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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments filed 02/18/2026:
Claims 1-16, 18, 20, 23, and 33-35 are pending in the current application. Claims 3, 5-9,11-13, and 23 remain withdrawn without traverse. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 33-35 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…permeable support structure provided within the common first fluid volume to react a required compressive load to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…permeable support structure provided within the common first fluid volume to react a required compressive load to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, “to react a required compressive load to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides” may be interpreted as having flexibility (flexibility allows temporary deformation reaction response as oppose to permanent deformation), structures that “resist bowing” (P65 of PGPUB) and structures made of any metal plate, metal mesh, expanded metal etc. (P96.102.123 of PGPUB), that exist within the spacing and thus will maintain a certain spacing under some compressive loads.
Additionally, the limitation “a required compressive load” can be interpreted as no compressive load, wherein the substrate structure is not required to react to a compressive load as the required compressive load is zero. This interpretation is supported by the instant disclosure (PGPUB US20220393218A1) wherein the structure provided to react a required compressive load to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides volume is provided outside of the first volume and compression load though support structure and strength of support structure, is minimized. Some examples include:
Wherein port features are provided to maintain spacing and compressive forces are low on support structure (P33-34)
“A support structure 131 may be disposed between the pair of metal substrates to react a required compression load, if any…” (P93.96)
Protrusions outside of volume share compression load (P120.132)
“… protrusions 1040 alternate in direction (towards and away from the gap between the metal substrates 110 a,b which make up the pair of cell units) in order to transfer the force of compression through the stack of cell units” (P145; Fig. 12)
“Protrusions 840 and 1040 [of metal substrates] assist in defining first fluid volume 140 by resisting stack compression”. Protrusions of metal sheets are arranged outside of the first fluid volume (P173; Fig. 17b)
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, 13-15, 18, 20, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty et al. (US 2004/0072057) in view of Simpkins et al. (US 2004/0101742).
Regarding claim 1, Beatty teaches a metal-supported, planar cell arrangement 100 comprising:
at least one pair of cells, or stack 104,
each cell comprising a metal substrate 132 having a first side and a second side and a porous region 134 providing fluid communication between the first side and the second side, planar cell chemistry layers 102 comprising fuel electrode 106, electrolyte 110, and air electrode 108 layers being coated or deposited over, and supported by, the porous region 134 on the first side;
wherein: the metal substrates 132 are in a stacked arrangement with their cell chemistry layers 102 overlying each other such that either both their first sides, or, both their second sides face inwardly in a spaced, opposed relationship, the inwardly facing sides thereby defining a common first fluid volume 126 between them for one of fuel or oxidant (P47-50; Fig. 3).
Beatty teaches that in such a structure it must be either self-supported, or supported by support structure, or intermediate structures to maintain the fluid volume or gap (P52).
Beatty is silent in teaching a permeable support structure provided within the common first fluid volume to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides; however, Simpkins in a similar field of endeavor related to metal-supported planar cell arrangement, teaches a permeable support structure, or spacer in fluid volumes (P29-31).
The permeable support structure, or spacer provided within a common fluid volume to react a required compressive load to maintain the spacing between inwardly facing sides to provide a more durable and efficient assembly (P5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the permeable support structure of Simpkins, provided within the common first fluid volume of modified Beatty, to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides, to have an improved device, as taught by both Beatty and Simpkins. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Beatty teaches the pair of metal substrates comprise two separate metal plates that are connected together to form the stacked arrangement (P44-68; Fig. 1.3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Beatty teaches the inwardly facing sides define a first fluid volume 126 for fuel (P47-49; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Beatty teaches the inwardly facing sides are the second sides of the metal substrates 132 (P47-49; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, modified Beatty teaches multiple pairs of cells 102 are stacked adjacent each other to form a bank of cells, whereby at least one second fluid volume 130 is defined between adjacent pairs of cells, and the at least one second fluid volume is for the other of fuel or oxidant (P47-49; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, modified Beatty teaches all the fuel electrodes 106 in the bank are electrically connected to one another, and/or all the air electrodes 108 in the bank are electrically connected to one another (P47-48; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Beatty teaches multiple banks of cells 102 stacked upon each other, wherein the fuel electrodes 106 in one bank are connected in series to the air electrodes 108 of a next adjacent bank (P48; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, modified Beatty in view of Simpkins teaches the permeable support structure comprises at least one corrugated element (P28; Fig. 4-11)
Regarding claim 34, modified Beatty in view of Simpkins teaches the permeable support structure comprises at least one of: a pressed three-dimensional feature (P10.39; Fig. 4-11).
Regarding claim 35, modified Beatty in view of Simpkins teaches the permeable support structure has a secondary function of providing support of a catalyst, or gas for internal reforming (P2.27.30-31.39).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Beatty in view of Simpkins as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Duckett et al. (GB2420440A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Beatty teaches the cells may be connected in parallel or series, depending on power requirements and the fluid volume may be a simple volume, including multiple channels, or tortuous
Modified Beatty is silent in teaching the two metal plates are connected together directly so that they abut one another to form the stacked arrangement, one or both of the metal plates having shaped features that create the first fluid volume between the plates; however, Duckett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a metal-supported, planar cell arrangement comprising a pair of metal substrates comprising two separate metal plates 10 (pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 8A).
Duckett teaches the two metal plates 10/10’ are connected together directly for parallel connection so that they abut one another to form the stacked arrangement, one or both of the metal plates having shaped features that create the first fluid volume, or gas channels 30 between the plates 10/10’ to ensure separation of fuel and oxidant from each other and the surrounding environment (pg. 3.6 [14-26]; pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 1.8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the two metal plates connected together directly to abut to create the first fluid volume in modified Beatty to create a parallel connection, as taught by Duckett. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Beatty as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Duckett et al. (GB2420440A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Beatty teaches connecting cells electrically and fluidly to form a simple fuel cell system (P46-49).
Modified Beatty is silent in teaching at least one of the metal substrates comprises flanged perimeter features, and the metal substrates are sealed together around the flanged perimeter features to form the common first fluid volume therebetween (Fig. 1a); however, Duckett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a metal-supported, planar cell arrangement comprising a pair of metal substrates comprising two separate metal plates 10 (pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 8A).
Duckett teaches sealing the metal substrates 10/10’ together directly for parallel connection so that they abut one another to form the stacked arrangement, one or both of the metal plates having shaped features that create the first fluid volume, or gas channels 30 between the plates 10/10’, at least one of the metal substrates comprises flanged perimeter features, and the metal substrates are sealed together around the flanged perimeter features to form the common first fluid volume therebetween to ensure separation of fuel and oxidant from each other and the surrounding environment (pg. 1-6 [14-26]; pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 1A.8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one of the metal substrates of modified Beatty comprise flanged perimeter features, and the metal substrates are sealed together around the flanged perimeter features to form the common first fluid volume therebetween to ensure separation of fuel and oxidant from each other and the surrounding environment, as taught by Duckett. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 10, modified Beatty teaches that fluid ports provided as openings, or manifolds and apertures, may be provided in the non-permeable region and permeable region of the substrates to provide flow paths of reactants (P49-51).
Modified Beatty is silent in teaching the respective fluid ports being aligned with each other in the direction of stacking and in communication with the common first fluid volume; however, Duckett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a metal-supported, planar cell arrangement comprising a pair of metal substrates comprising two separate metal plates 10 (pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 8A).
Duckett teaches at least one fluid port, or manifold 40 is provided as an opening through each of the metal substrates 10, the respective fluid ports being aligned with each other in the direction of stacking and in communication with the common first fluid volume in order to transport fuel or oxidant between multiple cells (pg. 7-8; Fig. 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one fluid port provided as an opening through each of the metal substrates of modified Beatty, the respective fluid ports being aligned with each other in the direction of stacking and in communication with the common first fluid volume, in order to transport fuel or oxidant between cells. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Beatty in view of Duckett as applied to at least claim 10 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2011/0183227).
Regarding claim 11, modified Beatty teaches traditional bipolar configurations for gas channels and passages may be used (P48) while modified Beatty in view of Duckett teaches the importance of sealing of the fuel cell stack components to ensure the separation of the fuel and the oxidant from each other as well as the surrounding environment and that gas channels can be projected or recessed in the surface of the substrate (pg. 3.8).
Modified Beatty in view of Duckett is silent in teaching at least one of the metal substrates is provided with shaped port features formed around its port that extend inwardly within the common first fluid volume, elements of the shaped port features being laterally spaced from one another to define fluid pathways between the elements from the port to enable passage of fluid from the port to the common first fluid volume; however, Tanaka, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches metal substates stacked with a cell arrangement and forming fluid volumes with channels for fuel or oxidant between stacked plates (P30-45.55-66).
Tanaka teaches using shaped port features formed around ports that extend inwardly within the common first fluid volume, including projections elements of the shaped port features being laterally spaced from one another to define fluid pathways between the elements from the port to enable passage of fluid from the port to the common first fluid volume to prevent corrosion current and separator thinning when a byproduct of water is produced, and sealing the surrounding structure (i.e., projection, protrusions, and sealing members) increasing power generation (P30-45.56-68; Fig. 1.3.6-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one of the metal substrates of modified Beatty provided with shaped port features formed around its port that extend inwardly within the common first fluid volume, elements of the shaped port features being laterally spaced from one another to define fluid pathways between the elements from the port to enable passage of fluid from the port to the common first fluid volume, to increase power generation, as taught by Tanaka. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 12, modified Beatty teaches traditional bipolar configurations for gas channels and passages may be used (P48) while modified Beatty in view of Duckett teaches the importance of sealing of the fuel cell stack components to ensure the separation of the fuel and the oxidant from each other as well as the surrounding environment and that gas channels can be projected or recessed in the surface of the substrate (pg. 3.8).
Modified Beatty in view of Duckett is silent in teaching at least one of the metal substrates is provided with shaped port features formed around its port that extend outwardly away from the common first fluid volume; however, Tanaka, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches metal substates stacked with a cell arrangement and forming a fluid volume with channels for fuel or oxidant between stacked plates (P30-45.55-66).
Tanaka shaped port features formed around its port that extend outwardly away from the common first fluid volume, separately protruding into the chambers of both the fuel and oxidant, to prevent corrosion current and separator thinning when a byproduct of water is produced, and sealing the surrounding structure (i.e., projection, protrusions, and sealing members) increasing power generation (P30-45.56-68; Fig. 1.3.6-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one of the metal substrates of modified Beatty with shaped port features formed around its port that extend outwardly away from the common first fluid volume, to increase power generation, as taught by Tanaka. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Beatty as applied to at least claim 15 above, and further in view of Duckett et al. (GB2420440A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Beatty teaches adjacent first fluid volumes 126 are in fluid communication with each other via openings provided through the respective metal substrates, Beatty teaches that fluid ports provided as openings, or manifolds and apertures, that may be provided in the non-permeable region and permeable region of the substrates to provide flow paths of reactants (P49-51; Fig. 1).
Modified Beatty is silent in explicitly teaching the openings are aligned in the stack direction to form internal passageways (manifolds) within the bank; however, Duckett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a metal-supported, planar cell arrangement comprising a pair of metal substrates comprising two separate metal plates 10 (pg. 9 [1-12]; Fig. 8A).
Duckett teaches at least one fluid port, or manifold 40 is provided as an opening through each of the metal substrates 10, the respective fluid ports being aligned with each other in the direction of stacking and in communication with the common first fluid volume in order to transport fuel or oxidant between multiple cells while prevent interaction of different fuels (pg. 3.7-8; Fig. 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the openings of modified Beatty aligned in the stack direction to form internal passageways (manifolds) within the bank, as taught by Duckett, in order to transport fuel or oxidant between cells. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments. Examiner notes claim interpretation with respect to the disclosure of the “compressive load”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hara et al. (JP2004303508A) teaches the limitations of claim 1 wherein a permeable support structure 6 provided within the common first fluid volume to maintain the spacing between the inwardly facing sides of substrates 2 (Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights