell have high humidification performance, hyperhumidification performance, and low humidification performance. See MPEP 2144.05(I) for discussion on overlapping ranges.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
JP 2019-140010 A, Kobayashi et al. discloses a cathode catalyst layer, a catalyst including a Pt catalyst supported on a conductive carrier, a first ionomer covering at least a part of the catalyst, and a second ionomer covering at least a part of the catalyst are mixed. The number of carbons in a side chain of the first ionomer is less than that of carbons in a side chain of the second ionomer, and the EW of the first ionomer is less than that of the second ionomer.
JP 2022-037960 A Bizen et al. discloses a conductive paste composition contains a polymer component, resin particles, a conductive material, and a liquid medium. The particles each have an outer shell composed of a thermoplastic resin and an organic compound included therein. The thermoplastic resin is preferably a polymer of a polymerizable component containing a nitrile monomer.
WO 2021/064410 A1, Bonakdarpour et al. discloses a process for preparing a membrane electrode assembly in which a microporous layer is applied to a catalyst layer. Also provided are membrane electrode assemblies obtainable by applying a microporous layer to a catalyst layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/J.R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/Eli D. Strah/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights