DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/25/26. The applicant has overcome the objections, the 35 USC 112 rejections, and the rejections under Section 102 as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are again non-finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 7, 9-10 and 13-21 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/25 and 10/14/25.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication WO 2020/083533 (heretofore WO’533).
As to claims 1, 8, 11:
WO’533 discloses that it is known in the art to make an integrated fuel cell system including a fuel cell stack 1 comprising a plurality of stacked fuel cell units (i.e., electrochemical cell units); a humidifying section/component 6 facing away from the fuel cell units; a plurality of flow field frames/plates 8, between each of which a humidifier membrane 9 is arranged; a plurality of cooling flow field frames/plates 10, which are formed identically (i.e., same geometry) to the flow field frames 8 (i.e., the conductive foils, see Figure 11) and between each of which a separating plate 11 is arranged, forming an integrated charge air cooler 5 (a heat exchanging section/component) (Abstract; see Figures 2-3, 6-7 & 11). Examiner’s note: in this case, WO’533 readily envisions three sections including the heat exchanging section/component, the humidifying section/component and the fuel cell stack (electrochemical cell units).
WO’533 teaches the humidifying section/component 6 facing away from the fuel cell units and a plurality of flow field frames/plates 8, between each of which a humidifier membrane 9 is arranged (Abstract; see Figures 2 & 6). WO’533 teaches a plurality of cooling flow field frames/plates 10, which are formed identically (i.e., same geometry) to the flow field frames 8 (i.e., the conductive foils, see Figure 11) and between each of which a separating plate 11 is arranged, forming an integrated charge air cooler 5 (a heat exchanging section/component) (Abstract; see Figures 2-3, 6-7 & 11).
Figures 2-3, 6-7 & 11, infra, depict the arrangement of the fuel cell stack/system:
PNG
media_image1.png
422
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
336
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
478
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
406
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2:
Figure 7 of WO’533 illustrates a section of the plurality of cooling flow field frames/plates where flow occurs in parallel therethrough. Figure 3 also illustrates a compressing air supply section 3 being fed into the fuel cell system (i.e., cathode section) through humidifying section/component 6.
As to claims 5:
WO’533 teaches the humidifying section/component 6 facing away from the fuel cell units and a plurality of flow field frames/plates 8, between each of which a humidifier membrane 9 is arranged (Abstract; see Figures 2 & 6).
WO’533 describes a fuel cell system as seen and described supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific arrangement of the electrochemical section, the humidifier section and the heat exchanger section, and the at least three sections having the same external geometry.
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the electrochemical section, the humidifier section and the heat exchanger section of WO’533 as instantly claimed because it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious; it’s settled law. Succinctly stated, the fact that the claimed electrochemical/humidifier/heat exchanger sections are structurally re-arranged, reversed and/or duplicated to form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed electrochemical/humidifier/heat exchanger sections was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts.
With respect to the at least three sections having the same external geometry, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the filing of the claimed invention to make the at least three sections of WO’533 having the same external geometry (i.e., same shape) as instantly claimed because it is settled law that changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed geometry (i.e., shape) is critical. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. It is also noted that aesthetic design changes having no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431 . See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale.
(at least) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al 6106964.
As to claim 1:
Voss et al disclose that it is known in the art to make an integrated air-cooled fuel cell system including a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of stacked fuel cell units (i.e., electrochemical cell units); a combined heat and humidity exchanger (CHHE) comprising a supply stream chamber, an exhaust stream chamber and a water permeable membrane separating the two chambers facing away from the fuel cell unit (Abstract; COL 4, lines 4-25; COL 5, lines 4-25) wherein the CHHE may be connected to a fuel cell stack or may be connected to a single fuel cell or a plurality of fuel cells; and the CHHE is of a plate and frame type, or a multiple plate and frame design (i.e., encompassing fluid flow plates/foils) (COL 5, lines 60-COL 6, line 10; COL 10, lines 16-27). Voss et al teach that the CHHE can comprise flow channels for the supply and exhaust streams; and the heat and humidity exchanger is used for gaseous oxidant stream (i.e., air), and a CHHE is used to humidify and adjust the temperature of an air stream supplied to the fuel cell (COL 6, lines 21-29; COL 7, lines 13-45; COL 10, lines 28-55). Voss et al disclose the plate and frame structure of the CHHE (COL 11, lines 10-50); and the multiple plate and frame stack (COL 11, line 51-COL 12, line 15). Figures 1-2 and 4-5, infra, show the arrangement of the fuel cell stack/system including the combined heat and humidity exchanger:
PNG
media_image6.png
298
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
290
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
456
564
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
292
402
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Voss et al describe a fuel cell system as seen and described supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific arrangement of the electrochemical section, the humidifier section and the heat exchanger section, and the at least three sections having the same external geometry.
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the electrochemical section, the humidifier section and the heat exchanger section of Voss et al as instantly claimed because it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious; it’s settled law. Succinctly stated, the fact that the claimed electrochemical/humidifier/heat exchanger sections are structurally re-arranged, reversed and/or duplicated to form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed electrochemical/humidifier/heat exchanger sections was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts.
With respect to the at least three sections having the same external geometry, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the filing of the claimed invention to make the at least three sections of Voss et al having the same external geometry (i.e., same shape) as instantly claimed because it is settled law that changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed geometry (i.e., shape) is critical. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. It is also noted that aesthetic design changes having no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431. See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the fuel cell stack comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claims 6 and 12, respectively.
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to foregoing claim have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the references (i.e., WO’533 and Voss et al) fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., (i) “an electrochemical section, a humidifier section and a heat exchanger section arranged sequentially”; (ii) “the sequential arrangement of three separate sections”; (iii) “the flow plates have the same external geometry across all three sections, including the electrochemical section”; (iv) “enables a unique modular stacking of the entire system”; (v) “recuperative heat exchanger where an inflowing gas and an outflowing gas flow alternately between…”; (vi) “This describe a gas-to-gas heat exchange”; (vii) “implying water impermeable foils for gas-to-gas heat transfer”] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently claimed subject matter. If applicant wishes to have all those limitations considered for patentability, independent claim 1 must be amended to recite or include the same. Further, applicant is kindly reminded that the claimed invention 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 substantially the same, or performs substantially the same functionality and/or is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Further, with respect to applicant’s argument concerning the specific arrangement of the electrochemical section, the humidifier section and the heat exchanger section, and the at least three sections having the same external geometry, as set forth supra, note that it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious; it’s settled law. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts. And there is no persuasive/sound evidence that the particular arrangement of the claimed electrochemical/humidifier/heat exchanger sections is/was critical (emphasis added). In addition, it is settled law that changes in shape (i.e., geometry) is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed geometry is critical (emphasis added). In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47; and In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431. See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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 A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights