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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the fibrous fabric” in line 3 which is understood to be the conductive fabric comprising fibers as previously recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one edge and the frame optionally being sealed directly to one another” which is understood as an optional limitation (not required). It is noted that this is a required limitation in claim 28.
Claim 1 recites “the sealant embedding the ends of fibers” in line 6 which is understood to mean that the ends of fibers are embedded in the sealant.
Claim 4 recites “optionally ultrasonically welded” in line 3 which is understood as an optional limitation.
Claim 8 recites “effects a tension” and as best understood this broadly means gives rise to a tension or increases or facilitates a tension in some way (see specification, para. [0047]).
Claim 24 recites “optionally effecting a tension” which is understood as an optional limitation (not required).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In para. [0039] it is stated: “attached one another” and it appears this should be “attached to one another”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “attached one another” in line 9 and it appears this should be “attached to one another”.
Claims 2-10, 17 and 27-28 are objected to. The claims recite “the encapsulated electrode” in the preamble or “one or more electrodes” (claim 17), but claim 1 from which they depend is for an encapsulated electrode assembly. The claims should recite “the encapsulated electrode assembly” in the preamble. In the case of claim 17, the claim could be amended as “one or more electrode assemblies”.
Claim 23 recites “the electrochemical stack” twice in line 1. These should be changed to “the electrochemical cell stack” for consistency.
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 1-28 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one edge" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “extends around essentially the entire perimeter” and the term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is understood to mean “extends around the entire perimeter” (e.g., see Fig. 1B).
Claim 7 also recites “the entire perimeter” in line 2 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 and/or claim 7.
Claim 11 recites “the at least one edge” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the ends of fibers” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the at least one edge” in line 13 (referring to a different at least one edge than that recited in line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the ends of fibers” in line 14 (referring to different ends of fibers than the recitation in line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a first pocket space” and “a second pocket space” and in view of the specification it is unclear what this might include because the specification states (para. [0051]): “the first pocket space and the second pocket space defines a depth of from about 0 mm to about 1 mm, including 0 mm” and specifically the recitation of “including 0 mm” would seem to indicate the pocket may have no depth and the claim could be met by a device having no observable pocket or merely a minute gap due to manufacturing tolerances.
Claim 12 recites “wherein at least one of the first pocket space and the second pocket space defines a depth of from about 0 mm to about 1 mm” and similar to claim 11 above, it is unclear what is meant by “about 0 mm” which would seem to indicate the pocket may have no depth and the claim could be met by a device having no observable pocket or merely a minute gap due to manufacturing tolerances.
Claims 13-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 19 recites “the plurality of electrodes” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is also recited in line 3.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1
Claim 22 recites “the conductive fabric” in line 1. It is unclear if this is regarding the first portion of conductive fabric or the second portion of conductive fabric (as recited in claim 11 from which claims 22 depends) or both.
Claim 24 recites “the at least one edge” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “a pocket space” in line 2 and in view of the specification it is unclear what this might include because the specification states (para. [0051]): “the first pocket space and the second pocket space define a depth of from about 0 mm to about 1 mm, including 0 mm” and specifically the recitation of “including 0 mm” would seem to indicate the pocket may have no depth and the claim could be met by a device having no observable pocket or merely a minute gap due to manufacturing tolerances.
Claim 26 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 24 or claim 25.
Claims 27-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 17, 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372).
Regarding claim 1, James et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (electrode is enclosed by a sealant, para. [0010], a seal and/or plug may circumscribe the active area, para. [0013]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
507
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
James et al. discloses the encapsulated electrode assembly comprises: a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or woven or non-woven carbon fabric, as a conventional design, para. [0020], carbon fiber or carbon cloth, para. [0029]), the conductive fabric comprising fibers having ends (carbon fiber or carbon fabric or cloth, the ends being the fiber structure present at the edge), the portion of fibrous fabric defining an edge therearound (such as at the end of sealing region 45, Fig. 3a), a sealed portion of the at least one edge being sealed by a sealant infiltrated (sealant impregnates in region 45, para. [0020]) into the conductive fabric, the sealant embedding the ends of fibers located along the at least one edge (edge in region 45 shown above); and a frame (such as comprising sealant material 40 and barrier film 60, shown above), the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame are attached to one another (Fig. 3a) and the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame optionally being sealed directly to one another (the sealant is present in the frame/section 40 and in region 45, Fig. 3a).
