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 .
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.
Claim 11-12 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. Instant claim recites “another portion” referring to both the third surface of the first plate as well as the fourth surface of the first plate. This is indefinite because there is only reference for the features on the second plate.
Additionally, claim recites “a portion” referring to the third surface as well as “a portion” referring to the fourth surface. This also creates an indefinite situation as the term “a portion” refers to two different and distinct structural features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (CN 107785595).
Claim 1: Wu teaches a proton exchange membrane fuel cell with a plurality of unit cells wherein each cell has a bipolar plate including baffles [Abstract]. The cooling channel of the bipolar plate comprises a top and bottom having rib protrusions set at intervals [0010]. Designs of the channel and protrusions is to reduce the angle between the fluid flow direction and the heat exchange direction in order to improve heat exchange efficiency [0011]. The features of the fuel cell are taught by the prior art [0022-0023]. The cooling channel (5) is formed between a first plate and a second plate wherein each plate comprises protrusions (4) [0022-0024; Fig 2]. The protrusions are disposed apart from each other in the channel [0011, 0022-0024, Fig 2].
Claim 2: Wu teaches the channel to include a first surface on the first plate and a second surface on the second plate whereby the respective protrusions of each plate protrude towards the opposite [Fig 2].
Claim 7: Wu teaches an embodiment where the protrusions are cylindrical [Fig 2].
Claim 8: Wu teaches an embodiment where the protrusions are hemispherical shaped towards a center of the channel [Fig 4].
Claim 10: Wu teaches protrusions which do not overlap in the direction of the first surface towards the second surface [Fig 2-4].
Claim 13: Wu teaches a fuel cell [Abstract, 0009-0014] to comprise a membrane electrode assembly, gas diffusion layer, and a bipolar plate whereby the bipolar plate includes a first plate and second plate coupled to the first plate with a channel formed therein for fluid to flow [Fig 1]. The plates comprise a plurality of protrusions disposed apart from each other in a channel [Fig 1].
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by An et al (PGPUB 2005/0266296).
Claim 1: An teaches a fuel cell system with a fuel supply, air supply, and coolant supply [Abstract]. The bipolar plate [Fig 5A] comprises coolant channels (36b) between a first plate and second plate (34) whereby each comprise protrusions (41) toward the opposite plate [0069-0073].
Claim 2: An teaches a channel with a first and second surface of the first and second plate to have a protrusion in plurality on each surface towards the second surface [Fig 5A].
Claim 8: An teaches the protrusions to have a hemispherical shape towards the center of the channel [Fig 5A].
Claim 9: An teaches the protrusions disposed in an overlapping manner [Fig 5A].
Claim 11-12: An teaches a third and fourth surface on the first plate as well as an equivalent structure on the second plate whereby the angle is 90o and comprises protrusions on these surfaces [Fig 5A].
Claim 13: An teaches a fuel cell [0048-0064] to comprise a membrane electrode assembly, gas diffusion layer, and a bipolar plate whereby the bipolar plate includes a first plate and second plate coupled to the first plate with a channel formed therein for fluid to flow [Fig 2, 5A, 0069-0072]. The plates comprise a plurality of protrusions disposed apart from each other in a channel [Fig 5A].
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(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (CN 107785595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farry, Jr. et al (USPAT 5409056).
Claim 3: Instant claim recites a structure as separate and distinct elements, but it is interpreted the shape is either a singular shape with different labels attached thereto or would be obvious to combine to a single machined feature in order to improve mechanical efficiency. Making integral case law support that a recitation of different features being made into an integral manner is obvious, especially when improved manufacturing speed and capability is predictable.
Wu teaches a channel having protrusions, but does not consider a design element of cylinder shape with curved ends.
Farry Jr teaches a plate that improves upon spherical bumps in crossover passages that are arranged for heat transfer plates [Abstract]. The features (44) are indented elongated bumps which read on the instant claim oblong shape having rounded ends [Col 4 Ln 12-32, Fig 6]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protrusion bumps of Wu to the elliptical indent bumps of Farry Jr in order to improve the turbulent flow of fluid and improve the heat transfer through the plate [Col 4 Ln 12-32].
Claim 4: Wu teaches protrusions to exist on both surfaces of the first and second plate and extend toward the other [Fig 2-4]. Wu is silent to teach the shape as claimed – modification from claim 3 is herein. After the modification, the claim scope is met wherein first protrusions of the first and second protrusions extend from the respective surfaces towards the other.
Claim 5: Wu teaches a first protruding body on the respective first and second plates extending towards the opposite surface, but is silent to teach the specifics pertaining to the rounded surfaces and a groove therein.
Farry Jr teaches an oblong, elliptical, indented bump (44) [Col 4 Ln 12-32]. The “indented” teaching is sufficient to read on the applicant’s “groove” and is depicted in Fig 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protrusion bumps of Wu to the elliptical indent bumps of Farry Jr in order to improve the turbulent flow of fluid and improve the heat transfer through the plate [Col 4 Ln 12-32].
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (PGPUB 2005/0266296) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farry, Jr. et al (USPAT 5409056).
Claim 3: Instant claim recites a structure as separate and distinct elements, but it is interpreted the shape is either a singular shape with different labels attached thereto or would be obvious to combine to a single machined feature in order to improve mechanical efficiency. Making integral case law support that a recitation of different features being made into an integral manner is obvious, especially when improved manufacturing speed and capability is predictable.
An teaches a channel having protrusions, but does not consider a design element of cylinder shape with curved ends.
Farry Jr teaches a plate that improves upon spherical bumps in crossover passages that are arranged for heat transfer plates [Abstract]. The features (44) are indented elongated bumps which read on the instant claim oblong shape having rounded ends [Col 4 Ln 12-32, Fig 6]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protrusion bumps of An to the elliptical indent bumps of Farry Jr in order to improve the turbulent flow of fluid and improve the heat transfer through the plate [Col 4 Ln 12-32].
Claim 4: An teaches protrusions to exist on both surfaces of the first and second plate and extend toward the other [Fig 5A]. An is silent to teach the shape as claimed – modification from claim 3 is herein. After the modification, the claim scope is met wherein first protrusions of the first and second protrusions extend from the respective surfaces towards the other.
Claim 5: An teaches a first protruding body on the respective first and second plates extending towards the opposite surface, but is silent to teach the specifics pertaining to the rounded surfaces and a groove therein.
Farry Jr teaches an oblong, elliptical, indented bump (44) [Col 4 Ln 12-32]. The “indented” teaching is sufficient to read on the applicant’s “groove” and is depicted in Fig 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protrusion bumps of An to the elliptical indent bumps of Farry Jr in order to improve the turbulent flow of fluid and improve the heat transfer through the plate [Col 4 Ln 12-32].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (CN 107785595).
Claim 14: Wu teaches a plurality of protrusions in a channel of the bipolar plate [Fig 2-4] which meets all positively recited structural limitations of the instant claim. The instant claim is a product-by-process claim whereby the specifics of the method do no positively limit the scope of the instant product claim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (PGPUB 2005/0266296).
Claim 14: An teaches a plurality of protrusions in a channel of the bipolar plate [Fig 5A] which meets all positively recited structural limitations of the instant claim. The instant claim is a product-by-process claim whereby the specifics of the method do no positively limit the scope of the instant product claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752