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 12/9/25. Claims 1-10, 12-18 are amended. Claims 19 and 20 are new. Claim 11 has been cancelled.
The Applicant’s amendments to the specification received on 12/9/25 has been accepted.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/25 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings in view of the claims are withdrawn, however, after reconsideration, the drawings in view of the specification is objected to.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Aij as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-18 are withdrawn because Applicant amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yosuke et al., on claims 1-6, 11-18 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2014/0186740).
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).
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 disclsoes the shape of the manifolds is one of the group comprising angled, rectangular, square, oval and round (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2014/0186740).
Regarding claim 2, the Kwon et al. reference disclsoes the claimed invention above and furher 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 disclsoes 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 8, the Kwon et al. reference disclsoes 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 disclsoes 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 disclsoes 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).
Claim(s) 1-10, 11-19 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).
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 lest 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 tow 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
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 idental 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).
Claim(s) 20 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 20, the modified Yasuaki et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The modifed Yasuaki et al. reference does not explicitly disclosed the oxidant comrpirse oxygen wherein a percentage of th epartical pressure of oxygen in the oxidant remains above 15% across the fuel cell. However, the Zhao reference discloses the variation in pressure effects the voltage output of the cell. The Zhao specifically discloses the back pressure of the oxidant of the fuel cell was measure or adjusted to be 2.0 and 1.5 atm, than the pressure across the fuel cell must be at least 2.0 atm or 1.5 atm or more. When the oxygen is sitting or at the onset of starting the fuel cell by providing oxygen pressure is at 0 or the atmospheric pressure which is at 1 atm. As the fuel cell increases usage of oxygen through the fuel cell, the measured or set back pressure is 2 atm or 1.5 atm, the partial pressure must than be 15% or more than the beginning pressure at start. 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) disclosed by the Zhao et al. reference applied to the fuel cell disclosed by the modified 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 have been considered but are moot 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.
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 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