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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2012243442. Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a membrane-electrode assembly comprising a polymer electrolyte membrane (10) having concavo-convex portions (1A,1B) on one surface, a first catalyst layer (2A) filling the inside of the concavo-convex portions, and a second catalyst layer (2B) disposed on the polymer electrolyte membrane with the first catalyst layer located therebetween (Fig. 4, abstract). Regarding claim 2, the first layer comprises a first ionomer and the second layer comprises a second ionomer (abstract). Regarding claim 5, the first and second ionomers are a fluorine based ionomer ([0013] of machine translation). Regarding claim 14, a fuel cell comprises the membrane-electrode assembly (abstract). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘442.
The reference is applied to claims 1 and 5 for the reasons stated above. Further regarding claim 6, the reference teaches that the first convex portions are arranged alternately with first concave portions. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the first catalyst layer is filled at 80% or more (v/v) based on the total volume of the concave portions.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference teaches in paragraphs [0015] and [0016] that the height of the first catalyst layer in the concavities is more than 1/3 or more than 1/2 the height thereof. Accordingly, the artisan could reasonably fill the concavities to an 80% volume ratio as claimed.
Regarding claim 13. which recites that the first catalyst layer further comprises a functional additive, the limitation is rendered obvious as it is well known in the art that various additives (scavengers, hydrophilic or hydrophobic materials, etc) can be added to fuel cell catalyst layers. As such, the limitation would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites that the weight of the first ionomer relative to the total weight of the first catalyst layer is greater than the weight of the second ionomer relative to the total weight of the second catalyst layer. JP ‘442, the closet prior art, essentially teaches the opposite configuration (I/C ratios disclosed in abstract, [0017]), and it would not be obvious to modify the reference to achieve the claimed configuration. Kim et al (US 20230057062) is also cited as being relevant, however, neither it nor any patent family member qualifies as prior art.
Claim 7 recites that the first catalyst layer completely fills the entire volume of the first concave portions, and further recites structural attributes of the first catalyst layer including: a first central portion, first and second side wall portions, first and second side surfaces and first and second curved surfaces of the first and second side wall portions respectively, and wherein the curved surfaces extend from the side surfaces to an upper surface of the first central portion. The limitation is considered to define over JP ‘442 because it would not have been obvious to completely fill the entire volume of the first concave portions nor have the first catalyst layer in a shape with the curved surfaces as claimed. In JP ‘442, it is noted that the second catalyst layer also protrudes into the concavity, and it would not be obvious to modify this structure of the reference. Further, in the instant specification, the advantages of the claimed curved surfaces of the first catalyst layer are discussed. ( Note: for purposes of claim interpretation, the phrase “completely fills the entire volume” can be interpreted as something less than a strictly 100% v/v filling rate. This is because some void volume would be left by the claimed curved surfaces [cs1, cs2; Figure 2 of application], if the top of the central portion (cpus) is flush with the opening of the concavity.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights