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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 5, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “one or more nozzle (104)” and then followed by “the one or more nozzles (104)” which are not consistent with one another.
Claim 5 recites “…connecting one or more air cathode (103)”. It is unclear whether the ‘one or more air cathode’ in claim 5 is the same or different from ‘one or more air cathode’ in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “connecting…in a parallel” which appears grammatically incorrect.
Claim 12 recites “one or more nozzle (104)” and then followed by “the one or more nozzles (104)” which are not consistent with one another.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3, 6, 8, 10 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a gas evolution section (107) and a gasket (108) sealing the air fuel cell stack”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claimed system positively requires the above structure or not. Specifically, the limitation recites “the air fuel cell stack” which claims antecedent basis to “an air fuel cell stack” recited in the preamble of claim 1. Regarding claim 1 reciting “…for managing an electrode in an air fuel cell stack”, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more cathode (103)". It is unclear whether the limitation is the same or different from “the one or more air cathode” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the anode array (102)”. It is unclear as to which among the “one or more anode array” recited in claim 1 said limitation refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “between two air cathodes in the air fuel cell stack”. It is unclear how many air cathodes are present in the system because claim 1 recites “one or more air cathode” while claim 8 recites “two air cathodes” and does not further specify whether the “one or more air cathode” recited in claim 1 is being further limited.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “between two air cathodes in the air fuel cell stack”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claimed system positively requires the above structure or not. Specifically, the limitation recites “between two air cathodes in the air fuel cell stack” which claims antecedent basis to “an air fuel cell stack” recited in the preamble of claim 1. Regarding claim 1 reciting “…for managing an electrode in an air fuel cell stack”, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “anodes”. It is unclear whether the “anodes” is the same or different from the “one or more anode array” or the “one or more anode” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selcuk et al. (US 2009/0226786A1) in view of Niksa et al. (US 4,950,561).
Regarding claim 1, Selcuk discloses a system (1000) for managing an electrode in an air fuel cell stack (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-22), the system (1000) comprising:
a cell frame (101) (clamping frame [0108] or compression frame [0246]);
one or more anode array (102), wherein the one or more anode array (102) is detachably provided with the cell frame (101) and wherein the one or more anode array (102) comprises one or more anode (anode [0071], Fig. 1-3);
one or more air cathode (103), wherein the one or more air cathode (103) is provided with the cell frame (101) (cathode [0071], Fig. 1-3);
one or more connector (105), wherein the one or more connector (105) connects the one or more air cathode (103) and the one or more anode array (102) (electrically conductive interconnect plate or current collector for achieving electrical contact between anode, cathode [0201]).
However, Selcuk does not disclose a snap fit mechanism (106) for locking and unlocking the one or more anode array (102) to the cell frame (101).
Niksa discloses connecting multiple cells by means of individual clips or jumper bars having a modified W shape configuration to snap onto the anode and an adjacent cathode which provides better contact and a more secure engagement (C11/L1-15).
Selcuk and Niksa are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk to incorporate clips or bars that snap onto an anode and adjacent cathode in an electrochemical cell because Niksa teaches improved performance as a result of better contact and a more secure engagement.
Regarding claim 3, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses the system (1000) further comprises a gas evolution section (107) and a gasket (108) sealing the air fuel cell stack and preventing a leakage of electrolyte and gas from the system (1000) (fuel flow path and gasket [0209]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses the one or more connector (105) connecting one or more air cathode (103) in a parallel (parallel [0213]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses the one or more connector (105) connects the one or more cathode (103) and the one or more anode array (102) in a series manner (series [0213]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses a top part of the one or more anode array (102) is designed to collect a gas evolved during an electrochemical reaction in the system (1000) (fuel flow path [0209]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses a first anode from the anode array (102) is configured to be inserted between two air cathodes in the air fuel cell stack, so as to ensure that an active area of the first anode and an active area of the two air cathodes to perform an electrochemical reaction (see Fig. 9-13 which show multiple cells with an anode between two cathodes).
Regarding claim 10, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses the system (1000) further comprises a dovetail groove and fixture design in a connector clip is provided to tightly grip and hold anodes and the one or more air cathodes (103).
Regarding claim 11, Selcuk discloses a method for managing an electrode in an air fuel cell stack (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-22), the method comprising:
providing a cell frame (101) (clamping frame [0108] or compression frame [0246]);
providing one or more anode array (102), wherein the one or more anode array (102) is detachably provided with the cell frame (101) and wherein the one or more anode array (102) comprises one or more anode (anode [0071], Fig. 1-3);
providing one or more air cathode (103) with the cell frame (101) (cathode [0071], Fig. 1-3);
connecting the one or more air cathode (103) and the one or more anode array (102) by using one or more connector (105) (electrically conductive interconnect plate or current collector for achieving electrical contact between anode, cathode [0201]).
However, Selcuk does not disclose locking and unlocking the one or more anode array (102) to the cell frame (101) by using a snap mechanism (106).
Niksa discloses connecting multiple cells by means of individual clips or jumper bars having a modified W shape configuration to snap onto the anode and an adjacent cathode which provides better contact and a more secure engagement (C11/L1-15).
Selcuk and Niksa are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk to incorporate clips or bars that snap onto an anode and adjacent cathode in an electrochemical cell because Niksa teaches improved performance as a result of better contact and a more secure engagement.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selcuk et al. (US 2009/0226786A1) in view of Niksa et al. (US 4,950,561), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11 above, and further in view of Matsusue (US 2020/0287227A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Selcuk does not further disclose the system (1000) further comprises one or more nozzle (104) providing a passage of gas evolution during an electrochemical reaction, wherein the one or more nozzles (104) is placed on a lid (109).
Matsusue discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack including end plates, wherein an ejector that includes nozzles for injecting fuel gas is mounted on a plate surface of the end plate (see Title, Abstract, [0065]). Matsusue further discloses suppressing increase in size ([0016]).
Modified Selcuk and Matsusue are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell stacks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk by mounting the fuel nozzle on the fuel cell stack endplate because Matsusue teaches a more compact fuel cell stack.
Regarding claim 4, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Selcuk further discloses the system (1000) further comprises a lid (109) covering the cell frame (101), the one or more anode array (102), the one or more air cathode (103), the one or more connector (105), a gas evolution section (107), and a gasket (108) (endplates 6 [0206] which acts as a cover; fuel flow path and gasket [0209]).
However, Selcuk does not further discloses one or more nozzle (104).
Matsusue discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack including end plates, wherein an ejector that includes nozzles for injecting fuel gas is mounted on a plate surface of the end plate (see Title, Abstract, [0065]). Matsusue further discloses suppressing increase in size ([0016]).
Modified Selcuk and Matsusue are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell stacks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk by mounting the fuel nozzle on the fuel cell stack endplate because Matsusue teaches a more compact fuel cell stack.
Regarding claim 12, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Selcuk does not further disclose the method further comprises providing a passage of gas evolution during an electrochemical reaction by using one or more nozzle (104), wherein the one or more nozzles (104) is placed on a lid (109).
Matsusue discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack including end plates, wherein an ejector that includes nozzles for injecting fuel gas is mounted on a plate surface of the end plate (see Title, Abstract, [0065]). Matsusue further discloses suppressing increase in size ([0016]).
Modified Selcuk and Matsusue are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell stacks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk by mounting the fuel nozzle on the fuel cell stack endplate because Matsusue teaches a more compact fuel cell stack.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selcuk et al. (US 2009/0226786A1) in view of Niksa et al. (US 4,950,561), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11 above, and further in view of Andoh et al. (US 2007/0048583A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Selcuk discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Niksa further discloses the system (1000) further comprises a connector clip made of a highly conductive material (buswork connecting multiple cells by means of individual clips or jumper bars having a modified W shape configuration to snap onto the anode and an adjacent cathode which provides better contact and a more secure engagement, C11/L1-15).
However, modified Selcuk does not further discloses the connector clip is coated with an alkaline resistive material.
Andoh discloses a fuel cell comprising a frame provided with an electrode terminal connector part plated with corrosion resistant noble material such as gold which is effective to reduce contact resistance of the current collector and thereby ensure improvement of output power density and long term stability (Title, Abstract, [0061]).
Modified Selcuk and Andoh are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrical connectors in fuel cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Selcuk by plating electrical connectors with gold because Andoh teaches improving corrosion resistance and fuel cell performance by reducing contact resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 10/28/2025