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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed May 12, 2023 is acknowledged. Action on the merits of claims 1-14 follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 12, 2023; October 4, 2024; June 13, 2025 and October 24, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received May 12, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bypass stopping element being a continuous element extending at least along a length of the flow field structure wherein at least upstream of the flow field structure in direction of the reactant flow, the bypass stopping element is connected to the sealing element (claim 7) and the bypass stopping element being an integral part of a subgasket or gas diffusion layer (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification received May 12, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A 150-word limit has been imposed by the USPTO to conform to PCT applications and Pre-Grant Publications. See 37 CFR 1.72 and rule changes applied thereto. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character “19” (page 12, 3rd paragraph), should be “17” as the subgaskets previously disclosed and shown are only as subgaskets “17, 18” (see pages 8 and 14). There is no reference character “19” in the drawings either. It appears that this is simply a typographical error in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the phrase “multi-layer” at line 3 should be “multilayer” (see claim 1, line 3, for example);
In claim 4, at line 3 the phrase “the bead seal protrude” should be “the bead seal protrudes” and at line 4, “in contact the bead seal” should be “in contact with the bead seal” for correct grammar.
In claim 5, at line 5 the phrase “(60, 70)” should be deleted as the claims have been amended in attempt to remove all reference characters from the claims but appears to have missed this phrase. Claims 6 and 9 are dependent upon claim 5 and objected to for the same reason.
In claim 9, the phrase “the first bypass stopping element having the pointed portion are discrete elements” appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the bypass stopping element being a continuous element extending at least along a length of the flow field structure wherein at least upstream of the flow field structure in direction of the reactant flow, the bypass stopping element is connected to the sealing element.
Upon review of the specification and figures, the disclosures therein are void of sufficient written description therein to ascertain the nature of the invention of claim 7. For example, the drawings fail to show these features at all. Furthermore, the specification appears only to state that at the bottom of page 4 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosure does not teach or show a continuous extending element, does not show of the placement of such in relation to being “upstream of the flow field structure in direction of the reactant flow” and further does not provide any guidance as to the nature of how the bypass stopping element is also connected to the sealing element.
Therefore, it would appear that the features of claim 7 with respect further to the originally filed application fails to comply with 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the bypass stopping element being an integral part of a subgasket or gas diffusion layer.
Upon review of the specification and figures, the disclosures therein are void of sufficient written description therein to ascertain the nature of the invention of claim 12. For example, the drawings fail to show these features at all. Furthermore, the specification appears only to state that at the bottom of page 5 as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification further teaches on page 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the disclosure is deficient as it fails to teach of the particular of such bypass stopping elements (claim 12) further in addition to the presence of at least one bypass stopping element of claim 1, the at least one bypass stopping element of claim 1 claimed to effectively protrude from the base level of the flow field plate. In short, claim 12 relates to a combination of bypass stopping elements in different elements of the invention and to that combination, the particulars of how such bypass stopping elements are arranged is lacking in the originally filed disclosure.
Therefore, it would appear that the features of claim 12 with respect further to the originally filed application fails to comply with 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 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 1-14 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.
NOTE: the claims are replete with inconsistent use of plural and singular forms of various elements. When plural elements are claimed (including phrases such as “at least one”) subsequent recitation of those elements in singular form (e.g., at least one bypass stopping element and then the bypass stopping element) are held to be indefinite as it is unclear which element(s) the explicit use of a singular form of the term a given limitation is referring to. Applicant is advised to carefully review the claims for consistency of terms in the presence of plural elements, including at least one of any element (which includes plural of that element) throughout the claims.
a. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective electrode" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 1 does recite a first electrode and a second electrode, the claim does not clearly set forth any clear respective electrode. The term “the respective electrode” may be in better form as “a respective electrode”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reactants" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the reactants” may be in better form as “reactants”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow field structure" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field structures previously and it is unclear which flow field structure(s) the phrase “the flow field structure” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural flow field structures. Furthermore it would appear that “at least one sealing element” is arranged between first and second flow field plates and with two flow field plates present, further includes respective flow field structures for each of the first and second flow field plates. The term “the flow field structure” may be in better form as “each flow field structure”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sealing element of at least one of the flow field plates" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one sealing element and it is unclear which sealing element(s) the phrase “the sealing element” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural sealing elements. Furthermore, the prior recitation of sealing elements, “at least one sealing element” in line 10 is recited as a feature between first and second flow field plates and not a sealing element of any flow field plate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective base level" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow field plate" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field plates and it is unclear which flow field plate(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field plates.
b. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, second paragraph should be made (see MPEP § 2173). Examples of claim language which have been held to be indefinite are “and preferably a second gas diffusion layer …” as the recitation of the phrase preferably raises an indefiniteness rejection as reasoned above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
c. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
d. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sealing element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one sealing element which includes plural of such and the term “the sealing element” (singular) is unclear which sealing element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural sealing elements. Furthermore, the previous recitation of the sealing elements (claim 1, ll. 10-12) recites sealing elements “between” first and second flow field plates which would appear to recite a placement which precludes a bead seal surrounding a flow field plate as recited in claim 4. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the flow field plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field plates and it is unclear which flow field plate(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field plates.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the flow field structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field structures and it is unclear which flow field structure(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field structures.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the base level" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field plates and base levels and it is unclear which base level(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field plates and base levels.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the respective other flow field plate" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first bypass stopping element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one first bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the first bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which first bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural first bypass stopping elements. Claims 6 and 9 are dependent upon claim 5 and do not remedy these issues.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second bypass stopping element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one second bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the second bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which second bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural second bypass stopping elements. Claims 6 and 9 are dependent upon claim 5 and do not remedy these issues.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one bypass stopping element which includes plural of such and the term “the bypass stopping element” (singular) is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flow field structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field structures previously and it is unclear which flow field structure(s) the phrase “the flow field structure” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural flow field structures.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reactant flow" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sealing element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites at least one sealing element which includes plural of such and the term “the sealing element” (singular) is unclear which sealing element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural sealing elements.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, second paragraph should be made (see MPEP § 2173). Examples of claim language which have been held to be indefinite are “preferably a plurality of bypass stopping element assemblies …” as the recitation of the phrase preferably raises an indefiniteness rejection as reasoned above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the area between the flow field structure and the bead seal of at least one of the flow field plates" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the flow field structure" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field structures previously and it is unclear which flow field structure(s) the phrase “the flow field structure” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural flow field structures.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bead seal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flow field plate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field plates and it is unclear which flow field plate(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field plates.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the flow field plate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural flow field plates and it is unclear which flow field plate(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural flow field plates. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites plural bypass stopping elements and it is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 and does not remedy this issue.
The addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. The term “frame-like” in claim 11 is indefinite as it is unclear as to what the bounds of the term limit or encompass to be “frame-like”. The term “frame-like element” should be amended to “frame element” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 and does not remedy this issue.
With respect to claim 11 the term “particularly” is held to define narrower limitations in the same claim corresponding to a first recited broader limitation. Particularly is not held to definitely limit the broader limitations either, as the term is not limited to the particular limitations (particularly being similar to especially, notably, preferentially but not exclusive to the language corresponding to the terms “particularly”).
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 25 U.S.C. 112(b) pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation the second material is more heat-resistant than the first material, and the claim also recites in particular wherein the first material is aluminum or at least comprises aluminum for the most part, and the second material is or comprises iron, particularly steel, or a ceramic material which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The phrase “wherein particularly the bypass stopping element is a frame-like element” is therefore indefinite for those reasons specified above.
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 and does not remedy this issue.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bypass stopping element with the pointed portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites “at least one bypass stopping element has a pointed portion” which includes plural bypass stopping element and it is unclear which bypass stopping element(s) the phrase “the bypass stopping element” (singular form) of claim 13 is referring to in the presence of plural bypass stopping elements.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the anode side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is indefinite. Claim 14 is to a flow field plate (subcombination) but is dependent on claim 1 (combination) and it is unclear which limitations apply to the subcombination recited in claim 14. Furthermore claim 1 recites plural flow field plates therein and it is unclear which flow field plate(s) claim 14 is referring to from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the phrase “pointed portion”, the phrase has been interpreted to be Describing the tip of an object that tapers to a fine or narrow end. A pointed object does not need to be sharp. While "pointed" describes something having a fine or thin end, "pointed" simply describes the shape of something having a tapering end, which may or may not be sharp (i.e., something can be pointed without being sharp).
Claim 14 is directed to a flow field plate. While claim 14 is connected to base claim 1 (more comprehensive fuel cell assembly including various flow field plates), the limitations of claim 14, reference claim 1 only as intended use “for a fuel cell assembly according to claim 1”. Therefore, the flow field plate of claim 14 is limited only to those limitations recited in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazawa (JP 2004-214019A).
As to claim 1, Miyazawa discloses a fuel cell assembly comprising:
at least a first flow field plate and a second flow field plate (separators 9b, 9a) sandwiching a multilayer membrane electrode assembly (5 – 3/1/3),
wherein the multilayer membrane electrode assembly (5) comprises at least a 3-layer membrane electrode assembly comprising a gas diffusion layer (3) and electrode layer facing the first flow field plate (9b or 9a), a second gas diffusion layer (3) and electrode layer facing the second flow field plate (9a or 9b) and a membrane (1) separating the gas diffusion layers with electrode layers (3),
PNG
media_image3.png
360
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein each flow field plate (9a 9b) has a flow field structure protruding from a base level of the flow field plate for distributing reactant over the respective gas diffusion layer (3) electrode layer (annotated Fig. 8 below),
PNG
media_image4.png
360
1024
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein further at least one sealing element (7) is arranged between the first and the second flow field plate (9a, 9b), which is adapted to prevent leakage of the reactants to an environment,
wherein in a boundary area between the flow field structure and the sealing element (7) of at least one of the flow field plates (9a) at least one bypass stopping element (41) is arranged for avoiding the reactant bypassing the flow field structure; wherein the bypass stopping element (41) protrudes from the respective base level of the flow field plate (9a),
wherein the at least one bypass stopping (41) element has a pointed portion, which is adapted to compress the multilayer membrane electrode assembly (5) (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
662
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the multilayer membrane electrode assembly further comprises at least one gas diffusion layer (3), which is positioned between the first electrode and the first flow field plate (9a or 9b), and preferably a second gas diffusion layer (3), which is positioned between the second electrode layer and the second flow field plate (9b or 9a), wherein the at least one gas diffusion layer (3) is adapted to extend at least partly over the at least one bypass stopping element (41), so that the pointed portion of the bypass stopping element (41) compresses the at least one gas diffusion layer (3).
As to claim 4, the sealing element (7) is a round gasket bead seal surrounding the edge region of the flow field plate (9) and therefore surrounding the flow field structure, the bead seal element (7) protrudes from the separator base level and is adapted to indirectly contact a bead seal of an adjacent flow field plate for preventing leakage of reactants to an environment (Fig. 8, for example).
As to claim 7, as best that claim 7 can be understood in light of the lack of definiteness of the relationships therein (noted above), the bypass stopping element (41) is a continuous element along the entire outer edge region of the separator plate (9) thus extending at least along a length of the flow field structure of the separator (9) (flow field plate) and wherein at least, upstream of the flow field structure in a direction of the reactant flow, the bypass stopping element (41) is connected to the sealing element (Fig. 3, sealing element 7 and bypass stopping element (41) are in direct contact and adjacent to each other, thus connected).
As to claim 10, the bypass stopping element (41) is an integral part of the flow field plate 9 (Fig. 3).
As to claim 13, separator (9b) is provided at the anode side (Fig. 8). The bypass stopping element (41) shown in Fig. 3 is provided to each separator (9) on one surface. Thus each separator includes a bypass stopping element (41) including the anode side separator including a bypass stopping element (41).
As to claim 14, As to the flow field plate of claim 14, Miyazawa discloses a flow field plate (separator 9) for a fuel cell assembly where the plate has at least one bypass stopping element (41) with a pointed portion. Since the separator (9) (reading on the flow field plate) has the same pointed portion at an edge region of the separator (9) it can read on the claimed bypass stopping element with a pointed portion of claim 14 and further is of the same design as in claim 14, thereby adapted to meet the functionality of claim 14 (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Claims 1-3, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0298310).
As to claim 1, Kato discloses a fuel cell assembly comprising:
at least a first flow field plate and a second flow field plate (separators 20a, 20b) sandwiching a multilayer membrane electrode assembly (32a/31/32b),
wherein the multilayer membrane electrode assembly (32a/31/32b) comprises at least a 3-layer membrane electrode assembly comprising electrode layer (32a) facing the first flow field plate (20a), a second electrode layer (32b) facing the second flow field plate (20b) and a membrane (31) separating the electrode layers (32a 32b; Fig. 5),
PNG
media_image6.png
380
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein each flow field plate (20a, 20b) has a flow field structure (grooved paths 34, 35) protruding from a base level of the flow field plate for distributing reactant over the respective electrode layer (annotated Fig. 8 below),
PNG
media_image7.png
433
827
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and wherein further at least one sealing element (13a 13b) is arranged between the first and the second flow field plate (20a 20b), which is adapted to prevent leakage of the reactants to an environment,
wherein in a boundary area between the flow field structure and the sealing element (13a 13b) of at least one of the flow field plates (20a 20b) at least one bypass stopping element (20r) is arranged for avoiding the reactant bypassing the flow field structure; wherein the bypass stopping element (20r) protrudes from the respective base level of the flow field plate (20a 20b),
wherein the at least one bypass stopping (20r) element has a pointed portion, which is adapted to compress the multilayer membrane electrode assembly (32a/31/32b) (see annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
403
559
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, according to Kato (paras. [0032]-[0033], for example), MEA (30) includes a polymer electrolyte membrane made of an ion-exchange membrane of polymer material (hereinafter also simply referred to as "electrolyte membrane") (31), and a pair of electrodes (an anode side diffusion electrode and a cathode side diffusion electrode) (32a) and (32b) that sandwich the electrolyte membrane (31) from both sides (see FIG. 1). The electrolyte membrane (31) is formed larger than the electrodes (32a) and (32b). The electrodes (32a) and (32b) are joined by a hot press method, for example, to the electrolyte membrane (31) in positions such that the peripheral edge portions (33) of the electrolyte membrane (31) are left uncovered.
The electrolytes (32a) and (32b) that make up part of the MEA (30) are formed of porous carbon material (diffusion layers), for example, that carry a catalyst such as platinum adhered to the surface. Hydrogen gas is supplied as a fuel gas (a reaction gas) to one of the electrodes (the anode) (32a) while oxidizing gas (a reaction gas) such as air or an oxidizing agent is supplied to the other electrode (the cathode) (32b). Electromotive force is then generated in the cell (2) by the electrochemical reaction that takes place between these two types of reaction gases in the MEA (30).
Therefore, regarding claim 2, Kato teaches that the multilayer membrane electrode assembly further comprises at least one gas diffusion layer, which is positioned between the first electrode (surface catalyst) and the first flow field plate (20a 20b), and preferably a second gas diffusion layer, which is positioned between the second electrode (surface catalyst) and the second flow field plate (20b or 20a), wherein the at least one gas diffusion layer is adapted to extend at least partly over the at least one bypass stopping element (20r), so that the pointed portion of the bypass stopping element (20r) compresses the at least one gas diffusion layer (Fig. 9 for example).
As to claim 3, the multilayer membrane electrode assembly (MEA 30, comprising electrodes 32a, 32b and electrolyte membrane 31) further comprises at least one subgasket (23) (Fig. 8 or Fig. 9) which frames the electrodes (31a, 31b) of the MEA (30) and wherein the subgaskets extend at least partly over the one bypass stopping element (20r) so that the pointed portion of the bypass stopping element (20r) compresses the at least one subgasket region.
PNG
media_image9.png
329
403
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
324
367
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the bypass stopping element (20r) is an integral part of the flow field plate (20a 20b) (Figs. 8, 9).
As to claim 13, separator (20a) is provided at the anode side (Fig. 9). The bypass stopping element (20r) shown in Fig. 9 is provided to each separator (20) including (20a) on one surface. Thus each separator includes a bypass stopping element (20r) including the anode side separator (20a) including a bypass stopping element (20r).
As to claim 14, As to the flow field plate of claim 14, Kato discloses a flow field plate (separator 20a, 20b) for a fuel cell assembly where the plate has at least one bypass stopping element (20r) with a pointed portion. Since the separator 20a, 20b (reading on the flow field plate) has the same pointed portion at an edge region of the separator 20a, 20b it can read on the claimed bypass stopping element with a pointed portion of claim 14 and further is of the same design as in claim 14, thereby adapted to meet the functionality of claim 14 (see annotated Fig. 9 above).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabuchi et al. (JP 2005-251676A).
Claim 14 is analyzed consistent with the claim interpretation noted above.
As to the flow field plate of claim 14, Kawabuchi discloses a flow field plate (separator) for a fuel cell assembly where the plate has at least one bypass stopping element with a pointed portion. Since the separator 1 (reading on the flow field plate) has the same pointed portion at an edge region of the separator 1 it can read on the claimed bypass stopping element with a pointed portion of claim 14 and further is of the same design as in claim 14, thereby adapted to meet the functionality of claim 14.
PNG
media_image11.png
363
300
media_image11.png
Greyscale
While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakado (JP 2018-073623A).
Claim 14 is analyzed consistent with the claim interpretation noted above.
As to the flow field plate of claim 14, Kawakado discloses a flow field plate (separator 18a or 18c) for a fuel cell assembly where the plate has at least one bypass stopping element 24a with a pointed portion. Since the separator 18a/18c (reading on the flow field plate) has the same pointed portion at an edge region of the separator it can read on the claimed bypass stopping element with a pointed portion of claim 14 and further is of the same design as in claim 14, thereby adapted to meet the functionality of claim 14.
PNG
media_image12.png
556
770
media_image12.png
Greyscale
While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0298310) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kato does not teach of the embodiment in Fig. 9 wherein at least one bypass stopping element is a plurality of discrete elements.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In similar fashion, the difference between Kato and claim 8 appears to be the bypass stopping element of claim 8 being a plurality of discrete elements.
Modifying the stopping element of Kato to be a single continuous piece or a plurality of discrete pieces together is held to have been a matter of routine design choice absent some unexpected advantage to the particular plurality of claim 8.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stopping element of Kato to be a single continuous piece or a plurality of discrete pieces together since it would have have been a matter of routine design choice absent some unexpected advantage to the particular plurality claimed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0298310) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kato does not teach of the embodiment in Fig. 9 wherein at least one bypass stopping element is a separate element from the flow field plate.
While Kato teaches of an integral bypass stopping element in the separator plate, such as feature 20r in separator plates 20a, 20b (Fig. 9), Kato teaches of an array of various embodiments wherein other elements such as member 23a can be provided as a separate element but suited to perform the same function whether being integral or separate (Figs. 6-7).
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
As discussed above there has been prior legal precedent showing that making integral or separate in the face of a prior art teaching to the opposite, a reasonable statement of such modification to be of routine design choice to provide the desired benefit of the configuration (whether an element is integral or separate from a particular feature).
In similar fashion, the difference between Kato and claim 11 appears to be the bypass stopping element of claim 11 being a separate element from the flow field plate.
Modifying the stopping element of Kato to make the bypass stopping element as a separate structure from the flow field plate is held to have been a matter of routine design choice absent some unexpected advantage to the particular plurality of claim 11. Furthermore, Kato teaches of a number of different configurations including a design wherein a discrete element is provided between an edge of the MEA and the adjacent flow field. The concept thereby teaching or suggesting that the inclusion of an element between the edge of the flow field separator and MEA can be integral or separate while still achieving the same required function of the general design.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stopping element of Kato to be separate from the flow field plate since it would have been a matter of routine design choice, expectedly achieving the same desired benefit, absent some unexpected advantage to the particular plurality claimed. In addition, as discussed above, Kato disclosed of a number of different configurations including a design wherein a discrete element is provided between an edge of the MEA and the adjacent flow field. Therefore, the concept that the inclusion of an element between the edge of the flow field separator and MEA can be integral or separate was reasonably taught/suggested by Kato for the equivalent benefit of achieving the same required function of the general design.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0298310) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,423,439).
Kato does not teach of the embodiment in Fig. 9 wherein at least one bypass stopping element is integral with a subgasket or gas diffusion layer.
Barton teaches of a fuel cell stack where a subgasket 110 includes bypass stopping elements 125, 160, 180, etc. (Figs. 3A-3D) which can be separate or integral with the same element and can have various shapes. Barton also teaches that the gas diffusion layer can include a protrusion 162 (bypass stopping element, Fig. 3B). The teachings of Barton apply to the same field of endeavor, sealing of fuel cell stack elements using various end seal designs. The inclusion of additional bypass stopping elements to other components such as the subgasket or gas diffusion layer of the fuel cell was shown to providing effective sealing and/or alignment of the fuel cell.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subgasket or gas diffusion layer to include at least one bypass stopping element as taught by Barton since it would have provided the predictable benefits of improved fuel cell alignment and sealing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 5-6, and 9, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the first flow field plate having at least one first bypass stopping element and the second flow field plate having at least one second bypass stopping element wherein respective one of each of the at least one first bypass stopping element and respective one of each of the at least one second bypass stopping element is arranged opposite to each other, forming a respective bypass stopping element assembly, and wherein each of the at least one bypass stopping elements has a pointed portion and each of the second bypass stopping elements has a blunt portion and wherein the blunt portion of each of the second bypass stopping elements is adapted to be indented by the pointed portion of a respective first bypass stopping element.
Miyazawa appears to be the closest prior art of record teaching of bypass stopping assemblies having one element which has a pointed portion (element 41) and an adjacent corresponding flat bypass stopping element (blunt). However the second bypass stopping element and the first bypass stopping element are not designed to permit the second bypass stopping element to be indented by the pointed portion of the first bypass stopping element.
It is further noted that the international search report of record identifies U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0241158 as an X reference to claim 5. However, this reference is significantly deficient at least with respect to independent claim 1 as it is clear from the teachings of the reference that the separator plates are not flow field plates as these separators are explicitly taught to exclude the presence of grooves in the plate. Therefore, this reference is not an X reference to claim 5 as it is deficient with respect to base claim 1 for at least this reason and the applicability of this reference to claim 5 is neither taught nor suggested therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 7,531,265 discloses a flow field with a boundary area between the flow field structure and outer gasket where the boundary area are identical flat surfaces contacting and pressing the membrane electrode assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725