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 response to Election/Restriction has been received. Claims 22-25 are withdrawn- currently amended. Claims 1-5, 10-21 are amended. Claims 6-9 are 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-5, 10-12, 16, 18-21 in the reply filed on 3/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the election is made with traverse because there is not serious search or examination burden related to the species of species Group III. This is not found persuasive because claim 8 has been cancelled, Fig.4A and 4B discloses one or the other and not a combination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Please note, in the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the
product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the
rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37
CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for
patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all
claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper
restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be
maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an
allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04.
Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims
should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the
product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note
that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply
where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent
issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/22 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/12/22 has been considered
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: micrometres should be changes to micrometers. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US Publication 20140178785).
Regarding claim 1, the Jang et al. reference discloses fluid guiding assembly for fuel cells, comprising a channel structure (100, 200) and a gas diffusion layer (120) arranged on the channel structure (100, 200), the channel structure defining flow field channels (202) extending from a first end of the channel structure (fig.4 and 5) to an opposite second end, characterized in that wherein a porous distributor (130) is arranged at both ends of the channel structure ((Fig. 5 and 6), extending over the entire width of the channel structure. The Jang appears to disclose the height of the distributors is smaller than the height of the diffusion layer and the height of the channel structure (Fig. 6) but is silent in disclosing wherein the height of the distributors equals the sum of the height of the diffusion layer and the height of the channel structure, however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size (in this case the height) of the distributors, 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))
In the event that the combination does not teach the distributor height with sufficient specificity, it would have been indeed adequate and obvious, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, the Jang et al. discloses wherein the gas diffusion layer, the flow channel structure and the distributors are permanently connected with each other to produce a fuel cell that utiltizes reactive fuel to produce electricity. It would have been obvious to be permanently attached so that the fuel cell components can function. 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 16, the Jang et al. reference discloses wherein the distributors are made of metal, plastic or resin (P46).
Regarding claim 17, the Jang et al. reference discloses wherein the channel structure (100, 200) comprising comprise straight, serpentine or interdigitated flow field channels.
Regarding claim 19, the Jang et al. reference discloses a flow field structure comprising the fluid guiding assembly according to claim 1 and a separator plate with a recess for receiving the fluid guiding assembly, further comprising manifolds (206;112) and distribution channels for supplying gas to the distributors (120) on the first end of the channel structure and for collecting gas from the distributors (Fig. 5) on the second end of the channel structure.
Regarding claim 20, the Jang et al. reference discloses a fuel cell (1) comprising at least one membrane electrode assembly braced by two flow field structures (Fig. 6) according to claim 19.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 13, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambini et al. (US20190221866).
Regarding claim 1, the Gambini et al. reference discloses fluid guiding assembly for fuel cells, comprising a channel structure (separator plates) and a gas diffusion layer (GDL; 24) arranged on the channel structure, the channel structure defining flow field channels extending from a first end of the channel structure to an opposite second end, characterized in that wherein a porous distributor (92, 90) is arranged at both ends of the channel structure, extending over the entire width of the channel structure. The Gambini appears to disclose the height of the distributors is smaller than the height of the diffusion layer and the height of the channel structure but is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the height of the distributors equals the sum of the height of the diffusion layer and the height of the channel structure, however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size (in this case, the height) of the distributors, 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))
In the event that the combination does not teach the distributor height sufficient specificity, it would have been indeed adequate and obvious, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, the Gambini et al. reference discloses wherein the distributors being formed in one piece and having a porosity of 80-95% and not between 10% and 90%. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
Regarding claim 3, the Gambini et al. reference discloses the porosity changes to no pores at the corners over the width of the distributors (Fig. 11a).
Regarding claim 4, the Gambini et al. reference discloses the length of the distributors are smaller than the length of the flow field channels but does not specify 1-10% but can be measured to 1-10% of the flow field channels (Fig. 11B). In addition, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the distributors in contrast to the flow field channel, 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 10, the Gambini et al. discloses wherein the height (thickness of the distributors 150-5000 micron but does not explicitly disclose the range of 50 micrometers to 400 micrometers. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
Regarding claim 13, the Gambini et al. reference discloses an open-pore foam for the distributors (P75).
Regarding claim 15, the Gambini et al. rreference discloses open-pore foam Since, the claim recites multiple compounds in an alternative manner. Thus as long as one of the compounds are disclosed by the prior art such as open-pore foam. It is unnecessary to address the rest of the claimed limitations such as slits.
Regarding claim 16, the Gambini et al. reference discloses wherein the distributors are made of metal, plastic or resin (P46).
Regarding claim 17, the Gambini et al. reference discloses wherein the channel structure (Fig. 11) comprising comprise straight, serpentine or interdigitated flow field channels.
Regarding claim 19, the Gambini et al. reference discloses a flow field structure comprising the fluid guiding assembly according to claim 1 and a separator plate with a recess for receiving the fluid guiding assembly, further comprising manifolds (Fig. 2) and distribution channels for supplying gas to the distributors (Fig. 11) on the first end of the channel structure and for collecting gas from the distributors on the second end of the channel structure (90, 92).
Regarding claim 20, the Gambini et al. reference discloses a fuel cell (1) comprising at least one membrane electrode assembly braced by two flow field structures (Fig. 1) according to claim 19.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambini et al. (US20190221866) in view of Steide et al. (DE102005042498).
Regarding claim 11, Gambini et al. discloses wherein the flow channel structure and the distributors stacked to make a fuel cell but does not explicitly disclose the flow channel structure and the distributors are permanently connected with each other. However, the Steide et al. reference discloses a fuel cell assembly clamped by clamping ends so as to make the flow channel structure and the distributors permanently connected in order to maintain pressure across the fuel cell components so that the fuel cell won’t leak. Therefore, it would have been obvoius before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the flow channel structure and the distributors disclosed by the Gambini reference to be clamped together and permanently connected by a clamping plate to pressurized the fuel cell and prevent leakage of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 12, the Gambini et al. discloses wherein the gas diffusion layer, the flow channel structure and the distributors are stacked to make a fuel cell but does not explicitly dislcsoe that the gas diffusion layer, the flow channel structure and the distributors are permanently connected with each other. However, the Steide et al. reference discloses a fuel cell assembly clamped by clamping ends so as to make the flow channel structure and the distributors permanently connected in order to maintain pressure across the fuel cell components so that the fuel cell won’t leak. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the the gas diffusion layer, the flow channel structure and the distributors disclosed by the Gambini reference to be clamped together and permanently connected by a clamping plate to pressurized the fuel cell and prevent leakage of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 18, the Gambini et al. reference discloses the channel structure and the distributors are stacked to form a fuel cell and thus, formed integrally in a single fuel cell.
Regarding claim 21, the Gambini et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Gambini et al. reference discloses a stacked fuel cell but is silent in disclosing comprising two current collector plates and two backing plates, wherein one current collector plate is arranged adjacent to each flow field structure and wherein one backing plate is arranged adjacent to each current collector plate. However, the Steide et al. reference discloses a fuel cell stack that comprise two current collector plates and two backing plates, wherein one current collector plate is arranged adjacent to each flow field structure and wherein one backing plate is arranged adjacent to each current collector plate in order to clamp the fuel cell components together so to pressurize the stack and no fuel can leak form the stack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a fuel cell assembly comprising two current collector plates and two backing plates, wherein one current collector plate is arranged adjacent to each flow field structure and wherein one backing plate is arranged adjacent to each current collector plate disclosed by the Steide et al. reference for the fuel cell stack disclosed by the Gambini et al. reference to prevent any hazardous leakage form the fuel cell stack and would compromise the ability to produce electric power.
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