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 .
The Applicant’s amendments were received on 7/30/26. Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 21 is new. Claim 20 has been cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/30/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/26 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, 21 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. Specifically, the claim limitation, “wherein the fuel cell is segmented into the at least two active areas” followed by “with one active area per segment of the fuel cell,” is unclear if the fuel cell comprises two segments or one. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, 21 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. Specifically, the claim limitation, “a percentage of partial pressure of oxygen remains above 15% across the fuel cell,” is unclear since partial pressure is measured in units of pressure but not by %. Appropriate corrections are required or further clarification is required.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al., on claims 1, 4, 5, 6 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by Kwon et al., on claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12 are withdrawn because the Applicant had amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuaki et al. in view of Sasahara et al., on claims 1-10, 11-19 are withdrawn because the Applicant had amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuaki et al. in view of Sasahara et al. in further view of Zhao, on claim 20 is withdrawn because the Applicant had cancelled the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2014/0186740) in view of Zhao et al. (Optimization of fuel cell systems operating conditions for fuel cell vehicles)
Regarding claim 1, the Kwon et al. reference discloses a fuel cell comprising at least one membrane, at least one anode electrode layer, at least one cathode electrode layer, at least two gas diffusion layers and at least two flow field structure. The at least one membrane is arranged between one anode electrode layer and one cathode electrode layer (MEA), forming a membrane electrode assembly and defining at least two active area segmented in the fuel cell with on active area per segment of the fuel cell (Fig 3). One gas diffusion layer (16) is arranged adjacent to each electrode layer and wherein one flow field structure (20) is arranged adjacent to each gas diffusion layer. Each flow field structure comprises at least three fuel manifolds, at least three oxidant manifolds and at least three coolant manifolds, characterized in that the fuel cell comprises at least two active areas and in that at least one fuel manifold, at least one oxidant manifold and at least one coolant manifold is arranged between the at least two active areas (24,25,26 on each side, in addition to 66, 65, 64). Between the segments of the fuel cell, such that a pattern of manifolds is provided that repeats itself at least two times in a first direction and that repeats itself at least two times in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (across the fuel cell and down the fuel cell).
However, it is known that air comprises 21% oxygen at 1 atmosphere or 0.21 atm of partial pressure of partial pressure.
The Kwon et al. reference does not explicitly disclosed the oxidant comprise oxygen wherein a percentage of the partial pressure of oxygen in the oxidant remains above 0.15 atm or 15% oxygen or more across the fuel cell. However, the Kwon reference discloses the fuel cell stack is for vehicles. The Zhao et al. reference discloses fuel cell in vehicles require high power demands resulting in higher system efficiency. The Zhao tests the fuel cells at 1.5 atm and 2 atm for fuel cell efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a total pressure of at least two times the starting pressure which equates to two times the partial pressure (at least over 15% across the fuel cell, double the partial pressure of oxygen) disclosed by the Zhao et al. reference applied to the fuel cell for a vehicle disclosed by the Kwon et al. reference in order to optimize the fuel cel voltage which is dependent the oxidant supply and measured back pressure of the fuel cell.
The limitation “fresh” is “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, the Kwon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Kwon et al. reference discloses that there are three manifold for each air, fuel and coolant manifolds but does not specify wherein at least one of each of the three manifolds is an inlet manifold and at least two are outlet manifolds or wherein at least two of the three manifolds are inlet manifolds and at least one is an outlet manifold. However, this it would have been obvious for Kwon et al. reference to discloses at least one of each of the three manifolds is an inlet manifold and at least two are outlet manifolds or wherein at least two of the three manifolds are inlet manifolds and at least one is an outlet manifold as these combinations are the only combinations in order for the air, fuel and coolant to circulate into and out of the cell. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of the patents together like pieces of a puzzle. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. The question to be answered is whether the claimed invention is a product of innovation or merely the result of common sense, ordinary creativity, and ordinary skill. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 3, the Kwon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. As a result of the obviousness of claim 2, the number of outlet manifolds is twice the number of inlet manifolds or wherein the number of inlet manifolds is twice the number of outlet manifolds.
Regarding claim 4, the Kwon et al. reference illustrates that the cross-sectional size of all manifolds is identical (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the Kwon et al. reference illustrates the cross-sectional shape of all manifolds is identical (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the Kwon et al. reference discloses the shape of the manifolds is one of the group comprising angled, rectangular, square, oval and round (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the Kwon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. As a result of the obviousness of claim 2, the number of outlet manifolds is twice the number of inlet manifolds or wherein the number of inlet manifolds is twice the number of outlet manifolds. That is, when there are 2 times the inlet manifold, the cross sectional area of the total of two inlet manifolds are more than the cross sectional area of the one outlet manifold and if there are two outlet manifolds, the total cross sectional is two times the outlet manifolds.
Regarding claim 9, the Kwon et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. Since there are three manifolds for each air, fuel and coolant, the total cross sectional area should be the same for fuel, air and coolant.
Regarding claim 12, the Kwon et al. reference discloses a stack of fuel cells wherein the distance between two repeating patterns (the pattern going the longer distance) is bigger than the distance between two neighboring manifolds (the adjacent manifold).
Regarding claim 21, the Kwon et al. reference and the Zhao et al. reference discloses a fuel cell. The limitation “is run by a blower” is intended use of the fuel cell. It is noted that claim limitation is “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 1-10, 11-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Yasuaki et al. (JP 08-273696) in view of Sasahara et al. (WO03/096454) in further view of Zhao et al. (Optimization of fuel cell systems operating conditions for fuel cell vehicles).
Regarding claim 1, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses a fuel cell comprising at least one membrane, at least one anode electrode layer, at least on cathode electrode layer and at least two flow field structures wherein the at least one membrane is arranged between one anode electrode layer one cathode electrode layer forming a membrane electrode assembly and defining at least two active areas. Wherein one flow field structure is arranged adjacent to each gas diffusion layer. Each flow field structure comprises at least three fuel manifolds, at least three oxidant manifolds and at least three coolant manifolds characterized in that the fuel cell is segmented into the at least two active areas with one active area per segment of the fuel cell and in that at least one fuel manifold, at least one oxidant manifold and at least one coolant manifold arranged between the at least two active areas and there between the segments of the fuel cell, such that the patterns of manifolds is provided that repeats itself at least two times in a first direction and that repeats itself at least two times in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. The Yasuaki et al. reference does not explicitly teach a diffusion layer on each side of the electrode facing the flow field structure, however, the Sasahara reference discloses that in conventional fuel cell assembly a pair of diffusion layer for diffusing the fluids evenly over the electrode as well as contacting the catalyst electrode layers to transmit the electric potential of these catalyst electrode layers to outside. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate known fuel cell comprising diffusion layer on each side of the electrode facing the flow field structure. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
However, it is known that air comprises 21% oxygen at 1 atmosphere or 0.21 atm of partial pressure.
The Yasuaki et al. reference does not explicitly disclosed the oxidant comprise oxygen wherein a percentage of the partial pressure of oxygen in the oxidant remains above 0.15 atm or 15% oxygen or more across the fuel cell. However, the Zhao et al. reference discloses the variation in pressure affects the voltage output of the cell. The Zhao et al. reference discloses fuel cell in vehicles require high power demands resulting in higher system efficiency. The Zhao tests the fuel cells at 1.5 atm and 2 atm for fuel cell efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a total pressure of at least two times the starting pressure which equates to two times the partial pressure (at least over 15% across the fuel cell, double the partial pressure of oxygen) disclosed by the Zhao et al. reference applied to the fuel cell disclosed by the Yasuaki et al. reference in order to optimize the fuel cel voltage which is dependent the oxidant supply and measured back pressure of the fuel cell.
The limitation “fresh” is “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses at least one of each of the three manifolds is an inlet manifold and at least two are outlet manifolds or wherein at least two of the three manifolds are inlet manifolds and at least one is an outlet manifold (Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 3, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses wherein the number of outlet manifolds is twice the number of inlet manifolds or wherein the number of inlet manifolds is twice the number of outlet manifolds (dependent on which outlets and inlets are considered).
Regarding claim 4, the Yasauaki et al. reference discloses wherein the cross-sectional size of all manifolds is identical or wherein the cross-sectional size of at least one of the manifolds different the size of the other manifolds (all the cross-sectional area of the manifolds are illustrated to be the same size).
Regarding claim 5, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the cross-sectional shape of all manifolds is identical (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the shape of the manifolds is one of the group comprising square or rectangle (Fig. 9-11).
Regarding claim 7, the Yasuaki et al. reference illustrates that the fuel cell comprises at least three manifold, the Yasuaki et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the total cross-sectional area of inlet manifolds equal to the total correction area of all outlet manifolds, however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change sizes of the inlet or out cross-sectional area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size, shape of a component. A change in size, shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (IV))
Regarding claim 8, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses that for each of the three manifolds, the total cross-sectional area of all inlet manifolds is larger than the total cross-sectional area of all outlet manifolds or wherein for each of the three manifolds, the total cross-sectional area of all the inlet manifolds is smaller than the total-cross-sectional are of all the outlet manifolds (depending on which inlets and outlets are considered for the three; Fig. 9-11).
Regarding claim 9, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the total cross-sectional area of the fuel manifolds equals to the total area of the oxidant manifolds and/or coolant manifold.
Regarding claim 10, the Yasuaki et al. reference illustrates that the fuel cell comprises at least three manifold for each fuel, oxidant and coolant supply, the Yasuaki et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the total cross-sectional area of fuel manifolds is larger or smaller than the total cross-sectional area of the oxidant manifold and/or the total cross-sectional area of the coolant manifolds however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change sizes of the inlet or out cross-sectional area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size, shape of a component. A change in size, shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (IV))
Regard claim 12, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the distance between two repeating patterns is identical to the distance between two neighboring manifolds within the patterns or the distance between the two repeating patterns is bigger than the distance between two neighboring manifolds within the patterns (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the at least two gaskets wherein one gasket is arranged adjacent to each flow field structure and wherein each gasket comprises the same number of manifolds as the flow field structures at the same positions (9b).
Regarding claim 14, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses comprising at least one sub-gasket wherein the sub-gasket covers at least border areas of the membrane on both sides or wherein the sub-gasket covers at least border areas on areas of the membrane and the electrode layers on both sides (33,34).
Regarding claim 15, the Yasuaki et al. reference disclose the sub-gasket extends laterally over the border areas of the membrane and the electrode layers (33, 34).
Regarding claim 16, the Yasuaki et al. reference in view of the Sasahara et al. reference (herein referred to as the modified Yasuaki et al. reference) discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The modified Yasuaki et al. reference discloses several membrane electrode assemblies, several gas diffusion layers and several flow field structures that are aligned with each other and are forming a stack (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses comprising two current collector plates (9a, and 2 or 3) and two backing plates, wherein one collector plate is arranged adjacent to each flow field structure and wherein one backing plate is arranged adjacent to each collector (11, 12).
Regarding claim 18, the Yasauki et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and incorporated herein. The Yasauki et al. reference teaches two backing plates one each end of the fuel cell stack but does not explicitly state clamping elements bracing the two backing plates, however, the Sasahara et al. reference discloses clamping rods on two backing plates to provide tightening pressure when assembling together the component parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate clamping rods on two backing plates disclosed by the Yasauki reference for the two backing plates of the fuel cell assembly disclosed by the Yasauki reference in order to tighten the fuel cell assembly and preventing leakage of fuel, oxidant and coolant that is inefficient for electrochemical reactions.
Regarding claim 19, the Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the gasket are arranged between the flow field structures for laterally sealing the fuel cell and the gaskets comprises an inner spacer (inner 14b and 15b in Fig. 7) arranged between segments of the fuel cell wherein the inner spacer extend between the membrane and the corresponding flow field structure and wherein fresh fuel, oxidant and coolant. The Yasuaki et al. reference is silent in explicitly disclosing that they are gasket and inner spacers are different pieces, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the gasket and inner spacer into one piece or separate , since it has been held that forming one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together or vice versa involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04B).
It is noted that the claim have “intended use” language such as “for laterally sealing the fuel cell” and “are introducible between the segments of the fuel cell” and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 21, the Yasuaki et al. reference and the Zhao et al. reference discloses a fuel cell. The limitation “is run by a blower” is intended use of the fuel cell. It is noted that claim limitation is “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument to drawings is moot since the Examiner has withdrawn the objection.
The Applicant argues, “However, the referenced "back pressure" in a fuel cell is the fluid or gas pressure at the exhaust outlets/manifolds. The back pressure is not the "partial pressure" of the oxidant "across the fuel cell" as recited by the claim. Accordingly, the action's reference to 1.5 or 2.0 atm of oxidant, and the conclusions therefrom, are not relevant to the claimed feature. Rather, Zhao is completely silent regarding oxidant partial pressures across the fuel cell, let alone that it remain at 15%, as claimed.”
However, back pressure is indicative of the pressure across a fuel cell. The back pressure at oxygen outlet is lower than the inlet pressure of the oxidant since the oxidant is utilized at the active areas after it enters and as the oxygen maneuvers around the fuel cell, it causes lower pressure. At 1 atm or regular pressure, the air comprises 21% oxygen or partial pressure is 0.21 atm. At double the pressure, or 2 atm, the partial pressure of oxygen is 0.41 atm and the oxygen is at 21% or more. Even though the Zhao et al. reference doesn’t explicitly recite partial pressure of oxygen, it can be calculated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights