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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/30/25. The applicant has overcome the objection, the 35 USC 112 rejection and the rejection under Section 102 as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over a new ground of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6, 8, 13-14 and 16-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/02/25 and 07/21/25.
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.
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) 1-4, 7, 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication “Effects of metal foam properties on flow and water distribution in polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs)” by Jo et al (hereinafter referred to as Jo et al) in view of Cho et al 2014/0004441.
As to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11-12 and 15:
In the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Jo et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a polymer electrolyte fuel cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly, a bipolar plate/body and a gas diffusion layer interposed therebetween wherein a component of the bipolar plate/body-gas diffusion layer arrangement is a made of a porous metal foam including a fluid flow field/passageways including microchannels embedded therein having varying 2D-3D geometrical shapes/lengths (see Abstract; see Introduction; See Numerical Model; See Results and Discussion; see FIGURES 1 & 5). In this case, since the present claims fail to define the specific structure of each the fuel cell assembly, the gas diffusion layer and bipolar plate as well as their specific structural arrangement, it is deemed that the teachings of Jo et al sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and structurally undefined fuel cell assembly. Figures 1 and 5, infra, illustrate the structure of the polymer electrolyte fuel cell comprising the porous metal foam component related to the bipolar plate/body-gas diffusion layer arrangement:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
448
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 2 and 10:
Jo et al disclose porous metal foams made of Cu-based and Ni-based metals (see Introduction).
Jo et al disclose a polymer electrolyte fuel cell assembly according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific gas diffusion layer composed of a microporous metal foam.
As to claims 1, 3-4 and 11-12:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Cho et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a fuel cell assembly including a fuel cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly including a polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between respective anode and cathode layers, and gas diffusion layers made of microporous metal foam (Abstract; 0012; 0016-0018; 0032; 0044; 0047-0049; Figures 1B & 2). Figure 2, infra, depicts structural and geometrical aspects of the microporous metal foam channels:
PNG
media_image3.png
468
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
330
774
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific gas diffusion layer of Cho et al made of a microporous metal foam as the gas diffusion layer of Jo et al as Cho et al teach that the specifically disclosed metal foam improves efficiency and lifetime of the gas diffusion layer and enables consistent maintenance of the suitable structure and even distribution of pores during the operation, and due to the combination of mechanical and physical properties of metallic foam, the fuel cell is not deformed by external physical strain; and provides well aligned and long channel pores which improve gas and water flow during fuel cell operation; and also metal foam is also cheap, easy to process for mass production.
Further, 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 would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to foregoing claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, in view of the teachings of both Jo et al and Cho et al, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Further, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752