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
Support for the amendments to claim 1 can be found in Applicant’s P30.
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-23, 25, and 27-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (WO 2013154741 A2, as given in the 02/13/2025 IDS) in view of Seo (KR20220135305A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Mitlitsky et al (US 20040224193 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, Luo discloses a fuel system (automotive fuel system, Abstract) comprising a fluidic member configured for conveyance of a fluid (fuel line, P81; “fuel lines encompassed herein include fuel feed lines that carry fuel from the fuel tank to the engine and can be located downstream and/or upstream of the fuel filter”, P83), wherein the fluidic member comprises a polymer composition that includes a polyarylene sulfide (“FIG. 7 illustrates a portion of a fuel system that can include a fuel line that includes the polyarylene sulfide composition”, P81 (Page 18 in IDS document)).
Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition is a crosslinked product formed by blending an impact modifier with a crosslinking system (“the polyarylene sulfide can be combined with the impact modifier and this mixture can be subjected to shear conditions such that the impact modifier becomes well distributed throughout the polyarylene sulfide. Following formation of the mixture, a polyfunctional crosslinking agent can be added. The polyfunctional crosslinking agent can react with the components of the mixture to form crosslinks in the composition, for instance within and between the polymer chains of the impact modifier”, P43 (Page 6 in IDS document); as drawn to claims 12 and 18; see also P111-112 (Page 30 in IDS document)).
However, Luo does not disclose wherein the cross-linking system further comprises a zinc salt of a fatty acid.
Seo teaches a water connection connector can be formed from a resin material including polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), glass fiber (GF), zinc stearate, an antioxidant, and an activator (P34).
Seo teaches zinc stearate is a compatibilizer that allows different types of resin materials, such as the polyphenyl sulfite (PPS) polyphthalamide (PPA), and glass fiber (GF) to be evenly mixed (P38). Seo teaches zinc stearate increases the interfacial bonding force of the polyphenyl sulfite (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), and glass fiber (GF), thereby improving the tensile modulus, flexural strength, and impact strength of the injection-molded water connection connector (P38).
While Seo is not drawn to a fluidic member within a fuel cell system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of zinc stearate that Seo teaches are beneficial to many polymer systems. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Seo and provided zinc stearate to the crosslinking system of Luo, given Seo teaches zinc stearate can allow different types of resin materials to be mixed evenly and increase interfacial bonding forces between materials.
However, Luo does not disclose the fuel system is a fuel cell system including a fuel cell and the fluidic member is a fuel cell fluidic member configured for conveyance of a fluid within the fuel cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mitlitsky teaches fuel cells can be used to power vehicles when fuel is provided (P53). Mitlitsky teaches fuel can be stored in a storage vessel and provided from the storage vessel to the vehicle on demand (such as at a gas station) (P53). Mitlitsky teaches a hose or pipe can be used to deliver fuel to a fuel cell system (P87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Mitlitsky and modified Luo such that the automotive fuel system of Luo is a fuel cell system including a fuel cell and the fluidic member of Luo is a fuel cell fluidic member, given the fuel system of Luo is an automotive fuel system and Mitlitsky teaches fuel cells can be used to power vehicles using provided fuel.
Regarding claim 2, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the polymer composition has a melt viscosity of about 2,000 Pa-s or less as determined in accordance with ISO 1143:2021 at a temperature of about 310°C and a shear rate of 1,200
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
-
1
(“a medium viscosity polyarylene sulfide, having a melt viscosity of between about 500 poise and about 1500 poise … as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 1 1443 at a shear rate of 1200
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
-
1
and at a temperature of 310°C”, P104 (Page 28 in IDS document); Applicant’s Tables on Pages 31-32 of the Specification show Samples 2-5 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a melt viscosity of about 2,000 Pa-s or less as determined in accordance with ISO 1143:2021 at a temperature of about 310°C and a shear rate of 1,200
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
-
1
; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has a melt viscosity within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).
Regarding claim 3, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition has a chlorine content of about 1,200 ppm or less (“The halogen atom can be chlorine”, P106 (Page 24 in IDS document); “In one embodiment, the polyarylene sulfide composition can have a halogen content of less than about 1000 ppm, less than about 900 ppm, less than about 600 ppm, or less than about 400 ppm”, P107 (Page 29 in IDS document); ).
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a notched Charpy impact strength of about 20 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of 23°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 (“the polyarylene sulfide composition can have a notched Charpy impact strength of greater than about 30 kJ/m2, greater than about 33 kJ/m2, greater than about 40 kJ/m2, greater than about 45 kJ/m2, or greater than about 50 kJ/m2 as determined according to ISO Test No. 179-1 (technically equivalent to ASTM D256, Method B) at 23°C”, P45 (Page 7 in IDS document); Applicant’s Tables on Pages 31-32 of the Specification show Samples 2-5 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a notched Charpy impact strength of about 20 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of 23°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has a notched Charpy impact strength within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a notched Charpy impact strength of about 10 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of -30°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 (“the polyarylene sulfide composition can have a notched Charpy impact strength of greater than about 10 kJ/m2, greater than about 14 kJ/m2, greater than about 15 kJ/m2, greater than about 18 kJ/m2, or greater than about 20 kJ/m2 as determined according to ISO Test No. 179-1 at -30°C”, P46 (Page 7 in IDS document); Applicant’s Tables on Pages 31-32 of the Specification show Samples 2-5 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a notched Charpy impact strength of about 10 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of -30°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has a notched Charpy impact strength within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a tensile strength of about 20 MPa or more; a tensile break strain of about 20% or more; and/or a tensile modulus of about 10,000 MPa or less, as determined in accordance with ISO 527:2019 at a temperature of 23°C (“the polyarylene sulfide composition can have a tensile modulus less than about 3000 MPa, less than about 2300 MPa, less than about 2000 MPa, less than about 1500 MPa, or less than about 1100 MPa as determined according to ISO Test No. 527 at a temperature of 23°C and a test speed of 5 mm/min”, P49 (Page 8 in IDS document), which overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05); also, Applicant’s Tables on Pages 31-32 of the Specification show Samples 2-5 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a tensile strength of about 20 MPa or more, a tensile break strain of about 20% or more, and a tensile modulus of about 10,000 MPa or less, as determined in accordance with ISO 527:2019 at a temperature of 23°C; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has a tensile strength, tensile modulus, and tensile break strain within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a flexural strength of about 20 MPa or more and/or a flexural modulus of about 10,000 MPa or less as determined in accordance with ISO 178:2019 at a temperature of 23°C (“The flexural characteristics of the composition can be determined according to ISO Test No. 178 (technically equivalent to ASTM D790) at a temperature of 23°C and a testing speed of 2 mm/min. For example, the flexural modulus of the composition can be less than about 2500 MPa, less than about 2300 MPa, less than about 2000 MPa, less than about 1800 MPa, or less than about 1500 MPa. The polyarylene sulfide composition may have a flexural strength at break of greater than about 30 MPa, greater than about 35 MPa, greater than about 40 MPa, greater than about 45 MPa, or greater than about 70 MPa.”, P53 (Page 9 in IDS document); also, Applicant’s Tables on Pages 32-33 of the Specification show Samples 8 and 11-12 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a flexural strength of about 20 MPa or more and/or a flexural modulus of about 10,000 MPa or less as determined in accordance with ISO 178:2019 at a temperature of 23°C; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has a tensile strength, tensile modulus, and tensile break strain within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Luo meets all of the limitations of claim 1 such that the polymer composition of modified Luo is substantially identical to that of claim 1 (including polyarylene sulfide and a zinc salt of a fatty acid).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the polymer composition exhibits a hydrogen transmission rate of about 30 ml/m2*day or less as determined in accordance with ASTM D1434-82 (2015) (volumetric method) at a temperature of about 23°C and pressure difference of 1 atmosphere” and “wherein the polymer composition exhibits an oxygen transmission rate of about 30 ml/m2*day or less as determined in accordance with ASTM D1434-82 (2015) (volumetric method) at a temperature of about 23°C and pressure difference of 1 atmosphere”:, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses wherein the polyarylene sulfide is a polyphenylene sulfide (P101 (Page 23 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 11, Luo discloses wherein polyarylene sulfides constitute from about 40 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the polymer composition (“The polyarylene sulfide composition may include the polyarylene sulfide component (which also encompasses a blend of polyarylene sulfides) in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 99 wt.% by weight of the composition”, P103, (Page 28 in IDS document), which overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 13, Luo discloses wherein impact modifiers are present in the polymer composition in an amount of from about 5 to about 50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of polyarylene sulfides in the polymer composition (“In general, the impact modifier may be present in the composition in an amount from about 0.05% to about 40% by weight”, P123 (Page 33 in IDS document), which overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 14, Luo discloses wherein the impact modifier includes an epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer (the impact modifier can be a olefinic copolymer, P111; “the impact modifier can be modified to include functionalization…the impact modifier can be modified with a mole fraction of from about 0.01 to about 0.5 of one or more of the following: … an unsaturated epoxy compound”, P112 (Page 30 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 15, Luo discloses wherein the epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer contains an ethylene monomeric unit (“the impact modifier can include at least one linear or branched a- olefin monomer, such as those having from 2 to 20 carbon atoms, or from 2 to 8 carbon atoms. Specific examples include ethylene”, P115 (Page 31 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 16, Luo discloses wherein the epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer contains an epoxy-functional (meth)acrylic monomeric component (“The monomer units of the impact modifier may vary. In one embodiment, for example, the impact modifier can include epoxy-functional methacrylic monomer units”, P114 (Page 31 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 17, Luo discloses wherein the epoxy-functional (meth)acrylic monomeric component is derived from glycidyl acrylate, glycidyl methacrylate, or a combination thereof (“Epoxy-functional methacrylic monomers as may be incorporated in the impact modifier may include, but are not limited to, those containing 1 ,2-epoxy groups, such as glycidyl acrylate and glycidyl methacrylate”, P114 (Page 31 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 19, Luo discloses wherein the crosslinking system comprises from 0.2 wt.% to 5 wt.% of the polymer composition (Luo discloses “The polyarylene sulfide composition may generally include the crosslinking agent in an amount from about 0.05 wt.% to about 2 wt.% by weight of the polyarylene sulfide composition”, P132 (Page 38 of IDS Doc), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 wt.% to 5 wt.% and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the zinc salt of a fatty acid comprises zinc stearate (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fatty acid has a carbon chain length of from about 10 to about 18 carbon atoms (the zinc salt of a fatty acid zinc stearate; stearic acid has a carbon chain length of 18; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fatty acid has a carbon chain length of from about 8 to about 22 carbon atoms (the zinc salt of a fatty acid zinc stearate; stearic acid has a carbon chain length of 18; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Luo discloses wherein the crosslinking system comprises a multi-functional crosslinking agent (“Following formation of the mixture, a polyfunctional crosslinking agent can be added. The polyfunctional crosslinking agent can react with the components of the mixture to form crosslinks in the composition, for instance within and between the polymer chains of the impact modifier”, P43 (Page 6 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 25, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a complex viscosity of 1,000 Pa-s or more, as determined by a parallel plate rheometer at an angular frequency of 0.1 radians per second, temperature of 3100°C, and constant strain amplitude of 3% (“The polyarylene sulfide composition can have a complex viscosity as determined at low shear (0.1 radians per second (rad/s)) and 310°C of … greater than about 450 kPa/sec”, P61 (Page 12 of IDS document); “The dynamic frequency sweep for each sample was obtained from 500 to 0.1 rad/s, with strain amplitude of 3%”, P179 (Page 46 in IDS document) also, Applicant’s Tables on Pages 32-33 of the Specification show Samples 3-4 utilizing polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate and having a melt viscosity at 0.1 rad/s of 1,000 Pa-s or more; given the polymer composition of modified Luo includes both polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate as shown in Applicant’s sample, and meets the composition set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe the polymer composition has complex viscosity within the claimed range; also to note: Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.); Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).).).
Regarding claim 27, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fluid is a gas (given the fuel for modified Luo would be hydrogen gas for the fuel cell in the automotive, and Luo teaches the fluidic member being used as a fuel line to deliver fuel; see also Luo P10 (Pages 3-4 in IDS).
Regarding claim 28, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member is configured for conveyance of a fuel gas to an anode of the fuel cell (given modified Luo’s automotive fuel system includes a fuel cell and fuel cell fluidic member and Luo teaches the fluidic member can convey fuel to power a vehicle; see the rejection of claim 1 and also Luo P10 (Pages 3-4 in IDS document).
Regarding claim 29, while modified Luo uses the fluidic member to convey fuel to a fuel cell not an oxidant gas, Luo discloses the fuel cell fluidic member “can encompass both single layer and multi-layer members such as pipes and hoses suitable for carrying water, oil, gasoline, diesel, air, exhaust, urea, etc.” (P10 (Pages 3-4 in IDS document)). Therefore, the fuel cell fluidic member can be configured for conveyance of air, which is a known oxidant gas for a cathode of a fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fuel cell fluidic member of modified Luo to have provided wherein the fuel cell fluidic member is configured for conveyance of an oxidant gas to a cathode of the fuel cell, given the fluidic member of Luo is designed to be able to carry air to a structure (such as a fuel cell), and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See 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). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claims 30-31, while modified Luo uses the fluidic member to convey fuel to a fuel cell, Luo discloses the fuel cell fluidic member “can encompass both single layer and multi-layer members such as pipes and hoses suitable for carrying water, oil, gasoline, diesel, air, exhaust, urea, etc.” (P10 (Pages 3-4 in IDS document), therefore, the fuel cell fluidic member can be configured for conveyance of water, coolant, or a combination thereof to or from the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fuel cell fluidic member of modified Luo to have provided the fluid as a liquid such that the fuel cell fluidic member conveys a liquid such as water, coolant, or a combination thereof to or from the fuel cell, given the fluidic member of Luo is designed to carry such materials to a structure (such as a fuel cell), and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See 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). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 32, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member is configured for conveyance of a fluid to or from a secondary component of the fuel cell system (given Luo teaches the fluidic member can be connected to a fuel tank and outlet (P82 (Page 18 in IDS document)), the fuel cell fluidic member can be configured to convey fluid, such as fuel, from a fuel tank to the fuel cell system of modified Luo).
Regarding claim 33, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member comprises a hose, a tube, or a pipe that defines a passageway that extends between an inlet and an outlet (“The exhaust system 900, as shown, includes an exhaust line 902 with inlet end 901 and outlet end 903. All or a portion of the exhaust line 902 can be formed of the polyarylene sulfide composition”, Luo P91 (Pages 20-21 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 34, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member comprises a connector or a fitting (“a tubular member may be a component of, e.g., a hose assembly or a fuel line assembly or a fluid transfer system. A fluid transfer system generally includes a tubular member such as a hose and at one or more ends of the hose, one or more … connectors … fittings … and the like”, Luo P63 (Page 13 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 35, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member contains multiple outlets (Luo discloses the fluidic member can have a plurality of openings for fluid communication, therefore, there would be multiple outlets/openings for fluid to go therethrough; P89 (Page 20 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 36, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member contains multiple angular displacements (“Referring to FIG. 1 , one embodiment of a tubular member 110 formed from the polyarylene sulfide composition is shown. As shown, the tubular member 110 extends in multiple directions leading to a relatively complex shape. For instance, during formation and before the polyarylene sulfide composition can solidify, the angular displacements as shown in FIG. 1 can be formed into the part. The tubular member 110 includes angular displacement changes at 112, 114 and 116”, Luo P65 (Page 14 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 37, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein at least a portion of the fuel cell fluidic member has an outer diameter of from about 1 to about 50 millimeters (“A single layer tube can be utilized, for example, in forming a vent line and/or a fuel line…Single layer tube 150 can generally have a cross sectional diameter of less than about 10 millimeters”, Luo P66 (Page 14 in IDS document); the range ‘less than about 10 millimeters’ overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 38, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fuel cell fluidic member comprises a multi-layer hose, the multi-layer hose comprising the polymer composition in at least one layer (“FIG. 5 illustrates a three-layered fuel line 70 as may incorporate the polyarylene sulfide composition in one or more layers of the fuel line”, Luo P71 (Page 15 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 39, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the multi-layer hose comprises the polymer composition in an inner layer (“The excellent barrier properties of the polyarylene sulfide composition combined with the chemical resistance properties of the polyarylene sulfide composition make it suitable for use in forming an inner layer of a multi-layer fuel line”, Luo P72 (Page 15 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 40, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the multi-layer hose comprises the polymer composition in an outer layer (“The polyarylene sulfide composition is not limited to utilization as an inner layer of a multi-layer fuel line. The high strength characteristics of the polyarylene sulfide composition combined with the excellent barrier properties and good flexibility make the polyarylene sulfide composition suitable for use in forming outer layers and/or intermediate layers of a multi-layer fuel line”, Luo P73 (Page 16 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 41, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the multi-layer hose comprises another polymer composition comprising an elastomer, a polyolefin, a polyamide, a fluoropolymer, or a polyvinyl chloride in at least one layer (“In general, tie layer 520 may be used to facilitate bonding between the barrier layer 514 and other layers such as a reinforcement layer 518. A tie layer may include a rubber composition based on, e.g., epichlorohydrin rubber, nitrile rubber, butadiene rubber/poly(vinyl chloride) blends, hydrogenated nitrile rubber, thermoplastic elastomers, or the like”, Luo P77 (Page 17 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 42, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the multi-layer hose comprises a thermoplastic elastomer in at least one layer (“In general, tie layer 520 may be used to facilitate bonding between the barrier layer 514 and other layers such as a reinforcement layer 518. A tie layer may include a rubber composition based … thermoplastic elastomers”, Luo P77 (Page 17 in IDS document)).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (WO 2013154741 A2, as given in the 02/13/2025 IDS) in view of Seo (KR20220135305A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Mitlitsky et al (US 20040224193 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Huth et al (US 20090087698 A1) .
Regarding claim 26, Mitlitsky teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell as a fuel cell for an automobile (P35, 53). However, Mitlitsky (thus modified Luo) does not state the fuel cell contains a proton-conducting membrane layer and opposing catalyst electrode layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Huth teaches the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell can include a proton-conducing membrane layer (16 in Figs. 1A-C) with opposing catalyst layers (20a/b in Figs. 1A-C, P36-37, 41). Huth teaches the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell comprises an additional heat source and is able to be started quickly at low temperatures (P11). Huth teaches by enabling startup of the MEA at very low temperatures, i.e., at temperatures encountered in motor vehicles, the MEA of the invention or a fuel cell contained therein can particularly advantageously be employed in mobile applications, such as traction systems of motor vehicles or for supplying additional energy as a so-called APU (auxiliary power unit) in motor vehicles (P5, 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Huth and substituted the polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell of Mitlitsky with the high-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell of Huth, given both are known fuel cells to be used in vehicles, Huth teaches it is able to be started quickly at low temperatures, such as when it is used in a vehicle, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-25, and 27-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (WO 2013154741 A2, as given in the 02/13/2025 IDS) in view of Tu et al (US 20170166747 A1) in view of Mitlitsky et al (US 20040224193 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, Luo discloses a fuel system (automotive fuel system, Abstract) comprising a fluidic member configured for conveyance of a fluid (fuel line, P81; “fuel lines encompassed herein include fuel feed lines that carry fuel from the fuel tank to the engine and can be located downstream and/or upstream of the fuel filter”, P83), wherein the fluidic member comprises a polymer composition that includes a polyarylene sulfide (“FIG. 7 illustrates a portion of a fuel system that can include a fuel line that includes the polyarylene sulfide composition”, P81 (Page 18 in IDS document)).
Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition is a crosslinked product formed by blending an impact modifier with a crosslinking system (“the polyarylene sulfide can be combined with the impact modifier and this mixture can be subjected to shear conditions such that the impact modifier becomes well distributed throughout the polyarylene sulfide. Following formation of the mixture, a polyfunctional crosslinking agent can be added. The polyfunctional crosslinking agent can react with the components of the mixture to form crosslinks in the composition, for instance within and between the polymer chains of the impact modifier”, P43 (Page 6 in IDS document); as drawn to claims 12 and 18; see also P111-112 (Page 30 in IDS document)).
However, Luo does not disclose wherein the cross-linking system further comprises a zinc salt of a fatty acid.
Tu teaches a crosslinkable polymer composition comprising a polyarylene sulfide, from about 0.5 to about 50 parts of an impact modifier per 100 parts of the polyarylene sulfide, and from about 0.1 to about 15 parts of a crosslinking system per 100 parts of the polyarylene sulfide (P3). Tu teaches the crosslinking system includes a metal carboxylate such as zinc stearate (P3, 42, 85). Tu teaches their polymer composition provides a crosslinked polymer product that is capable of exhibiting excellent strength and flexibility under a variety of different conditions (P15).
While Tu is not drawn to a fluidic member within a fuel cell system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of ensuring the flexibility and strength of a fluidic member configured for conveyance of a fluid. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Tu and substituted the polymer composition of Luo with the crosslinkable polymer composition of Tu (including polyarylene sulfide and zinc stearate), given Tu teaches their polymer composition provides a crosslinked polymer product that is capable of exhibiting excellent strength and flexibility under a variety of different conditions and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
However, modified Luo does not meet the limitation wherein the fuel system is a fuel cell system including a fuel cell and the fluidic member is a fuel cell fluidic member configured for conveyance of a fluid within the fuel cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mitlitsky teaches fuel cells can be used to power vehicles when fuel is provided (P53). Mitlitsky teaches fuel can be stored in a storage vessel and provided from the storage vessel to the vehicle on demand (such as at a gas station) (P53). Mitlitsky teaches a hose or pipe can be used to deliver fuel to a fuel cell system (P87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Mitlitsky and modified Modified Luo such that the automotive fuel system of Luo is a fuel cell system including a fuel cell and the fluidic member of modified Luo is a fuel cell fluidic member, given the fuel system of Luo is an automotive fuel system and Mitlitsky teaches fuel cells can be used to power vehicles using provided fuel.
Regarding claim 2, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the polymer composition has a melt viscosity of about 2,000 Pa-s or less as determined in accordance with ISO 1143:2021 at a temperature of about 310°C and a shear rate of 1,200
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
-
1
(“the composition may have a melt viscosity of about 1,500 Pa-s or less, in some embodiments about 1,000 Pa-s or less, and in some embodiments, from about 100 to about 800 poise, as determined by a capillary rheometer at a temperature of about 310° C. and shear rate of 1,200 seconds-1”, Tu P51).
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a notched Charpy impact strength of about 20 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of 23°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 (“the crosslinked polymer product can exhibit a notched Charpy impact strength of … from about 20 to about 150 kJ/m.sup.2, and in some embodiments, from about 30 to about 100 kJ/m.sup.2, as determined at a temperature of 23° C. in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 (technically equivalent to ASTM D256, Method B)”, Tu P16).
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses wherein the polymer composition exhibits a notched Charpy impact strength of about 10 kJ/m2 or more as determined at a temperature of -30°C in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 (“the polymer product can exhibit a notched Charpy impact strength … from about 8 to about 50 kJ/m.sup.2, as determined at a temperature of −30° C. in accordance with ISO Test No. 179-1:2010 “, Tu P16, which overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Luo meets all of the limitations of claim 1 such that the polymer composition of modified Luo is substantially identical to that of claim 1 (including polyarylene sulfide and a zinc salt of a fatty acid).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the polymer composition exhibits a hydrogen transmission rate of about 30 ml/m2*day or less as determined in accordance with ASTM D1434-82 (2015) (volumetric method) at a temperature of about 23°C and pressure difference of 1 atmosphere” and “wherein the polymer composition exhibits an oxygen transmission rate of about 30 ml/m2*day or less as determined in accordance with ASTM D1434-82 (2015) (volumetric method) at a temperature of about 23°C and pressure difference of 1 atmosphere”:, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the polyarylene sulfide is a polyphenylene sulfide (Tu P21).
Regarding claim 11, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein polyarylene sulfides constitute from about 40 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the polymer composition (“Polyarylene sulfides typically constitute from about 40 wt. % to about 95 wt. %, in some embodiments from about 50 wt. % to about 90 wt. %, and in some embodiments, from about 60 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of the polymer composition”, Tu P20).
Regarding claim 13, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein impact modifiers are present in the polymer composition in an amount of from about 5 to about 50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of polyarylene sulfides in the polymer composition (“Impact modifiers typically constitute from 5 to about 50 parts, in some embodiments from about 10 to about 45 parts, and in some embodiments, from about 20 to about 40 parts per 100 parts of the polyarylene sulfide”, Tu P30).
Regarding claim 14, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the impact modifier includes an epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer (poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate), Tu P32).
Regarding claim 15, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer contains an ethylene monomeric unit (poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate), Tu P32).
Regarding claim 16, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the epoxy-functionalized olefin copolymer contains an epoxy-functional (meth)acrylic monomeric component (poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate), Tu P32).
Regarding claim 17, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the epoxy-functional (meth)acrylic monomeric component is derived from glycidyl acrylate, glycidyl methacrylate, or a combination thereof (poly(ethylene-co-butylacrylate-co-glycidyl methacrylate), Tu P32).
Regarding claim 19, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the crosslinking system comprises from 0.2 wt.% to 5 wt.% of the polymer composition (“the crosslinking system my constitute … from about 0.2 wt. % to about 5 wt. % of the polymer composition”, Tu P37).
Regarding claim 20, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the zinc salt of a fatty acid comprises zinc stearate (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fatty acid has a carbon chain length of from about 10 to about 18 carbon atoms (the zinc salt of a fatty acid zinc stearate; stearic acid has a carbon chain length of 18; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fatty acid has a carbon chain length of from about 8 to about 22 carbon atoms (the zinc salt of a fatty acid zinc stearate; stearic acid has a carbon chain length of 18; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Luo discloses wherein the crosslinking system comprises a multi-functional crosslinking agent (“Following formation of the mixture, a polyfunctional crosslinking agent can be added. The polyfunctional crosslinking agent can react with the components of the mixture to form crosslinks in the composition, for instance within and between the polymer chains of the impact modifier”, P43 (Page 6 in IDS document)).
Regarding claim 24, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the zinc salt of a fatty acid comprises 5 wt.% to 50 wt.% of the crosslinking system, given Tu teaches “the metal carboxylates typically constitute from about 5 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, in some embodiments from about 10 wt. % to about 40 wt. %, and in some embodiments, from about 15 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of the crosslinking system” (P42).
Regarding claim 25, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the polymer composition exhibits a complex viscosity of 1,000 Pa-s or more, as determined by a parallel plate rheometer at an angular frequency of 0.1 radians per second, temperature of 310°C, and constant strain amplitude of 3% (“when crosslinked, the resulting polymer product will generally have a high complex viscosity, such as about 1,000 Pa-s or more, in some embodiments about 1,500 Pa-s or more, and in some embodiments, from about 2,000 to about 10,000 Pa-s, as determined by a parallel plate rheometer at an angular frequency of 0.1 radians per second, temperature of 310° C., and constant strain amplitude of 3%”, Tu P51).
Regarding claim 27, modified Luo meets the limitation wherein the fluid is a gas (given the fuel for modified Luo would be hydrogen gas for the fuel cell in the automotive, and Luo teaches the fluidic member being used as