Insomuch as James et al. does not expressly disclose the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame is superposed; Kirby discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract, with ion-exchange membrane 120, with external seal 142 and/or framing seal 150, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) having a portion of conductive fabric (layer 130 has carbon fiber or fabric, col. 3, lines 15-23) and Kirby teaches an edge and the frame (either seal 142 or framing seal 150, Fig. 1 and/or Fig. 2) being superposed with and attached to one another (Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, seal 150 would be attached after assembly).
Likewise, Barton et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with an ion-exchange membrane (membrane 130) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber, col. 6, line 59) where a sealed portion of an edge and a frame are superposed with one another (Fig. 3a, sealant 125 forms a frame that is located over an impregnated portion 150, Fig. 3d, sealant 125 also forms ribs 165 and 190 superposed over the impregnated portion 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame are superposed with and attached (to) one another.
Assuming, arguendo, that James et al. does not disclose fibers having ends (free ends); Lertola discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with fluid impermeable seal (seal 14) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or carbon cloth, para. [0004]) and Lertola shows the fibers at an edge have free ends (Fig. 1 or Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the fibers have free ends.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select fibers with free ends as a known material/fiber type for use in an encapsulated electrode. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, James et al. discloses wherein the sealant and the frame comprise the same material (the fame, shown above for claim 1, comprises sealant 40, Fig. 3a, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, James et al. discloses wherein the conductive fabric is woven (para. [0020]). It is noted that Kirby (col. 3, line 24) also teaches woven, as does Lertola (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, James et al. discloses wherein the conductive fabric is nonwoven (para. [0020]). It is noted that Kirby (col. 3, line 24) also teaches nonwoven, as does Lertola (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, while James et al. does not show the entire perimeter, the sealed portion is presumed to extend around the entire perimeter (“circumscribe”, para. [0013], claim 12) otherwise at least Barton et al. teaches wherein the sealed portion extends around essentially the entire perimeter of the portion of conductive fabric (indicated by seal 110, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the sealed portion extends around essentially the entire perimeter of the portion of conductive fabric.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to extend the sealed portion around the entire perimeter to ensure the entire perimeter is sealed.
Regarding claim 9, James et al. discloses wherein the sealed portion defines a width of from about 2 mm to about 10 mm (such as 5 mm, para. [0040], or 2 mm, para. [0044]).
Further, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the width, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of James et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 10, James et al. discloses wherein the sealant extends beyond the edge of the portion of fibrous fabric (claim 14, Fig. 3a, shown above).
Regarding claim 17, James et al. discloses an electrochemical cell stack (para. [0005]), comprising one or more electrodes according to claim 1 (see comment for claim 1 above). This is also taught by Kirby (col. 3, line 6), Barton et al. (Fig. 1), and Lertola (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 23, James et al. discloses the electrochemical stack being in electrical communication with an electrical load (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 28, James et al. discloses wherein the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame are sealed directly to one another (the sealant is present in the frame/section 40 and in region 45, Fig. 3a).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Buche et al. (US 20130040228).
Regarding claim 3, James et al. discloses the frame (which comprises barrier film 60) may comprise one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, or any combination thereof (para. [0031]) or otherwise Buche et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (Abstract) having a frame (comprising adhesive 4, pars. [0044] and [0070], Fig. 1) comprising polyethylene (para. [0077]) and where an adhesive has a sealant function (pars. [0002], [0016], “to seal the MEA, the adhesive layer of the encapsulation film suitably bonds to the membrane, para. [0039]) and which is the polyethylene (para. [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein at least one of the sealant and the frame comprises one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, or any combination thereof.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material for a frame and/or sealant to facilitate sealing an encapsulated electrode. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra.
Regarding claim 19, James et al. discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes (para. [0005]) or otherwise Buche et al. teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes (para. [0007]) or Barton et al. teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes (col. 2, lines 41-45, col. 6, lines 2-3. col. 8, lines 15-18) or Kirby teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes (col. 1, lines 38-42) and Lertola also teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes (pars. [0004], [0082]-[0083] and [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the plurality of electrodes are maintained in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates flanking the plurality of electrodes.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to maintain electrodes in position by application of a pressure exerted between end plates at least in order to prevent leaks (Barton et al., col. 3, lines 41-42).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Van Boeyen et al. (US 20150030957) and/or Iino et al. (US 20100047650).
Regarding claim 4, James et al. discloses the sealed portion and the frame are integral with one another (as indicated in Fig. 3a and shown above), as does Barton et al. (Abstract, Fig. 3a), but James et al. is silent as to (the optional limitation of) ultrasonic welding. However, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. It is deemed that James et al. discloses the recited structure (via bonding, pars. [0030] and [0037], or hot pressing, para. [0043]).
Otherwise, Lertola further teaches that polymers may be repaired by melting using contact heating, IR heating, or ultrasonic welding (para. [0056]).
Further, Van Boeyan et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) and teaches ultrasonic welding is an alternative to hot-pressing (para. [0121]).
Still further, Iino et al. discloses an electrode assembly (“MEA” is a membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) and teaches using ultrasonic welding (ultrasonic wave, para. [0223], from a horn, para. [0226]) for joining a frame (circumferential part 1 comprising thermoplastic resin, para. [0131]) to a conductive component (conducting flow path part 2, para. [0223]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the sealed portion of the at least one edge and the frame are ultrasonically welded to one another.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known techniques for connecting components of membrane electrode assemblies.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 1 above and as evidenced by Artibise et al. (US 20040191604) and/or as evidenced by Muslov et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Measurement and calculation of mechanical properties of silicone rubber”) and/or Bont et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “A review of liquid silicone rubber injection molding: Process variables and process modeling”).
Regarding claim 8, James et al. is silent as to a tension.
However, James et al. discloses the sealant may be silicone (para. [0021]) and Artibise et al. discloses an electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) where silicone is used and as evidenced by Artibise et al., silicone effects a tension in that it has a tension modulus (para. [0018]).
Further, as evidenced by Muslov et al., the tensile strength of silicone increases with decreasing temperature (page 1526, Table 1) and as evidenced by Bont et al., silicone shrinks after curing (page 338, section 3.8). Thus, the silicone used by James et al. (in the sealed portion) will effect a tension across the conductive fabric by having a tension modulus or a tensile strength which increases as it cools and/or shrinks as it cools/cures to increase tension in the conductive fabric.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550), Buche et al. (US 20130040228), Barton et al. (US 6057054) and Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372).
Regarding claim 11, James et al. discloses an electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, para. [0003]) shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
649
1176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
James et al. discloses the electrode assembly comprises: (a) a first framed (the frame such as comprising sealant material 40 and barrier film 60, shown above) electrode (shown above), the first framed electrode comprising: (1) a first portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or woven or non-woven carbon fabric, as a conventional design, para. [0020], carbon fiber or carbon cloth, para. [0029]), the first portion of conductive fabric defining an edge therearound (such as at the end of sealing region 45, Fig. 3a), a sealed portion of the at least one edge being sealed by a sealant infiltrated into the conductive fabric (sealant impregnates in region 45, para. [0020]), the sealant embedding the ends of fibers located along the edge (carbon fiber or carbon fabric or cloth, the ends being the fiber structure present at the edge), and (2) a first frame (such as comprising sealant material 40 and barrier film 60, shown above) the sealed portion of the at least one edge being sealed to the first frame (Fig. 3a);
(b) a second framed electrode (shown above), the second framed electrode comprising (1) a second portion of conductive fabric (shown above), the second portion of conductive fabric defining an edge therearound (such as at the end of sealing region 45, Fig. 3a), a sealed portion of the at least one edge being sealed by a sealant infiltrated into the conductive fabric (sealant impregnates in region 45, para. [0020]), the sealant embedding the ends of fibers located along the edge (carbon fiber or carbon fabric or cloth, the ends being the fiber structure present at the edge), and (2) a second frame (shown above), the sealed portion of the at least one edge being sealed to the second frame (Fig. 3a); and (c) an ion exchange membrane (ion exchange membrane 20, para. [0024]).
Insomuch as James et al. does not disclose first and second pocket spaces; any of the following disclose pocket spaces:
Prass et al. discloses an electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, para. [0002]), with a frame (frame 6), diffusion layers (layers 8 and 9), which comprise the conductive fabric of James et al. (James et al., para. [0020]), and a membrane (membrane 2) and Prass et al. teaches a first pocket (such as gap 5, Fig, 1) and a second pocket (such as gap 12, Fig. 1) between the diffusion layers and the ion exchange membrane (Fig. 1).
Weber et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having a membrane (membrane 20) and Weber et al. teaches first and second pocket spaces (gaps G) on both sides of the membrane (Fig. 13G).
Wu et al. discloses an electrode assembly (para. [0012], Fig. 9) having a membrane (membrane 276) and Wu et al. discloses first and second pocket spaces (gaps) on opposite sides of the membrane (Fig. 9, pars. [0062]-[0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the first frame and the ion exchange membrane define a first pocket space between the first portion of conductive fabric and the ion exchange membrane, and the second frame and the ion exchange membrane define a second pocket space between the second portion of conductive fabric and the ion exchange membrane.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a pocket space such as to prevent degradation (Prass et al., para. [0008]) or to allow for electrolyte circulation (Wu et al., para. [0063]).
Insomuch as the claim requires edges therearound which are sealed all the way therearound; the sealed edges of James et al. are presumed to extend around the portion of conductive fabric, (“circumscribe”, para. [0013], claim 12); otherwise, Barton et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with an ion-exchange membrane (membrane 130) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber, col. 6, line 59) and Barton et al. teaches wherein the sealed edge extends around the portion of conductive fabric (indicated by seal 110, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. to include
sealed edges extending around the portions of conductive fabric.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to extend the sealed portion around the entire perimeter to ensure the entire perimeter is sealed.
Insomuch as the first frame and the second frame of James et al. are not separate frames or are not initially separate frames; Kirby discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract, with ion-exchange membrane 120, with a frame/external seal 142, Fig. 2) which comprises separate frames (seal 142 has separate top and bottom components, Fig. 2) for separate framed electrodes (at layers 130, Fig. 2). Likewise, Buche et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (Abstract) having a frame (comprising adhesive 4, pars. [0044] and [0070], Fig. 1) where the frame initially comprises a first frame (upper frame 4, Fig. 1i) and a second frame (bottom frame 4, Fig. 1i).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the first and second frame comprise separate frames.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one frame configuration (integral frames) for another frame configuration (top and bottom frames) to achieve the predictable result of providing a sealed frame for a membrane electrode assembly.
Assuming, arguendo, that James et al. does not disclose fibers having ends (free ends); Lertola discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with fluid impermeable seal (seal 14) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or carbon cloth, para. [0004]) and Lertola shows the fibers at an edge have free ends (Fig. 1 or Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the fibers have free ends.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select fibers with free ends as a known material/fiber type for use in an encapsulated electrode. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 11 disclose wherein (a) the first frame is sealed to the ion exchange membrane using a sealant so as to form the first pocket space and (b) the second frame is sealed to the ion exchange membrane using a sealant so as to form the second pocket space in that the electrode would be formed the same way as disclosed in James et al. except that the pocket could be formed by removing catalyst (James et al., electrocatalyst 50, in view of Prass et al., catalyst 3 and 4, Fig. 1) or resizing the electrode (such as to be thinner, in view of Weber et al. or Wu et al.).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 11 disclose wherein (a) the first frame is sealed to the ion exchange membrane by applied pressure (James et al., bonding at 325 psi, para. [0037] or hot press, para. [0043]) so as to form the first pocket space and (b) the second frame is sealed to the ion exchange membrane by applied pressure (James et al., bonding at 325 psi, para. [0037] or hot press, para. [0043]) so as to form the second pocket space in that the electrode would be formed the same way as disclosed in James et al. except that the pocket could be formed by removing catalyst (James et al., electrocatalyst 50, in view of Prass et al., catalyst 3 and 4, Fig. 1) or resizing the electrode (such as to be thinner, in view of Weber et al. or Wu et al.).
Regarding claim 16, James et al. discloses wherein the sealant extends beyond the edge of the first portion of conductive fabric (claim 14, Fig. 3a, shown above).
Regarding claim 18, James et al. discloses an electrochemical cell stack (para. [0005]), comprising one or more electrodes according to claim 11 (see comment for claim 11 above). This is also taught by Kirby (col. 3, line 6), Barton et al. (Fig. 1), and Lertola (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 21, James et al. discloses an electrochemical cell stack (para. [0005]), comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies according to claim 11 (see comment for claim 11 above). This is also taught by Kirby (col. 3, line 6), Barton et al. (Fig. 1), and Lertola (para. [0004]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550), Buche et al. (US 20130040228), Barton et al. (US 6057054) and Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Sasaki et al. (US 20090136802).
Regarding claim 12, insomuch as the above-cited references for claim 11 do not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first pocket space and the second pocket space defines a depth of from about 0 mm to about 1 mm; James et al. lists various layers as micrometer scale (para. [0040], [0043]) and thus the pockets would reasonably be from about 0 mm to about 1 mm. Further, Sasaki et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having a membrane (membrane 5) where a pocket (gap) is used which is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (para. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. by using a pocket space depth of between 0 mm and 1 mm.
The person of ordinary skill would have at least found it obvious to size the pocket similar to the dimensions of other layers to prevent degradation (Prass et al., para. [0008]) or to allow for adequate space for electrolyte circulation (Wu et al., para. [0063]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the pocket depth is not disclosed in the above-cited references, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the pocket depth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of James et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550), Buche et al. (US 20130040228), Barton et al. (US 6057054) and Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Bauer et al. (US 20160181630).
Regarding claim 15, James et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the first frame defines a thickness in the range of from about 80 micrometers to about 1000 micrometers, but James et al. lists various layers as micrometer scale (pars. [0040] and [0043]) and thus the first frame would be expected to have a thickness of from about 80 micrometers to about 1000 micrometers or otherwise Bauer et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) wherein the frame (frame 12, Fig. 2) has a thickness of 540 μm (para. [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the first frame defines a thickness in the range of from about 80 micrometers to about 1000 micrometers.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to scale the frame and electrode to known dimensions. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Assuming, arguendo, that the frame thickness is not disclosed in the above-cited references, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the frame thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of James et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 17 above and in further view of Kritzer et al. (US 10283787) or Broadway et al. (US 6503856) or Buche et al. (US 20130040228).
Regarding claim 20, James et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the fibrous fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material. However, “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of James et al. would be fully capable of being wetted by an active material (such as a fuel, electrolyte, or other liquid material).
Further, Kritzer et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having similar structure as the assembly disclosed by James et al. in that it has an ion exchange membrane (membrane 4) and electrodes comprising fabric (felt, col. 2, lines 8-11) and Kritzer et al. teaches the fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material (electrode/electrolyte solution, col. 2, lines 29-30) or Broadway et al. discloses electrode fabric material (carbon fiber sheet, Abstract, col. 1, line 12) which is wetted by an active material (col. 16, lines 34-35) or Buche et al. further teaches an active material (methanol, para. [0003]) which would wet the electrode fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the fibrous fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material such as an electrolyte or a fuel.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the electrode assembly with a liquid electrolyte or with a liquid fuel.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550), Buche et al. (US 20130040228), Barton et al. (US 6057054) and Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Kritzer et al. (US 10283787) or Broadway et al. (US 6503856).
Regarding claim 22, James et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material. However, “it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of James et al. would be fully capable of being wetted by an active material (such as a fuel, electrolyte, or other liquid material).
Further, Kritzer et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having similar structure as the assembly disclosed by James et al. in that it has an ion exchange membrane (membrane 4) and electrodes comprising fabric (felt, col. 2, lines 8-11) and Kritzer et al. teaches the fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material (electrode/electrolyte solution, col. 2, lines 29-30) or Broadway et al. discloses electrode fabric material (carbon fiber sheet, Abstract, col. 1, line 12) which is wetted by an active material (col. 16, lines 34-35) or Buche et al. further teaches an active material (methanol, para. [0003]) which would wet the electrode fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the conductive fabric of the electrodes is wetted by an active material such as an electrolyte or a fuel.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the electrode assembly with a liquid electrolyte or with a liquid fuel.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372).
Regarding claim 24, James et al. discloses a method of forming an electrode assembly (Fig. 3a, shown above for claim 1), comprising: sealing an edge (region 45, para. [0020]), of a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or woven or non-woven carbon fabric, as a conventional design, para. [0020], carbon fiber or carbon cloth, para. [0029]) so as to give rise to an edge-sealed conductor (Fig. 3a), the conductive fabric comprising fibers having ends (carbon fiber or carbon fabric or cloth, the ends being the fiber structure present at the edge), the sealing comprising effecting infiltration (impregnation, para. [0020], claim 1) of a sealant (sealant 40) into the conductive fabric so as to give rise to a sealed edge (Fig. 3a); the sealant embedding the ends of fibers located along the at least one edge (edge in region 45 shown above for claim 1) and the sealant optionally effecting a tension across the conductive fabric (the sealant will increase tension in some way such as by shrinking and pulling on the fabric/fibers during cooling after a hot press, para. [0043]).
The sealed edge of James et al. is presumed to extend around the portion of conductive fabric, (“circumscribe”, para. [0013], claim 12); otherwise, Barton et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with an ion-exchange membrane (membrane 130) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber, col. 6, line 59) and Barton et al. teaches wherein the sealed edge extends around the portion of conductive fabric (indicated by seal 110, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. to include
a sealed edge extending around the portion of conductive fabric.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to extend the sealed portion around the entire perimeter to ensure the entire perimeter is sealed.
Assuming, arguendo, that James et al. does not disclose fibers having ends (free ends); Lertola discloses an encapsulated electrode (membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) with fluid impermeable seal (seal 14) and a portion of conductive fabric (carbon fiber paper or carbon cloth, para. [0004]) and Lertola shows the fibers at an edge have free ends (Fig. 1 or Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the fibers have free ends.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select fibers with free ends as a known material/fiber type for use in an encapsulated electrode. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 24 above and in further view of Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243).
Regarding claim 25, insomuch as the above-cited references for claim 24 do not disclose the method further comprises affixing the edge-sealed conductor to a framed ion exchange membrane, the affixing defining a pocket space between the portion of conductive fabric and the ion exchange membrane, any of the following disclose pocket spaces:
Prass et al. discloses an electrode assembly (membrane electrode assembly, para. [0002]), with a frame (frame 6), diffusion layers (layers 8 and 9), which comprise the conductive fabric of James et al. (James et al., para. [0020]), and a membrane (membrane 2) and Prass et al. teaches a first pocket (such as gap 5, Fig, 1) and a second pocket (such as gap 12, Fig. 1) between the diffusion layers and the ion exchange membrane (Fig. 1).
Weber et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having a membrane (membrane 20) and Weber et al. teaches first and second pocket spaces (gaps G) on both sides of the membrane (Fig. 13G).
Wu et al. discloses an electrode assembly (para. [0012], Fig. 9) having a membrane (membrane 276) and Wu et al. discloses first and second pocket spaces (gaps) on opposite sides of the membrane (Fig. 9, pars. [0062]-[0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the electrode assembly includes a pocket space and the method further comprises affixing the edge-sealed conductor to a framed ion exchange membrane, the affixing defining a pocket space between the portion of conductive fabric and the ion exchange membrane.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a pocket space such as to prevent degradation (Prass et al., para. [0008]) or to allow for electrolyte circulation (Wu et al., para. [0063]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 24 above and in further view of Prass et al. (US 20210280885) or Weber et al. (US 20190097241) or Wu et al. (US 20050173243) as applied to claim 25 above and in further view of Van Boeyen et al. (US 20150030957) and/or Iino et al. (US 20100047650).
Regarding claim 26, James et al. is silent as to ultrasonic welding.
However, Lertola further teaches that polymers may be repaired by melting using contact heating, IR heating, or ultrasonic welding (para. [0056]).
Further, Van Boeyan et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) and teaches ultrasonic welding is an alternative to hot-pressing (para. [0121]).
Still further, Iino et al. discloses an electrode assembly (“MEA” is a membrane electrode assembly, Abstract) and teaches using ultrasonic welding (ultrasonic wave, para. [0223], from a horn, para. [0226]) for joining a frame (circumferential part 1 comprising thermoplastic resin, para. [0131]) to a conductive component (conducting flow path part 2, para. [0223]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the affixing comprises ultrasonic welding.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known techniques for connecting components of membrane electrode assemblies.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (Applicant provided EP 1526593A1) in view of Kirby (US 6716550) or Barton et al. (US 6057054) and with or without Lertola (US 2005255372) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Buche et al. (US 20130040228) or Kuroki et al. (US 20040137303) or Riede (US 20220181650).
Regarding claim 27, James et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the sealed portion and the frame are sealed to one another with an adhesive.
However, Buche et al. discloses an encapsulated electrode assembly (Abstract) having a frame (comprising adhesive 4, pars. [0044] and [0070], Fig. 1) and Buche et al. teaches the sealed portion is also an adhesive (adhesive layer 4, Fig. 1) or Kuroki et al. discloses an electrode assembly (membrane electrode complex, Abstract) and Kuroki et al. teaches using an adhesive to seal an electrode (impregnation portion of UEA 7) with a gasket (pars. [0066] and [0114]) or Riede discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) and teaches using an adhesive to attach a frame to an electrode assembly (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of James et al. wherein the sealed portion and the frame are sealed to one another with an adhesive either by using an adhesive to connect two other materials (Kuroki et al. or Riede) or wherein the adhesive is the sealant material (Buche et al.).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a known material (adhesive) as the sealant as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to attach components of electrode assemblies using known techniques (an adhesive to attach the components).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
