DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 16) and nine active dependent claims (claims 17 - 25).
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “according to any preceding claim 16”, while technically still correct, appears to be a typographical error and should only recite “according to claim 16”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 16 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IDS reference Nakagawa et al. (EP 2348567 A1/B1) [reference D1 in the supplied Written Opinion filed May 30 2023], as evidenced by one or more of evidentiary art to Noda (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0119380 A1), Rosenberg et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2009/0098432 A1), Kapitza (DE 10-2018-209-441 A1 and its US equivalent, U.S. Patent No. 11,749,812 B2), and/or Allen et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0142223 A1).
The Examiner notes that this rejection follows essentially the same logic pattern as in the Written Opinion above.
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa et al. disclose a flow-field plate for a polymer electrolyte membrane device (Title; Abstract; at least Paragraph 0001) comprising:
an inlet on one side of the plate and an outlet on the opposite side (Figures 2, 3; elements 130, 140);
a distribution array including a plurality of linear channels (element 230);
a first interface between the inlet and distribution array and a second interface between the distribution array and the outlet (elements 210 and 260);
each interface includes at least three up to rn rows of baffles (Figures; first to third diffusion ribs, etc.);
characterized in that the baffles comprise a plurality of columns, each having a substantially flat surface which defines its diametric axis and faces the incoming fluid flow (ibid).
Nakagawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose
each interface includes at least three up to rn rows of baffles, where rn = the width of the interface hd divided by the baffle diameter hb,
the majority of the baffles in each row being set with diametric axes at a particular angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the linear channels so that at least one surface of the baffles faces the incoming fluid flow and directs it to the plurality of linear channels,
each of the linear channels having a trapezoidal cross-section;
the baffles comprise a plurality of columns which are semi-circular in cross-section;
the angle of the majorly of the baffles in one row is different to the angle of the majority of the baffles in at least one other row; and
the diametric axes of the majority of the baffles are angled at around 40 – 60º, 50 – 70º, and 50 – 90º relative to the longitudinal axis of the linear channels in respective first, second and third rows.
However, as set forth in the Written Opinion, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the above limitations (a) – (f) are merely routine optimizations of the flow pattern structures for the fuel cell device. As noted in the Written Opinion, Nakagawa et al. provides clear guidance that the baffles and distribution space are designed to provide even distribution of the reaction gas into the reactive gas channels (Paragraph 0063).
Regarding (a), the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the number of rows through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Nakagawa et al. regarding the desire to optimize the number of ribs (at least Paragraphs 0050 – 0063). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding (b), both evidentiary art to Rosenberg et al. (entire disclosure) and Kapitza (Figures and col. 3, line 25 bridging col. 4, line 32) disclose optimizing angles, etc. to adjust the flow patterns. Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the angle of the baffles through routine experimentation, especially given the evidentiary teachings above. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would have been routine and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure uniform flow as desired by Nakagawa et al. above.
Regarding (c), the exact shape of the linear channel cross section would have been a matter of selection among known functionally equivalent cross-sections for these types of flow channels, as evidenced by at least Noda (Paragraphs 0069 - 0070). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, all the various cross-section shapes would be recognized as functional equivalents in the field of directing air flow of the reactant gases and a skilled artisan would be well versed in determining the optimal flow architecture. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding (d), optimization of the size, shape and number of baffles is known in the art for the reasons set forth above with regard to (b), but see also evidentiary art to Noda (Paragraphs 0069 - 0070).
Regarding (e) and (f), optimization of the angle of the baffles is known in the art for the reasons set forth above with regard to (b).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Nakagawa et al. to meet the limitations set forth as (a) – (f) as these limitations are (as noted in the Written Opinion) simply a matter of “workmanship differences” addressing the same problem as acknowledged in Nakagawa et al. – to achieve uniform flow of reactant gases to the reactive gas channels.
Regarding claim 17, a minimum distance of 1 mm between baffles is known in the art (evidentiary art to Noda -Paragraphs 0069 - 0070).
Regarding claim 18, optimization of the shape of the baffles is deemed routine and obvious for the reasons set forth above; ergo, the limitations of this claim are deemed routine and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the baffle limitations as claimed.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, optimization of the angles of the baffles is deemed routine and obvious for the reasons set forth above; ergo, the limitations of this claim are deemed routine and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the baffle limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, circular columns are known in the art as evidenced by at least Allen et al. (entire disclosure, but noting cover Figure, etc.).
Regarding claim 22, optimization of the distance between gas channels is deemed routine and obvious for the reasons set forth above; ergo, the limitations of this claim are deemed routine and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the linear channel limitations as claimed. See also examples in Nakagawa et al. which disclose similar/overlapping/encompassing dimensions for the gas channels (e.g. Paragraph 0186).
Regarding claim 23, bipolar plates are conventional in the art as evidenced by at least Rosenberg et al. (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “is 3D printed” is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the instant case, the final structure is the same regardless of how it is made.
Regarding claim 25, Nakagawa et al. disclose the claimed fuel cell for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while no claim has been indicated as allowable, the Examiner notes that the prior art only broadly discloses the optimization of the claimed parameters (a) – (f) recited above. A showing of unexpected results or non-obvious behavior/improvement would potentially overcome the art of record, provided the claims were commensurate in scope to the showing.
However, Applicant(s) are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner’s position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
December 12, 2025