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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 12/21/22 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 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.
Specifically, claims 12-15 include limitations to “wherein inducing a secondary flow includes” a structural element, e.g. “at least one pinch.” The examiner believes that the claims were intended to recite “wherein inducing a secondary flow includes providing” (or another verb) a structural element. The claims will be interpreted as such and appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabe (US 2020/0251751).
Regarding claim 11, Kawabe teaches a method of operating a fuel cell stack comprising:
operating a plurality of fuel cells in a stack, or multiple cell units, comprising membrane electrode assemblies (11) and bipolar plates (21 and 31), the plates comprising channels comprising grooves, or trough sections (24, 34), and lands, or crests (23, 33) (Figure 1, [0026], [0030]);
increasing a pressure differential by including a local feature, or groove (43, 53), thereby inducing a secondary flow from a first groove (24b, 34b) to a second groove (24b, 34b) over a first land (23, 33) separating the channels (Figures 1 and 3, [0035]-[0038]).
Since Kawabe teaches the method of claim 11 including increasing a pressure differential by including a local feature and inducing a secondary flow, the properties of increased efficiency and decreased water accumulation are necessarily performed. MPEP 2112.02 I
As for claim 12, Kawabe teaches increasing a pressure differential using a pinch, or protrusion (28), which induces secondary flow through a groove (43) (Figures 1-3, [0037], [0043]).
As for claim 13, Kawabe teaches inducing secondary flow by including a dimple or notch, or groove (43) ([0043]).
Regarding claim 14, Kawabe teaches that the size the protrusion is dependent on whether there is additional protrusion, and that the entrance section (Z1) may be shortened, thereby decreasing a width of the protrusion, as needed (Figure 3, [0056]).
As for claims 15-16, Kawabe teaches inducing secondary flow by including a local decompression rib, or groove (43) (Figure 3, [0043]), which, having the same structure and used in the same method, inherently carries out the claimed process. MPEP 2112.02 I
As for claims 17 and 20, Kawabe teaches the local feature of a protrusion (28) which is positioned along the length of the channel and introduces a local pressure drop downstream of the protrusion, since the protrusion introduces a flow resistance (Figures 1-3, [0036], [0043]).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Elder et al. (US 2018/0183076).
Regarding claim 1, Kawabe teaches a fuel cell system comprising:
a membrane electrode assembly (11) on a first side of a gas diffusion layer (15, 16) (Figure 1, [0024]-[0025]);
a bipolar plate, or first (21) and second (31) separators, comprising at least one channel, or passage (25, 35), comprising grooves, or trough sections (24, 34), and lands, or crests (23, 33) (Figure 1, [0030]); and
and a local feature, or groove (43, 53), inducing a secondary flow from a first groove (24b, 34b) to a second groove (24b, 34b) over a first land (23, 33) separating the channels (Figures 1 and 3, [0035]-[0038]).
With further regard to claim 1, Kawabe fails to teach specifically that the lands are adjacent to a compressed section of the gas diffusion layer since Kawabe is silent on compression of the fuel cell stack.
Elder teaches that it is desirable for a fuel cell stack to have enough compression of the gas diffusion layers to ensure good contact and low electrical resistance between the gas diffusion layer and plate and gas diffusion layer and membrane ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide compression of the stack of Kawabe such as suggested by Elder in order to ensure good contact and low electrical resistance between the gas diffusion layer and plate and gas diffusion layer and membrane. Further, the skilled artisan will easily understand that the compression is provided by the lands of the bipolar or separator plates.
Furthermore, since the structure of Kawabe in view of Elder is the same as the claimed structure, the examiner finds that the secondary flow necessarily increases locally available reactant. MPEP 2112.01 I
As for claims 2-4, Kawabe teaches increasing a pressure differential using pinches, or a plurality of protrusions (28) provided in first and second channels, which induces secondary flow through a groove (43) (Figures 1-3, [0037], [0043]).
As for claims 5, Kawabe teaches inducing secondary flow by including a local decompression rib, or groove (43) (Figure 3, [0043]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Kawabe teaches local features of both pinches (28) and dimples or notches, or grooves (43) (Figure 3).
As for claim 8, Kawabe teaches the local feature of a protrusion (28) which is positioned along the length of the channel and introduces a local pressure drop downstream of the protrusion, since the protrusion introduces a flow resistance (Figures 1-3, [0036], [0043]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Elder as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0296660).
The teachings of Kawabe and Elder as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kawabe teaches the claimed local feature of a decompression rib, or groove (43, 53), but is silent on the spacing of the local features.
Hu teaches a bipolar plate (10) including a side facing a gas diffusion layer (101) (Figure 10), and comprising channels (102, 103), lands, or ribs (104), and local features/decompression ribs, or grooves (105) (Figures 8-10, [0121]-[0123]). Hu further teaches that the spacing of the local features (105) gradually decreases (i.e., the frequency increases) along the length of the channel in order to increase the drainage rate and avoid local membrane dryness ([0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to increase the frequency of the local features (43, 53) of Kawabe in view of Elder such as suggested by Hu in order to increase the drainage rate and avoid local membrane dryness.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Hu.
The teachings of Kawabe and Hu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kawabe teaches the claimed local feature of a decompression rib, or groove (43, 53), but is silent on the spacing of the local features.
Hu teaches a bipolar plate (10) including a side facing a gas diffusion layer (101) (Figure 10), and comprising channels (102, 103), lands, or ribs (104), and local features/decompression ribs, or grooves (105) (Figures 8-10, [0121]-[0123]). Hu further teaches that the spacing of the local features (105) gradually decreases (i.e., the frequency increases) along the length of the channel in order to increase the drainage rate and avoid local membrane dryness ([0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to increase the frequency of the local features (43, 53) of Kawabe in view of Elder such as suggested by Hu in order to increase the drainage rate and avoid local membrane dryness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729