DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 30, 2025. Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 15 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 4 and 14 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 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 11 recites the limitation “the two or more discrete insulating gaskets of the one or more separators for the dummy cell" and “the one or more separators for the dummy cell" on lines 15-16.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0162164, hereinafter Jin in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0110649, hereinafter Nishiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a separator (20) for a fuel cell (abstract, paragraphs [0038, 0039] and figures 1 and 2).
The separator (20) includes two discrete insulating gaskets (70) each protruding outward from an edge of the separator (20) so as to extend beyond the edge of the separator (paragraphs [0046, 0053, 0054] and figure 1).
The two discrete insulating gaskets (70) protrude to be perpendicular to side surfaces in a thickness direction of the separator (20). The two insulating gaskets (70) are exposed (paragraphs [0054, 0058] and figure 1).
The insulating gaskets (70) are integral with air-tight gaskets (73) (paragraphs [0053, 0054]). Air-tight gaskets (73) are inserted into and fixed to the separator (20) (figure 1).
The separator (20) includes first reaction gas passages (“internal flow field”) and second reaction gas passages (“internal flow field”) (paragraphs [0042-0044]). In the installed state, the air-tight gaskets (73) surround the periphery of the first reaction gas passages (“internal flow field”) and the second reaction gas passages (“internal flow field”) (figure 1) and are thus configured to seal them.
Jin fails to teach an inlet manifold and an outlet manifold.
It is well-known in the art that fuel cell stacks require inlet and outlet manifolds for the entry and exit of reactive gases. Such manifolds are typically formed as openings that penetrate the fuel cell separators in the thickness directions – see, e.g. Nishiyama (paragraphs [0039, 0040] and figures 1-5). In Nishiyama’s assembly, each separator includes an outer seal (66b), which extends around the perimeter of the separator and serves to seal the periphery of both the flow field (58/68a/68b) of the separator and inlet manifolds (50a/54a) and outlet manifolds (50b/54b) (paragraphs [0042, 0046] and figure 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inlet manifold and an outlet manifold in Jin’s separator (20) for the purpose of being able to supply and discharge reactive gas to the fuel cell stack.
Jin’s air-tight gaskets (73) are equivalent to Nishiyama’s outer seal (66b) – as such it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the air-tight gaskets (73) to seal the outer periphery of the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold in the combination of Jin and Nishiyama for the purpose of ensuring air-tightness of the reactive gas supply and discharge passages.
Regarding claim 2, Jin teaches that the separator (20) has multiple outer sides, e.g. outer surfaces of metal plates (21 and 31). There is an insulating gasket (70) disposed on each outer surface of metal plates (21 and 31) (figure 1).
The separator (20) is capable of being placed in an enclosure such that the outer surfaces of metal plates (21 and 31) face the enclosure.
Regarding claim 3, Jin teaches that the insulating gaskets (70) are disposed at specified positions on the separator (20) (paragraph [0053] and figure 1).
The separator (20) is capable of being positioned with respect to some enclosures, such that the specified positions of the gaskets (70) correspond to a position at which an insulating bar is disposed between the enclosures.
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches a separator (20) including two distinct insulating gaskets (70) (figure 1).
Jin fails to teach a further gasket disposed on an outer surface of the separator.
It is well-known in the art that fuel cell separators include various flow patterns that require the introduction of separate sealing elements. See, e.g. Nishiyama who teaches an inner seal (66a), which assists in sealing off supply holes (59a) (paragraph [0046].
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an additional gasket on an outer surface of Jin’s separator for the purpose of defining and sealing a specific supply pathway for the reactive gas.
Any additional gasket may be used as an “identification gasket”.
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches that the separator (20) is used in a power generation cell (paragraph [0039]).
An additional gasket (“identification gasket”) formed to define and seal a reactive gas pathway, such as Nishiyama’s inner seal (66a) has a first shape.
An identification gasket of a separator for a dummy cell is capable of being formed such that it has a shape different from the first shape.
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches that the separator (20) is used in a power generation cell (paragraph [0039]).
An additional gasket (“identification gasket”) formed to define and seal a reactive gas pathway, such as Nishiyama’s inner seal (66a) has a first length.
An identification gasket of a separator for a dummy cell is capable of being formed such that it has a length different from the first length.
Regarding claim 8, Jin teaches separator (20). Separator (20) is capable of being used in a dummy cell.
An additional gasket (“identification gasket”) formed to define and seal a reactive gas pathway, such as Nishiyama’s inner seal (66a) has a second shape.
An identification gasket of a separator for a reactive cell is capable of being formed such that it has a shape different from the second shape.
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches separator (20). Separator (20) is capable of being used in a dummy cell.
An additional gasket (“identification gasket”) formed to define and seal a reactive gas pathway, such as Nishiyama’s inner seal (66a) has a second length.
An identification gasket of a separator for a reactive cell is capable of being formed such that it has a length different from the second length.
Regarding claim 10, Jin teaches that the insulating gaskets (70) have a protruded height that is equal to a height by which the air-tight gaskets (73) protrude from the separator (20) (figure 1).
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication No. 2015-0067575, hereinafter Kim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0214619, hereinafter Fujiwara, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0110649, hereinafter Nishiyama.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a fuel cell stack (100). The fuel cell stack (100) comprises a plurality of fuel cells (20, “reactive cells”) (paragraph [0041] and figure 1).
Each fuel cell (20, “reactive cell”) includes a separator (23). Separator (23) includes two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) each protruding outward from an edge of the separator (23) so as to extend beyond the edge of the separator (paragraphs [0061-0063] and figures 1, 3b and 6).
In protruding to extend beyond the edge of the separator, the gaskets (51 and 71) protrude in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the separator (23) is stacked within the fuel cell stack (100).
The two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) also protrude to be perpendicular to side surfaces in a thickness direction of the separator (23) (figures 1 and 6).
The two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) are exposed outward of the separator (23) and in the stacked state cover side surfaces of multiple separators (23) of a fuel cell (20, “reactive cell”) (figure 1).
Kim teaches that the two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) are integrally formed with air-tight unit gaskets (31) inserted into and fixed in place in the separators (23) (paragraphs [0046-0048] and figure 1).
Kim’s figures 3 and 6 show manifold openings in the separator (23).
Kim fails to teach: 1) an enclosure, 2) one or more dummy cells and 3) explicitly teach that the air-tight unit gaskets (31) are configured to seal the manifold openings and an internal flow field of the separator (23).
Regarding 1), the placement of a fuel cell stack within an enclosure is ubiquitous in the art. See, e.g. Fujiwara who teaches a fuel cell stack (10) held within a casing (24) (paragraph [0027] and figures 1, 2 and 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place Kim’s fuel cell stack (100) within a casing for the purpose of protecting it from the environment.
Regarding 2), the inclusion of dummy cells in fuel cell stacks is well-known in the art. See, e.g. Nishiyama who teaches including dummy cells (16a, 16b, 16c, 16d) at both ends of a fuel cell stack for the purpose of mitigating temperature differences at the ends of a stack formed of only power generation cells (paragraphs [0017, 0030] and figures 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include dummy cells at both ends of Kim’s fuel cell stack for the purpose of mitigating temperature differences in the stack and thereby ensuring consistent performance across the stack.
Regarding 3), it is well-known in the art that fuel cell stacks require inlet manifolds for the entry of reactive gases, outlet manifolds for the exit of reactive gases and flow fields for the flow of reactive gases – see, e.g. Nishiyama (paragraphs [0039, 0040] and figures 1-5). In Nishiyama’s assembly, each separator includes an outer seal (66b), which extends around the perimeter of the separator and serves to seal the periphery of both the flow field (58/68a/68b) of the separator and inlet manifolds (50a/54a) and outlet manifolds (50b/54b) (paragraphs [0042, 0046] and figure 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inlet manifold, an outlet manifold and a flow field in Kim’s separator (20) for the purpose of being able to supply and discharge reactive gas to the fuel cell stack.
Kim’s air-tight unit gaskets (31) are equivalent to Nishiyama’s outer seal (66b) – as such it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the air-tight gaskets (73) to seal the outer periphery of the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold and the flow field in the combination of Kim and Nishiyama for the purpose of ensuring air-tightness of the reactive gas supply and discharge passages.
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) on multiple separators for dummy cells. The two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) are exposedly disposed on an outer surface of the separators for dummy cells.
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches that the two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) of the separators (23) for the fuel cell (20, “reactive cell”) and the separators of the dummy cells are disposed at predetermined positions.
Fujiwara teaches placing a resin sheet (80a-80d, “insulating bar”) to cover each side of the stack (10). The resin sheet (80a-80d, “insulating bar”) is positioned between the stack (10) and the casing (24) (paragraph [0046] and figures 1 and 2).
Thus, in the combination of Kim, Nishiyama and Fujiwara, the two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71) of the separators (23) for the fuel cell (20, “reactive cell”) and the separators for the dummy cells are disposed to correspond to a position at which the resin sheet (80a-80d, “insulating bar”) inside the casing is fixed.
Alternatively, it is noted that the claim does not require an insulating bar in the enclosure of the fuel cell stack. Thus, some enclosure is capable of being provided with an insulating bar inserted at some position corresponding to the positions of the two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a separator (23) for a reactive cell including two discrete insulating gaskets (51 and 71).
Kim fails to teach a further gasket disposed on an outer surface of the separator.
It is well-known in the art that fuel cell separators include various flow patterns that require the introduction of separate sealing elements. See, e.g. Nishiyama who teaches an inner seal (66a), which assists in sealing off supply holes (59a) (paragraph [0046].
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an additional gasket on an outer surface of Kim’s separator for the purpose of defining and sealing a specific supply pathway for the reactive gas.
Any additional gasket may be used as an “identification gasket”.
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches a separator for a dummy cell. Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches that the separator for a dummy cell includes a seal (92a, “gasket”) (Nishiyama’s paragraph [0051] and figure 4).
Seal (92a, “gasket”) is capable of being used as an “identification gasket”.
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches an inner seal (66a, “first identification gasket”) exposedly disposed on an outer surface of the separator for the reactive cell (Nishiyama’s paragraph [0046] and figure 4).
Kim as modified by Nishiyama teaches a seal (92a, “second identification gasket”) exposedly disposed on an outer surface of the separator for the dummy cell (Nishiyama’s paragraph [0051] and figure 4).
The shape of the inner seal (66a, “first identification gasket”) is different from the shape of the seal (92a, “second identification gasket”) (Nishiyama’s figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches that the two insulating gaskets (51 and 71) are spaced apart by an adhesive (79) along the edge of the separator (paragraph [0063] and figure 3b).
Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified by Fujiwara teaches that the fuel cell stack (100) is placed in the casing (“enclosure”).
In the combination of Kim and Fujiwara, an entirety of an edge of the separator (32) is spaced apart from an inner surface of the casing by the gaskets (51 and 71).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Jin and Nishiyama references and the combination of the Kim, Fujiwara and Nishiyama references were found to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights