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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/23/25 have been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al (US 2004/0023102 A1) in view of D’Aleo et al (US 6372372 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Sugita teaches a fuel cell system comprising of two fuel cell stacks arranged in parallel (Paragraph 0035; a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells arranged in at least two cell series). The surfaces disposed at first ends of the stacks (Paragraph 0035; annotated Figure 15, Element 12 and 14) along with the first end plates (annotated Figure 15, element 16 and 18) constitute the first end plate and first cover as claimed. The first end plate and first cover are integrated by means of six tie rods 154 (Paragraph 0059). Thus, the first end plate is also the first cover of the housing.
Sugita teaches second end plates (Paragraph 0036; annotated Figure 15, Element 26 and 24) which are connected via a connecting plate section 106. This connected assembly constitutes the second end plate and second cover as claimed. Based on this configuration, the first and second covers define externally facing ends of the housing. Since, the first end plate and first cover are integrated, then the first end plate is in turn externally facing as well.
Sugita also teaches piping mechanism used to supply and discharge fuel gas, oxygen containing gas, and a cooling medium incorporated on one end of the stacks (Paragraph 0036; Figure 1, Element 28; media distribution). The system also has tensioning means such as tie rods (Paragraph 0043), and belleville springs (Paragraph 0058).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
427
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sugita teaches that media distribution structures and connections (Figure 1, piping mechanism 28) exist on plate element 24 and 26. Figure 1 in Sugita also shows that the piping mechanism is common for both fuel cell stacks. In Sugita the media connections are shown on the second end plate as defined above. Hence, Sugita does not explicitly teach that the first end plate has common media connections and distribution structures.
However, D’Aleo teaches that the distribution structures can be arranged on the first end plate. Figure 1 in D’Aleo shows that the external conduits 24 are on one end plate (first end plate), and the spring mechanism 22 is on the other end plate (second end plate). Also, per MPEP 2144.04 VI, rearrangement of parts can be considered a design choice. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the media connections on the first end plate in order to communicate the reactants, coolants and product with the manifold passageways of the stack (Paragraph 0013).
PNG
media_image3.png
669
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Sugita teaches a second end plate 26 that is also a part of the cover for the fuel cell system (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 4,
Sugita teaches the use of Belleville springs 146a to 146c which are provided on the outer surface of the second end plate (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 5,
Sugita teaches the use of springs 146a to 146c on each of the second end plates 24 and 26 (Paragraph 0058; multiple springs and multiple parts of second end plate), and the first and second fuel stacks are constructed symmetrically (Paragraph 0062). Hence, there are multiple springs on the second fuel stack as well.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 7,
Sugita teaches tensioning elements such as tie rods 154 between the first and second end plate (Paragraph 0059).
Claims 3, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita in view of D’Aleo, and further in view of Inagaki et al (US 20090317688 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Sugita teaches a tensioning system but does not teach about the use of two side walls arranged on opposite sides of the housing used as a tensioning system.
However, Inagaki teaches a fuel cell stack and a stack case comprising end plates and tension plates 13 (Paragraph 0022; side walls). This is also seen in Figure 1, Element 13. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two side walls as the tensioning system in order to assist in making a fuel cell that is capable of imparting a load uniformly to a cell (Paragraph 0012).
PNG
media_image4.png
358
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 8 and 9,
Sugita teaches that the intent of the invention is to be used in a vehicle to provide electric power and to reduce the large size and complicated structure of a fuel cell stack (Paragraph 0006 and Paragraph 0011). Sugita also teaches a fuel cell system that comprises the fuel cell stacks which can be considered to be the fuel cell device (Paragraph 0013). Sugita does not have direct reference to the device or the motor vehicle.
However, Inagaki teaches the use of the fuel cell in a car-mounted power generation system of a fuel cell car, a power generation system for any type of mobile body such as a ship, an airplane, a train or a walking robot, a stational power generation system for use as power generation equipment for construction (housing, building or the like) or the like, but specifically the cell is used for a car (Paragraph 0021). Inagaki teaches the use of the fuel cell in a device and motor vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sugita and Inagaki to these applications for power generation purposes.
References of Interest
Sato et al (US 20170117571 A1)
Yang et al (US 20020110722 A1)
Blanchet et al (US 20040121216 A1)
Hu et al (US 20050170235 A1)
Bobrov et al (US 20030235742 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sugita and other cited references do not teach or suggest a fuel cell stack wherein the first end plate forms a cover of a housing of a fuel cell stack. Examiner disagrees because Sugita teaches an assembly wherein the first surface and the first end plates are integrated, and form the first cover of the fuel cell stack. Similarly, the second end plates are also integrated and form a cover of the fuel cell stack. Both covers are externally facing ends of the fuel cell stack. This is explained in the 103 rejection above.
Applicant argues that Sugita’s plate 16 is internally located on the fuel stack – in other words, plate 16 is located interiorly of plate 12 and thus fails to meet the claimed recitation of the cover(s) defining externally facing ends. Examiner does not agree because the claim does not preclude the cover from being made of multiple pieces which define externally facing ends of the housing. In addition, the claim does not preclude the plate from being located interiorly – the claim simply recites that the plate ‘defines’ the externally facing ends. Plate 16 combined with plate 12 make up the cover which defines externally-facing ends of the housing (or ends which face outward).
Applicant argues that Sugita and other cited references fail to teach an end plate that includes common media connections and distribution structures to atleast two cell series of the stack. Examiner disagrees and asserts that Sugita teaches a piping mechanism which includes media connections and distribution structures that is common for both fuel cell series as shown in Figure 1 (Elements 208, 212, 194), and furthermore D’Aleo teaches that the media connections can be made on an end plate resembling the first end plate of the claimed invention. Hence, examiner maintains the rejection in this office action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783