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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-11 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101148674B1 - see machine translation attached), Fujiki (U.S PG Pub 20070154628A1), and Mochizuki (U.S PG Pub 20190344405A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 7, Kim is drawn to the art of an apparatus and method for manufacturing a fuel cell [0001-0002]. Kim discloses a lamination jig featuring an upper (101) and lower lamination jig (111) (Figure 9), wherein the upper and lower lamination jigs are movable towards each other (see figure 9 – arrows up and down suggesting movement in both directions & [0108]), and further wherein the upper and lower jigs are used to laminate an intermediate layer (layer MEA) with a gas diffusion layer (GDL) on both sides thereof (Figure 9; [0069-0072]). Kim discloses wherein the upper and lower jigs are pressed together (i.e. in a lamination state wherein the upper and/or lower jig are moved such that the jigs are brought together to press and laminate the GDL layers to the MEA layer) [0072]; [0108]. Kim also discloses the upper jig including a vacuum gripper (i.e. adsorbing suction unit (104) which uses suction through holes (106) to adsorb and fix the upper GDL (30a) onto the upper jig wherein the GDL is attached to the lower surface of the upper jig through suction through holes (i.e. via vacuum gripping) [0073-0076].
Kim has not explicitly disclosed an adhesive being applied to a surface of the intermediate layer or the surface of the gas diffusion layers, however, this limitation is known in the art from Fujiki, as disclosed below.
Fujiki, drawn also to the art of manufacturing a fuel cell (Abstract), discloses laminating an intermediate layer (9 – membrane electrode assembly as in Kim) with gas diffusion layers (6A) & (6B) on either side (Abstract), wherein an adhesive is applied to the GDL layers (6A & 6B) facing the MEA (9) [0041-0042], and the assembly is laminated via thermal adhesion [0044], by the action of an upper and lower jig pressing the assembly (jigs 113, 123) [0045-0047].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the lamination jig and method as disclosed by Kim, with the application of an adhesive to the GDL layers, as disclosed by Fujiki, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to securely the MEA to the GDL layers via thermal adhesion [0047].
Kim has not explicitly disclosed a recess in the lower jig and using vacuum gripping to grip the GDL in the recess and also has not disclosed the positioning pins to position a member. However, these above limitations are known from Mochizuki.
Mochizuki, drawn also to the art of a bonding jig for boding GDL layer or a fuel cell component (Abstract), discloses a bonding jig with a recess (13) that is used to position the GDL (Figures 1a-2b; [0026-0028]), and wherein a suction device is used to grip the GDL in the recess (i.e. a vacuum gripping action) [0022-0024 & 0032-0033]). Mochizuki also discloses pins (22) which can position a layer on the bonding jig [0030].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Kim, with the bonding jig with a recess and suction device, as disclosed by Mochizuki, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to reduce a process time [0012].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Kim, with the positioning pins of Mochizuki, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to reduce a process time [0012].
Regarding claims 2 & 8 (the limitations of claim 8 are exactly the same as claim2, but drawn to a method claim), Kim discloses the upper jig being vertically displaceably mounted on the lower jig via a guide shaft (113) that extends in the vertical direction (see 113 in Figure 9) and the guide shaft extending through a guide hole (the shaft would have to be contained in a hole or surface which has a shaped hole to accommodate the guide shaft).
Regarding claim 6 & 9-11 (these limitations are exactly the same with claims 9-11 being drawn to method claims instead), Kim discloses the MEA layer being larger than the GDLs (figure 9), and discloses the jig including a template (12) to attach an area of the upper surface of the MEA that does not face the GDL (Figure 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim does not contemplate the problem considered by the instant application in applying an adhesive.
The examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Kim does not contemplate the problem being solved in the instant application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that because Kim does not contemplate the use of adhesive that Kim cannot be combined with Fujiki and Mochizuki, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that the recess of Mochizuki attached the GDL to the lower jig and not the lower surface of the upper jig and thus the combination of Kim and Mochizuki does not disclose the limitation of the GDL being suction attached to the lower surface of the upper jig.
The examiner disagrees. Kim has already disclosed attaching the GDL to the lower surface of the upper jig via suction. Mochizuki is merely brought in to teach that the lower jig can have a recess as claimed which engages with the upper jig. Mochizuki is not being used to teach the attaching of the GDL to the lower surface of the upper jig, as this is already taught by the primary reference of Kim. Further, regarding the specific sequence of steps in claim 7, it is noted that the specific order of steps would merely involve a rearrangement of methods steps or parts, and this is held to be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (C)).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fujiki and Mochizuki both provide motivation to modify the . Fujiki discloses the use of adhesive to obtain a secure attachment of the layers via thermal adhesion, and Mochizuki discloses the recess and pins to aid in reducing process time.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights