DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/11/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-12, in the reply filed on 5/22/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0331212), hereinafter KIM.
Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches: A fuel cell bonding method for bonding a first film to a second film in a manufacturing stage for a fuel cell provided with an intermediate layer that includes the first film and the second film (KIM teaches a fuel cell bonding method [Abstract; Fig. 15].), the fuel cell bonding method comprising: preparing a jig that is provided with an upper jig configured to allow the first film to be arranged on a lower surface of the upper jig (KIM teaches a bonding device (100) comprising an upper jig (20) that is configured to allow the first film (5) to be arranged on a lower surface of the upper jig [Figs. 11-13; 0081; 0087; 0124].), and a lower jig configured to allow the second film to be arranged on an upper surface of the lower jig (KIM teaches a lower jig (10) configured to allow the second film (7) to be arranged on an upper surface of the lower jig (10) [Fig. 14; 0081; 0087; 0125].); setting the jig to a first state that corresponds to a state in which the first film is arranged on the lower surface of the upper jig, the second film is arranged on the upper surface of the lower jig, and an adhesive is applied to at least one of a lower surface of the first film or an upper surface of the second film (KIM teaches setting the device (100) to a state in which the first film (5) is arranged on the lower surface of the upper jig (20), the second film (7) is arranged on the upper surface of the lower jig (10) and an adhesive layer (9) is applied to the upper surface of the second film (7) [Fig. 14; 0124-0125].); setting the jig to a second state in which the first film and the second film face each other across an interval in a vertical direction, by attaching the upper jig onto the lower jig while the jig is in the first state (KIM teaches setting the bonding device (100) to a second state in which the first film (5) and the second film (7) face each other across an interval in a vertical direction [Figs. 16-17; 0130-0131; 0145].); and from the second state, causing the first film to bond to the second film by pressing the first film onto the second film (KIM teaches in the second state the first film (5) is bonded to the second film by compression of the first film onto the second film [0148; 0150].).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0331212), hereinafter KIM, in view of Kang (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0080695), hereinafter KANG.
Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including wherein the jig is provided with a presser (KIM teaches the bonding device (100) is provided with a presser (30) [Figs. 13-17; 0092].), . . . , and a first prescribed portion that corresponds to a prescribed portion of the first film is bonded by the adhesive to a second prescribed portion that corresponds to a prescribed portion of the second film by, from the second state (KIM teaches a first prescribed portion of the first film (5) is bonded by the adhesive (9) to a second prescribed portion that corresponds to a prescribed portion of the second film (7) by, from the second state [Figs. 17-19; 0144-0145].), . . . and pressing the first prescribed portion onto the second prescribed portion (KIM teaches pressing the first prescribed portion onto the second prescribed portion [Figs. 17-19; 0143-0145].), but is silent as to: a jig window through which the presser can be inserted is formed in the upper jig and inserting the presser into the jig window. In the same field of endeavor, laminating, KANG teaches a heating bar (200) that may have a close loop shape disposed along the edge area (120) [Fig. 2; 0050]. KANG teaches a presser (300) and the heating bar and presser are used concurrently [0056-0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KIM by having a jig window along the edge area and presser for the second portion, as suggested by KANG, in order to seal the layers together and laminating process may be improved [0058]. Furthermore, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0331212), hereinafter KIM, and Kang (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0080695), hereinafter KANG, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kanai et al. (U.S. 10,090,538), hereinafter KANAI.
Regarding claim 12, KIM and KANG teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein a portion of the first film that is not the first prescribed portion is bonded by the adhesive to a portion of the second film that is not the second prescribed portion by removing a joined body of the first film and the second film from the jig, and then pressing the joined body by a roller. In the same field of endeavor, lamination, KANAI teaches removing the laminated body from the heating press unit (500) and it goes through a roller (260) [Fig. 4; Col. 9, lines 14-20; Col. 9, lines 44-46]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KIM and KANG, by removing the laminated body and put it through rollers, as suggested by KANAI, in order to continuously convey the laminated body through the process [Col. 9, lines 34-41]. Furthermore, it’s a known method in the art have the laminated body go through rollers. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights