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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-11 were rejected and claim 8 was objected in the Office Action mailed on 09/29/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1 and 6-7 and cancelled claims 12-13. Claim 5 was previously cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “when the element portion is not generating electrical power, a first electrode of the element portion faces the opening, and protrudes into the opening.” The newly added limitation does not appear to be supported by the originally filed specification including the drawings. Particularly, nowhere in the specification is recited that the first electrode of the element portion faces the opening and protrudes into the opening when the element portion is not generating electrical power. Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 6-11, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the connecting portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 7 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kususe (JPH03110761A – prior art of record).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JPH03110761A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Kususe teaches a cell (page 2, lie 11-12) (see figure 1) comprising:
an element portion (1, 2, 3) (page 2, lines 13-15) (see figure 2 below);
a gas-flow passage through which reaction gas flows (i.e., reaction gas passage) (page 2, line 20);
a first metal portion (i.e., reinforcing plate) (6) (page 2, line 20) located between one surface side of the gas-flow passage and the element portion and supporting the element portion (see figure 2 below);
a second metal portion (i.e., separator) (4) (page 2, line 24) located on another surface side opposite to the one surface side of the gas-flow passage (see figure 2 below); and
a reinforcing portion (i.e., corrugated metal) (8) (page 2, line 19) located inside the gas-flow passage and facing the first metal portion and the second metal portion (see figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kususe teaches the first metal portion (6) comprises an opening (i.e., holes) (6a) coupled to the gas-flow passage and the element portion and a first electrode of the element portion faces the opening (page 2, lines 15-20) (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kususe does not explicitly articulate the limitation “a first electrode of the element portion faces the opening, and protrudes into the opening.” Nonetheless, Kususe teaches the element portion (1), which includes a first and second electrode (2, 3) (i.e., anode and cathode electrodes), creeps slightly by the tightening force in the battery stacking direction (page 2, lines 30-55). In this context, “creep” would result in deformation or displacement of the first and second electrode under mechanical stress. In other words, the material would slightly shift/bend, compress or move because of the load applied. If the electrode plates re subject to this type of mechanical creep under stacking pressure, a skilled artisan would understand that they can deform sightly into adjacent open spaces. Since the first metal portion (6), which comprises openings (6a) is adjacent to the electrodes, the creeping material would protrude or get into those spaces as such would create a pass of least resistance and the stack layers would push one another. Consequently, it is interpreted that Kususe meets the requirements of the claimed limitation. As to the limitation “when the element portion is not generating electrical power”, one of ordinary skill in the art could understand that compressing or tightening can be performed during power generation or when electrical power is generated. In addition, Kususe teaches the stack unit is tightened and operated (page 2, lines 25-30) which is interpreted as the stack being tightened before is operated.
Regarding claim 2, Kususe teaches the first metal portion is configured to transmit the reaction gas between the gas-flow passage and the element portion, and the second metal portion does not transmit the reaction gas (page 1, lines 58-60; page 2, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Kususe teaches a third metal portion comprising the reinforcing portion (i.e., corrugated metal) (8) (page 2, lines 19-25) which is located between the first metal portion and the second metal portion, the first metal portion and the second metal portion facing each other with the gas-flow passage interposed therebetween (see figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kususe teaches the gas-flow passage comprises an inlet and an outlet for the reaction gas (page 1, lines 58-60), and the reinforcing portion extends in a second direction intersecting a first direction directed from the inlet toward the outlet (see figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kususe teaches a cell stack in plurality (page 2, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kususe (JPH03110761A – prior art of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0070762).
Regarding claim 6, Kususe teaches a connecting portion that connects the first metal portion (6) and the second metal portion (4) (see figure 4). Kususe does not teach the first metal portion, the connecting portion, and the second metal portion are an integrated continuous metal material. However, making integral what is already made by Kususe (i.e., first metal portion, second metal portion, and connecting portion) in one piece instead of separate components would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VB). Nonetheless, additional guidance is provided below.
PNG
media_image4.png
349
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chung, also directed to a cell stack (abstract), teaches a cell comprising a connecting portion connecting a first metal portion (i.e., end) (2), a second metal portion (i.e., edge 4) (see figure 1) (paragraphs [0088]-[0092]). This configuration allows cell modules to be electrically connected to each other (paragraph [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kususe first and second metal plates and the connecting portion to be an integral continuous metal material as suggested by Chung in order to allow electrical connection between components.
Regarding claim 7, Kususe teaches the cell as described above in claim 1. Kususe does not explicitly articulate a fourth metal portion. However, as indicated above and depicted in figure 1, Kususe describes a cell which can be stacked in plurality. Therefore, when stacked in plurality, a fourth metal plate (equivalent to the second metal plate) would be arranged on an opposite side of the gas-flow passage with the second metal portion interposed between the fourth metal portion and the gas-flow passage. In addition, as described above and shown in figure 2 above, all metal portions appear to be continuous. As indicated above, Kususe teaches a connecting portion but does not explicitly articulate the first metal portion, the connecting portion, the second metal portion, and the fourth metal portion as integrated continuous metal material. However, making integral what is already made by Kususe (i.e., first metal portion, second metal portion, fourth metal portion and connecting portion) in one piece instead of separate components would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VB). Nonetheless, Chung, as describe above, teaches a cell integrated component that allows cell modules to be electrically connected to each other (paragraph [0092]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kususe first, second and fourth metal plates and the connecting portion to be an integral continuous metal material as suggested by Chung in order to allow electrical connection between components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1, 7 and 8.
Applicant may consider amending claim 1 as suggested below in order to potentially place the application in condition of allowance. The prior art does not teach the combination of these features:
A cell comprising:
an element portion;
a gas-flow passage through which reaction gas flows;
a first metal portion located between one surface side of the gas-flow passage and the element portion and supporting the element portion;
a second metal portion located on another surface side opposite to the one surface side of the gas-flow passage;
a reinforcing portion located inside the gas-flow passage and facing the first metal portion and the second metal portion, wherein the first metal portion comprises an opening coupled to the gas-flow passage and the element portion and a first electrode of the element portion faces the opening, and protrudes into the opening;
a fourth metal portion located on an opposite side of the gas-flow passage with the second metal portion interposed between the fourth metal portion and the gas-flow passage, wherein a connecting portion, the first metal portion, the second metal portion, and the fourth metal portion are an integrated continuous metal material; and
a coating layer located between the fourth metal portion and an oxidizing atmosphere, the coating layer containing at least one of zinc, manganese, and cobalt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 12/22/2025 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). The new limitations have been fully addressed above in view of Chung.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723