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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 04/017/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 9-10 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 3 has been canceled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C.112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 01/06/2025.
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 1-2 and 4-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “face the fuel cell stack across the filter” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “across the filter.” For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “face the fuel cell stack and filter.”
Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (CA 3110061 A1) in view of Mizusaki et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0260059).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a fuel cell system (see 100, FIG. 10; page 18, line 17 0) comprising: a fuel cell stack (see 400, FIG. 7; page 19, line 1) in which a plurality of power generating cells (see 410, FIG. 9; page 25, line 13) are stacked; a stack case (see 200, FIG. 6; page 19, line 1) that houses the fuel cell stack (400) and is mounted in a vehicle (it is the examiner’s position that this a functional limitation and the fuel cell stack is capable of being mounted in a vehicle); a ventilation device (see left instance of 230/740, FIG. 6; page 24, line 10) that is provided for the stack case (200) and configured to take outside air (see page 24, lines 12) into the stack case (200); wherein the stack case (200) includes: a front wall portion (bottom side portion of 200 where 230 is located, see Fig. 7; thefreedictionary.com defines “front” as “any side or face” and it is the examiner’s position “front” is a relative location) disposed in a front of the vehicle (the bottom side portion of 200 where 230 is located is capable of being disposed in a front of a vehicle); and a front opening (hollow space of 200 where the left instance of 230/740 is located, see Figs. 7 and 19a-19b) formed in the front wall portion (see Fig. 7), wherein the ventilation device includes: and a flow guide portion (see left instance of 230/740, FIG. 6; page 42, lines 7-8) that is provided in the front opening (see Figs. 7 and 19a-19b where the left instance of 230/740 is provided in the hollow space of 200) and has a plurality of slit-shaped air introduction passages (see FIG. 19b, passages defined by right instance of 740; page 44, lines 11-12) that are inclined upward (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating an upward inclination of the air introduction passages) from an outer side (see annotated version of FIG. 19b, illustrating an outer portion of the stack case) of the stack case (200) toward an inner side (see annotated version of FIG. 19b, illustrating an inner portion of the stack case) of the stack case (200) and are arranged in parallel with each other (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating the plurality of air introduction passages arranged in parallel relative to one another), wherein an upper end of an inlet of each of the plurality of slit-shaped air introduction passages (passages defined by right instance of 740) is located below a lower end of an outlet of each of the air introduction passages (passages defined by right instance of 740) (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating an upper end of an inlet of an air introduction passage positioned below a lower end of an outlet of an air introduction passage); and the flow guide portion is disposed so as to face the fuel cell stack (400.)
PNG
media_image1.png
438
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Version of FIG. 19b
Baek does not teach a filter arranged on an inner side of the flow guide portion. However, Mizusaki et al. teaches a ventilation device (120, Fig. 4) and a filter (124, Fig. 4) arranged on the inside of the ventilation device (120; see [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Baek by adding the filter taught by Mizusaki et al. to the left instance of 230/740 taught by Baek for preventing entry of foreign matters other than air into the stack case through the ventilation air inlet hole (see [0013]). Further, Baek in view of Mizuaki et al. teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Baek, page 91, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 2, Baek in view of Mizusaki et al teaches: the flow guide portion (right instance of 230/740) including the plurality of slit-shaped air introduction passages (passages as defined by right instance of 740) having a same width (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating an examiner-defined same width) in a horizontal direction (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating an examiner-defined horizontal direction) and being formed in a rectangular shape (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below, illustrating an examiner-defined same width having a rectangular shape) when viewed from front (It is the Examiner’s position that “front” is a relative term; Merriam-Webster defines “front” as “the forward part or surface,” so the instances of the aforementioned have been interpreted as “forward part”).
Annotated Version of FIG. 19b
PNG
media_image2.png
398
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Baek in view of Mizusaki teaches the ventilation device (left instance of 230/740) including a first flow guide portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) provided on a lower portion of a front surface (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) of the stack case (200) and a second flow guide portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) provided on an upper portion of the front surface (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) of the stack case (200).
Regarding claim 7, Baek in view of Mizusaki et al. teaches: the ventilation device (left instance of 230/740) including a frame portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below) that contacts and is fixed to a surface (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below) of the stack case (200); and a concave portion (see annotated version of FIG. an16 below) that is concave further inward than a surface of the frame portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19b below), and the flow guide portion (right instance of 230/740) is provided in the concave portion (see annotated version of FIG. 16 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
337
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Version of FIG. 19b
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 16
PNG
media_image4.png
489
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Baek in view of Mizusaki et al. teaches: air introduction passages (passages as defined by right instance of 740) that are convex (Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines convex as: curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle) upward (see annotated version of FIG. 19b corresponding to claim 1, illustrating the outward curvature of the air introduction passages in an upward direction).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (CA 3110061 A1) in view of Mizusaki et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0260059) in view of Ito (US 20220173425 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Baek in view of Mizusaki teaches the ventilation device (left instance of 230/740) is disposed so as to face a side portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) of the plurality of power generating cells (410).
Baek in view of Mizusaki does not teach a stacking direction of the plurality of power generating cells (410). Ito teaches a plurality of power generating cells (see 23, FIG. 3) having a stacking direction (see X direction, FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baek in view of Mizusaki by stacking the plurality of power generating cells in a horizontal stacking direction (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) as taught by Ito because Ito teaches that it is known in the art for a plurality of power generating cells to have a stacking direction (see FIG. 3; ¶ [0028]) and it has been held that the rearranging of parts involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Baek in view of Mizusaki teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Baek, page 91, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 6, Baek in view of Mizusaki teaches wherein the second flow guide portion (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) being formed in a range extending over an entire area (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below).
Baek does not teach a stacking direction of the fuel cell stack (400). Ito teaches a fuel cell stack (see 20, FIG. 3) comprising a plurality of power generating cells (see 23, FIG. 3) having a stacking direction (see X direction, FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baek in view of Mizusaki by stacking the plurality of power generating cells (410) of the fuel cell stack in a horizontal stacking direction (see annotated version of FIG. 19a below) as taught by Ito because Ito teaches that it is known in the art for a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of power generating cells to have a stacking direction (see FIG. 3; ¶ [0028]) and it has been held that the rearranging of parts involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Baek in view of Mizusaki teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Baek, page 91, lines 4-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Baek applicant argues that Baek does not teach “"the stack case includes: a front wall portion disposed in a front of the vehicle; and a front opening formed in the front wall portion" and that "the ventilation device includes: a flow guide portion that is provided in the front opening and has a plurality of slit-shaped air introduction passages that are inclined upward from an outer side of the stack case toward an inner side of the stack case and are arranged in parallel with each other; and a filter arranged on an inner side of the flow guide portion," and at most Baek teaches can facilitate discharge of hydrogen gas; but Baek does not utilize running wind to facilitate discharge of hydrogen gas and a person skilled in the art would not arrive at the present invention based on the disclosure of Baek.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the Examiner’s position that Baek teaches the aforementioned claim features of claim 1 absent the filter (see rejection above). It should be noted that the “vehicle” is not positively recited and is therefore, not considered to be a structural feature of the fuel cell system. In addition, it is the Examiner’s position that there is not a claimed limitation regarding the fuel cell system “utilizing wind to facilitate discharge of hydrogen gas” as applicant argues; hence, that argument is moot. Therefore, in light of the amendments which change the scope of the claim a new rejection is made (see rejection above).
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 TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7078. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights