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 .
Remarks
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 11 have been amended. Claims 3, 5-10 and 12 are as previously presented. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 13 is newly added. Claims 1-10 and 13 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
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 1-10 and 13 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 claim 1, states “end plates at either end of the stack in the stacking direction, wherein, on the side of the stack, belt receptacles are mounted on the end plates…” So, the term end plates is plural. Therefore there is more than one end plate. However, the claim states the term either, which means one of the sides. This is indefinite as the plural of end plates would need two end plates and either is one. The examiner thinks the term “either” should be “both.” Therefore the claim will be examined as though the claims stated the term both.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbroner (US 2006/0093890), and further in view of Ishida (US 2018/0040907).
As to claim 1, Steinbroner discloses a fuel cell stack (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #16 are the fuel cells, discussed throughout), having fuel cells which are stacked in a stacking direction and each of which has a plate-shaped form and extends in a first transverse direction and a second transverse direction, orthogonal to the first, as viewed orthogonally in relation to the stacking direction, wherein, in the stacking direction (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #16 are the fuel cells, discussed throughout), and end plates at either end of the stack in the stacking direction (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #12 and #14, discussed throughout), wherein, on the side of the stack, belt receptacles are mounted on the end plates, the belt receptacles extending from the side of the end plates in a direction orthogonal to the stacking direction (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #120, #146 and/or #148, discussed throughout), and belts are mounted over the belt receptacles such that they clamp the stack (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #112, discussed throughout).
Steinbroner is silent to wherein, the fuel cells have a stack of the following: an anode-side bipolar half-plate with a fuel channel structure for conducting a fuel, an anode-side gas diffusion layer, a membrane-electrode unit, having an electrolyte membrane and electrode layers which are arranged on either side of said electrolyte membrane in the stacking direction and form an anode and a cathode for an electrochemical reaction of the fuel with an oxidizing agent, a cathode-side gas diffusion layer, a cathode-side bipolar half-plate with an oxidizing agent channel structure for conducting the oxidizing agent.
Ishida discloses a fuel cell stack ([0008], discussed throughout), wherein the fuel cells have a stack of the following: an anode-side bipolar half-plate with a fuel channel structure for conducting a fuel (figures 3, 8 and 9, the anode side of the metal separator #33, wherein the anode is #42, discussed throughout), an anode-side gas diffusion layer (figures 3, 8 and 9 #42b, [0035], discussed throughout), a membrane-electrode unit (figures 3, 8 and 9 #40, 42a and 44a, [0035]-[0037], discussed throughout), having an electrolyte membrane (figures 3, 8 and 9 #40, [0036], discussed throughout) and electrode layers which are arranged on either side of said electrolyte membrane in the stacking direction and form an anode and a cathode for an electrochemical reaction of the fuel with an oxidizing agent (figures 3, 8 and 9 #42a for the anode and #44a for the cathode, [0035]-[0037], discussed throughout), a cathode-side gas diffusion layer (figures 3, 8 and 9 #44b, [0035]-[0037], discussed throughout), a cathode-side bipolar half-plate with an oxidizing agent channel structure for conducting the oxidizing agent (figures 3, 8 and 9 the cathode side of the second metal separator #30, discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the stacking structure from Ishida within Steinbroner because leaking of the reactant and the coolant is prevented ([0006], Ishida).
As to claim 2, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, at least one belt receptacle is displaceable in the stacking direction (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #120, #146 and #148, discussed throughout, claim does state amount of effort it takes to be moved thus it can be with time and tools).
As to claim 3, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, the belt receptacles have a circular shape, or an ellipsoidal shape, or a semicircular shape (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #120, #146 and #148, discussed throughout). Should it be considered that the shape is not semicircle it would have been obvious to change the shape of the belt receptacles as a mere change in shape barring any criticality and unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 4, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, the belt is guided over a belt receptacle on a first end plate and over a belt receptacle on a second end plate such that the belt borders more than 50%, more than 60%, or more than 70%, of the lateral surface of the fuel cell stack in a lateral plan view of a side surface of the fuel cell stack (figure 6). Additionally, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to increase the width of the belts as a mere change in shape baring and criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 5, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, the belt receptacles all have the same shape (figures 6, 10 and 10-13 #120, #146 and #148, thus the claim limitation is meet).
As to claim 6, modified Steinbroner is silent to wherein, the belt receptacles have different shapes. it would have been obvious to change the shape of the belt receptacles as a mere change in shape barring any criticality and unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 10, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, multiple belt pairs are mounted and the belts in pairs have different properties (figure 11, the belts on the ends have a different shape and would have a different length because of the belt receptacles and thus have different properties).
As to claim 13, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, the upper extent of the belt receptacle is disposed below an upper surface of a respective end plate (figures 6, 8 and 10-13).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Steinbroner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gagliardo (US 2018/0198141).
As to claim 7, modified Steinbroner is wherein, the end plates consist of the same material as the bipolar plates. Gagliardo discloses a fuel cell ([0003]) wherein the end plates and the bipolar plates are made of stainless steel ([0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the end plate material and bipolar plate material from Gagliardo within modified Steinbroner as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 8, modified Steinbroner discloses wherein, in the case of each fuel cell, the intermediate region of the anode-side bipolar half-plate and/or the intermediate region of the cathode-side bipolar half-plate has a projection protruding in the stacking direction (figures 3, 8 and 9, Ishida, the portions making the coolant passages can be considered a projection protruding in the stacking direction).
Modified Steinbroner is silent to wherein the end plates consist of electrically conductive material. Gagliardo discloses a fuel cell ([0003]) wherein the end plates are made of stainless steel ([0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the end plate material from Gagliardo within modified Steinbroner as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Steinbroner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ophardt (US 2017/0110750).
As to claim 9, modified Steinbroner is silent to wherein, the end plates consist of an electrically non-conductive material. Ophardt discloses a fuel cell (abstract) wherein the end plates are made of an electrically non-conductive material ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the end plate material from Ophardt within modified Steinbroner as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 13 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights