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
In response to the amendment received on 05/06/2026:
Claims 1 and 4-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4-12 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 10, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 11, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Upon further consideration of Applicant’s amended claims, new claim objections and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “…between the cell stacked bodies” when it should recite “…between the adjacent two of the cell stacked bodies”.
Claim 8 recites “for each cell stacked body” when it should recite “for each cell stacked body of the plurality of cell stacked bodies”.
Claim 10 recites “each cell stacked body” when it should recite “each cell stacked body of the plurality of cell stacked bodies”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 12, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claims recite “two end-side cell stacked bodies”.
It is unclear if the “two end-side cell stacked bodies” are part of the “plurality of cell stacked bodies”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “wherein
a second one of the two end-side manifolds, for a second end-side cell stacked body among the two end-side cell stacked bodies, provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, includes a gas passing part that allows communication between a first region in the second end-side cell stacked body and a second region, in the second end-side cell stacked body, different from the first region such that the reaction gas passes through; and
the first one of the two end-side manifolds, for the first end-side cell stacked body, provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, further includes a gas discharging part that discharges the reaction gas from the first end-side cell stacked body, the gas discharging part being provided on at least part of a lateral surface that the gas introducing part is provided on.”
In claim 4, both the first one and the second one of the two end-side manifolds are recited to be provided on “a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”. Is it unclear if the “a lateral surface” in both are the same surface or different surfaces.
Further, claim 4 depends from claim 1 which recites “two end-side manifolds provided on opposite sides of lateral surfaces of two end-side cell stacked bodies, perpendicular to the first direction” and “a first one of the two end-side manifolds that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”.
It is unclear if the two recitations of “a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part” are using the same “an opposite side to the gas flow channel part” as recited in claim 1 or if they are different opposite sides to the gas flow channel part.
Further, claim 1 recites “a first one of the two end-side manifolds that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, includes a gas introducing part that introduces the reaction gas into the cell stacked bodies”, and claim 4 recites “the first one of the two end-side manifolds, for the first end-side cell stacked body, provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, further includes a gas discharging part that discharges the reaction gas from the first end-side cell stacked body, the gas discharging part being provided on at least part of a lateral surface that the gas introducing part is provided on”.
The gas introducing part and the gas discharging part are both parts of the first one of the two end-side manifolds.
The first one of the two-end side manifolds is already recited in claim 4 to be “provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”.
Given the first one of the two end-side manifolds is provided on the “lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”, the gas introducing part would be provided on this same lateral surface. Therefore, the gas discharging part would also be on the same “lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”.
Therefore, the recitation of “a lateral surface that the gas introducing part is provided on” is unclear as it sets forth a new “a lateral surface”.
Due to claims 4-13 depending from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein
the first one of the two end-side manifolds, for the first end-side cell stacked body, provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, further includes a cooling water introducing part that introduces the cooling water into the first end-side cell stacked body; and
a second one of the two end-side manifolds, for a second end-side cell stacked body among the two end-side cell stacked bodies, provided on a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part, includes a cooling water discharging part that discharges the cooling water from an inside of the second end-side cell stacked body.”
In claim 7, both the first one and the second one of the two end-side manifolds are recited to be provided on “a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”. Is it unclear if the “a lateral surface” in both are the same surface or different surfaces.
Further, claim 7 depends from claim 6 which depends from claim 1 which recites “two end-side manifolds provided on opposite sides of lateral surfaces of two end-side cell stacked bodies, perpendicular to the first direction” and “a first one of the two end-side manifolds that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part”.
It is unclear if the two recitations of “a lateral surface that is on an opposite side to the gas flow channel part” are using the same “an opposite side to the gas flow channel part” as recited in claim 1 or if they are different opposite sides to the gas flow channel part.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The fuel cell according to Claim 1, wherein each of the cell stacked bodies has both end parts in the stacking direction”. The structure of “end parts” was not recited in claim 1, of which claim 8 depends. Therefore, it is unclear what “end parts” are “both end parts”.
Claim 8 further recites the limitation "the stacking direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the gas flow channel part is provided between a first lateral surface of one of the cell stacked bodies and a second lateral surface of an adjacent one of the cell stacked bodies, that faces the first lateral surface”.
Claim 1, of which claim 12 depends, recites “…at least one inter-stack manifold provided between adjacent two of the cell stacked bodies and being shared by the adjacent two of the cell stacked bodies, wherein the at least one inter-stack manifold includes a gas flow channel part that allows communication between the adjacent two of the cell stacked bodies such that the reaction gas passes through…”.
It is unclear if the “one of the cell stacked bodies” and “an adjacent one of the cell stacked bodies” of claim 12 are meant to be the “adjacent two of the cell stacked bodies” in which the gas flow channel part allows communication between as recited in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
If Applicant overcomes the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), then Claims 1 and 4-14 would be allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of claims 1 and 4-14.
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses a fuel cell comprising:
a cell stacked body having elements stacked (stack 11 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 28), each element having:
an electrolyte membrane; a fuel electrode and an oxidant electrode between which the electrolyte membrane is interposed (Aoki teaches their invention being used with polymer electrolyte fuel cells, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the cells in the stack of Fig. 5 of Aoki as polymer electrolyte fuel cells; these cells inherently have a fuel electrode, oxidant electrode, and polymer electrolyte membrane in-between; see entire disclosure and especially P19);
a fuel electrode flow channel plate in which a gas flow channel facing the fuel electrode is provided (anode flow passage plate 5 including anode flow path 10 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P4, 27); and
an oxidant electrode flow channel plate in which a gas flow channel facing the oxidant electrode is provided (“the oxidant electrode flow passage of the oxidant electrode flow passage plate”, P4; further, see entire disclosure and especially P4, 16-17, 21).
Aoki discloses manifolds provided on lateral surfaces, of the cell stacked body, along a stacking direction of the cell stacked body (fuel electrode inlet manifold 6, anode outlet manifold 7, oxidant electrode inlet manifold 8, oxidizer electrode outlet manifold 9; see Figs. 4-5; see entire disclosure and especially P16-18, 24), one of the manifolds being configured to feed a reaction gas to the fuel electrode flow channel plate or the oxidant electrode flow channel plate in the cell stacked body (see entire disclosure and especially P4, 27).
However, Aoki does not disclose a plurality of cell stacked bodies and a manifold that is provided between a plurality of the cell stacked bodies arranged to line up in a first direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and that allows communication between the cell stacked bodies such that the reaction gas passes through.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ihara teaches a large capacity fuel cell can be made by using two fuel cell stacks (see entire disclosure and especially P9).
Ihara teaches a first and second fuel cell stack can be connected by a connecting member serving as a common manifold (25 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P25, 34). Ihara teaches this communicates fuel gas flow paths of the first and second cell stacks without the need to install piping between the two stacks, therefore resulting in reducing the spacing between the two stacks which makes it possible to reduce the size of the housing the two stacks are within (see entire disclosure and especially P21, 25).
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 Ihara and provided to Aoki at least two cell stacked bodies wherein between the two cell stacked bodies a manifold, such as the connecting member of Ihara, sits to connect the fuel gas flow paths between the two, given Ihara teaches this can make a large capacity fuel cell that links two fuel cell stacks together without piping in-between to reduce spacing between the two fuel cells and allows reducing of the size of a housing the two stacks would sit in.
Therefore, modified Aoki meets the limitations a plurality of cell stacked bodies and a manifold that is provided between a plurality of the cell stacked bodies arranged to line up in a first direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and that allows communication between the cell stacked bodies such that the reaction gas passes through.
The Examiner provides below an example of their interpretation of this modification.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s interpretation of Modified Aoki
Regarding claim 14, Aoki discloses a manifold for a fuel cell, the manifold being provided on a lateral surface, of a cell stacked body (stack 11 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 28), along a stacking direction of the cell stacked body (fuel electrode inlet manifold 6, anode outlet manifold 7, oxidant electrode inlet manifold 8, oxidizer electrode outlet manifold 9; see Figs. 4-5; see entire disclosure and especially P16-18, 24),
the cell stacked body having elements stacked, each element having: an electrolyte membrane; a fuel electrode and an oxidant electrode between which the electrolyte membrane is interposed (Aoki teaches their invention being used with polymer electrolyte fuel cells, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the cells in the stack of Fig. 5 of Aoki as polymer electrolyte fuel cells; these cells inherently have a fuel electrode, oxidant electrode, and polymer electrolyte membrane in-between; see entire disclosure and especially P19);
a fuel electrode flow channel plate in which a gas flow channel facing the fuel electrode is provided (anode flow passage plate 5 including anode flow path 10 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P4, 27); and an oxidant electrode flow channel plate in which a gas flow channel facing the oxidant electrode is provided (“the oxidant electrode flow passage of the oxidant electrode flow passage plate”, P4; further, see entire disclosure and especially P4, 16-17, 21), and
the manifold being configured to feed a reaction gas to the fuel electrode flow channel plate or the oxidant electrode flow channel plate in the cell stacked body (see entire disclosure and especially P4, 27).
However, Aoki does not disclose a plurality of cell stacked bodies and a manifold that is provided between a plurality of the cell stacked bodies arranged to line up in a first direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and that allows communication between the cell stacked bodies such that the reaction gas passes through.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ihara teaches a large capacity fuel cell can be made by using two fuel cell stacks (see entire disclosure and especially P9).
Ihara teaches a first and second fuel cell stack can be connected by a connecting member serving as a common manifold (25 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P25, 34). Ihara teaches this communicates fuel gas flow paths of the first and second cell stacks without the need to install piping between the two stacks, therefore resulting in reducing the spacing between the two stacks which makes it possible to reduce the size of the housing the two stacks are within (see entire disclosure and especially P21, 25).
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 Ihara and provided to Aoki at least two cell stacked bodies wherein between the two cell stacked bodies a manifold, such as the connecting member of Ihara, sits to connect the fuel gas flow paths between the two, given Ihara teaches this can make a large capacity fuel cell that links two fuel cell stacks together without piping in-between to reduce spacing between the two fuel cells and allows reducing of the size of a housing the two stacks would sit in.
Therefore, modified Aoki meets the limitations a plurality of cell stacked bodies and a manifold that is provided between a plurality of the cell stacked bodies arranged to line up in a first direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and that allows communication between the cell stacked bodies such that the reaction gas passes through.
The Examiner provides below an example of their interpretation of this modification.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s interpretation of Modified Aoki
However, neither Aoki, Dong, or the other cited references from the Non-Final Rejection dated 07/22/2025 teach or suggest the limitation of “an electrolyte membrane that is in the cell stacked body that the gas introducing part is provided on is thicker than the electrolyte membrane in another cell stacked body”.
Further search previously revealed Son et al (KR 20170004194 A, using the previously provided machine English translation from Google Patents).
Son teaches an electrolyte membrane can have an inclined structure wherein the thickness of the electrolyte is larger at an area closer to the fuel inlet and smaller at an area closer to the fuel outlet (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2).
However, while this concept is similar to the claimed invention in that it wants a larger thickness of an electrolyte membrane near a gas inlet, Son does not disclose or suggest that the electrolyte membranes of a single stack of a plurality of fuel cell stacks are larger than other stacks within the plurality. Rather than what is described in claims 1 and 14, if Son were combined with modified Aoki, it would provide each electrolyte membrane in each stack of the plurality of stacks an inclined design wherein the thicknesses of each electrolyte membrane are increased where the fuel gas enters and decreased where the fuel gas leaves.
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of independent claims 1 and 14 and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of independent claims 1 and 14. Since claims 4-12 depend on claim 1, they are allowable for the same reason.
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 Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights