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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-12, 14-18, 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houghtaling (US 2014/0261983) in view of Kim (US 2019/0312287).
Claims 1, 10-12, 14:
Houghtaling teaches a method for manufacturing a proton exchange membrane [0002] comprising providing a substrate [0025-0027] and coating several wet layers onto the substrate to form a wet composite structure [0054-0055]. The plural layers are deposited by slot die coating having two or more slots to permit passage of different coating fluids; the result being simultaneously coating the catalyst ink fluid, first membrane fluid, and second membrane fluid onto the substrate (Id.). The membrane fluids are dispersions of ion-conducting polymers [0039]. Then, a reinforcement layer is applied and allowed to fully imbibe the second membrane fluid [0057] and the wet structure is dried [0061].
Houghtaling does not teach applying another layer on the reinforcement layer and drying. However, Kim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrolyte membrane wherein after the ionomer is impregnated into the reinforcement layer and dried [0074], another ionomer layer is applied and dried [0074-0075] in order to form the structure S6 shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Houghtaling and after drying apply another ionomer layer to surround the reinforcement layer. Kim establishes that doing so results in a structure that is useful for proton exchange membranes [0003].
Claims 2-4:
The compositions for the membrane fluids are chosen so that the second membrane fluid provides quick imbibement of the reinforcement layer [H:0046] and so that there is no significant diffusion between the fluid layers [0056]. In order to achieve these goals, the second membrane fluid can have a greater alcohol content, lower solids content, greater hydrophobicity or lower viscosity compared to the first membrane fluid [0046] and the solvent ratios and/or solids concentration can also be varied [0056]. These teachings anticipate and render obvious the subject matter of claims 2-4 wherein the first dispersion has a density greater than the second dispersion (i.e., alcohol content, solids content, and ratio of alcohol to solids), wherein the second dispersion has a surface Tenison less that the surface tension of the first dispersion ( due to the alcohol content), and wherein the second dispersion has a higher degree of wetting toward the reinforcing component (also due to the alcohol content; goal is for second dispersion to be alcohol-rich to provide relative quick imbibement into reinforcement layer [0046]). Also see the examples in instant specification where the differences between the dispersions are amount of alcohol (example 1), amount of ionomer (i.e., solids) (example 2), and amount of alcohol (example 3).
Claims 5, 15:
K:Fig. 1 does show a structure S6 where the reinforcement layer and impregnated ionomer (analogous to the second dispersion fluid) are positioned between a top and bottom section of ionomer (analogous to the first and third dispersion) that are roughly the same thickness. While drawings are not assumed to be drawn to scale, they can serve as the basis for obviousness. In this instance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a structure where the reinforcing component has a thickness that is substantially the same as the thickness of the second layer and where the first and third layer have substantially the same thickness based on visual inspection of the symmetric structure S6.
Claims 6, 8:
The dispersions comprise a continuous phase of water and polar solvent [H:0073-0074].
Claims 7, 9, 24:
Previously cited prior art is discussed above and does not explicitly teach the amount of alcohol in the membrane fluids. However, Houghtaling does intend for the second membrane fluid to have a greater alcohol content relative to the first membrane fluid [0046] for the reasons already discussed above. The selection of specific values would have been obvious through routine optimization of these result effective variables where the amount of alcohol is directly linked to at least hydrophobicity and viscosity.
Claim 16:
Removing the substrate [H:0062].
Claim 17:
The substrate can be a known catalyst material, such as aluminum [H:0025].
Claims 18, 21:
Houghtaling does teach the addition of a catalyst layer [0028] and gas diffusion layer [0025], although it is in the context of a continuous, high-efficiency process where the supporting substrate is the gas diffusion layer and the catalyst layer is one of the wet layers formed during the formation of the wet composite structure. However, Houghtaling does teach that the prior art process of applying these layers includes making independent layers and hot-pressing or bonding to the membrane [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to practice the method of Houghtaling to form the membrane and further apply a catalyst layer and gas diffusion layer such as by the traditional methods of hot-pressing or bonding in order to form the membrane electrode assembly (Id.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art references.
Applicant argues neither prior art reference teaches three deposition steps. However, the examiner disagrees. The combination of Houghtaling and Kim teach and render obvious a total of three deposition steps. The first two are disclosed by Houghtaling and the third is taught by Kim. The motivation for this combination is Houghtaling’s desire for two layers under the reinforcement and Kim’s desire for a layer over the reinforcement, arriving at the claimed three layer structure.
Applicant suggests the combination teaches applying one of the ionomer layers over a catalyst. The examiner disagrees. Kim is directed to manufacturing an electrolyte membrane (as is Houghtaling), where the catalyst/electrodes are applied thereafter on the outer surfaces to form a traditional PEMFC [0003].
Conclusion
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759