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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received December 30, 2025:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
The previous claim objection to claims 8-12 are withdrawn in light of the amendment. (Thus, claims 8-12 are allowable, as claim 8 has been written in independent claim format.)
The core of the rejection regarding claim 1 and its dependents is maintained with slight changes in the interpretation taken in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0190632 (Itoga).
As to claim 1, Itoga teaches a fuel cell stack (fuel cell unit with a plurality of stacked units) comprising (abs):
a cell stack body including a plurality of power generation cells (fuel cell stack [210] with a plurality of unit cells [212]) (para 0025); and
a casing housing at least one of the cell stack body or a fuel cell auxiliary device (figs. 2-4), wherein
the casing comprises:
a side (wall surface [229] and frame body [310]) including an opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) (figs. 4-5);
a filter [340]) attached to the opening and permeable to a fuel gas (as gases are allowed to pass through but not liquids) (fig. 5; para 0038); and
a cover (louvre [330]) provided outside the filter (fig. 5), and the cover comprises:
a first vent configured to connect an inside and an outside of the cover; and
a second vent provided at a position lower than the first vent and configured to connect the inside and the outside of the cover (any two ventilation portions of louvre [330] can be interpretated to have such regions, directions and relations of directions up to interpretation regarding any frame of reference; ventilation is achieved) (figs. 3-5; para 0038), and
the first vent and the second vent are arranged at positions outside the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) when viewed from a direction perpendicular to a surface of the filter (as the vents are held in the portion of frame body [310] having a narrower diameter). See the annotated fig. below for clarity regarding the interpretation of the opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Itoga teaches the casing includes an upper wall portion [224], a lower wall portion (unlabeled but must exist to create a housing), and a side wall portion [229] connecting the upper wall portion [224] and the lower wall portion, and
the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) is provided in the side wall portion (wall surface [229] and frame body [310]) (figs. 3-4).
As to claim 3, Itoga teaches a ventilation passage is formed between the filter [340] and the cover (louvre [330]),
the first vent is provided at a position facing an upper portion of the ventilation passage, and
the second vent is provided at a position facing a lower portion of the ventilation passage (directions and relations of directions up to interpretation regarding any frame of reference; ventilation is achieved) (figs. 3-5; para 0038).
As to claim 4, Itoga teaches the first vent is provided at a position higher than an upper end of the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter), and
the second vent is provided at a position lower than a lower end of the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) (fig. 5; any two ventilation portions can be interpretated to have such regions, directions and relations of directions up to interpretation regarding any frame of reference).
As to claim 5, Itoga teaches the cover is free from a vent between the first vent and the second vent in a vertical direction (in an interpretation, that the louver [330] run vertically; directions and relations of directions up to interpretation regarding any frame of reference) and
the cover includes an overlapping portion arranged at a position overlapping the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the surface of the filter (fig. 5).
As to claim 6, Itoga teaches a recess dented toward an inside of the casing is formed on the side (wall surface [229] and frame body [310]) (recess towards the casing is the wall portion that is not the ribs [272]), and the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) is formed at a bottom of the recess (located below the upper most ribs [272] (fig. 3).
As to claim 7, Itoga teaches a surface of the cover (louvre [330]) that faces the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) is positioned inside the recess (figs. 3-5) (not inside ribs [272], thus part of the claimed recess).
As to claim 13, Itoga teaches the side (wall surface [229] and frame body [310]) provided with the opening (portion of the opening through the frame body [310]] having a wider diameter) is a front wall portion of the casing (figs. 3-4) (directions up to interpretation regarding any frame of reference).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment (regarding the vents located outside of the opening of the housing) overcoming the rejection of record, stating that the Itoga is related to the background art in the disclosure which the instant application improves upon (solving problems regarding stress/strain and filter breakage).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment, a different interpretation is applied to the prior art, specifically defining the opening (and the thus the relationship of the filter and cover/vents thereto). (See the rejection to claim 1, which includes an annotated figure of the new interpretation.) Nothing in the claim precludes the interpretation taken on the prior art. Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 14 are allowed.
The reasons regarding the allowability of claim 8 and claim 14 have been set forth in the Office Action dated October 1, 2025. Those reasons are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Since claims 9-12 are dependent upon claim 8, they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759