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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that can be searched together without “undue burden” and that “considerable time and expense will be saved if all claims can be considered at this time, rather than pursuing multiple divisional applications”. This is not found persuasive because the examiner maintains that it would be burdensome to search both the structure of claims 1 and 17, and dependent claims therefrom, and the method of claim 12, especially in consideration of the fact that a thorough search of claim 12 would necessitate searching outside of H01M. Additionally, the examiner notes that a restriction requirement does not require applicant to pursue “multiple divisional applications.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/30/23 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 1-12 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.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitations “an end plate disposed on each of two ends of the cell stack” and "the end plate" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation to “the end plate” in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “an end plate” is one or two end plates, and whether the limitations that follow and further limit “the end plate” apply to one or both of “an end plate disposed on each of two ends of the cell stack.” For the purposes of expediting prosecution, the limitation to “the end plate” will be interpreted as “one of the end plates” disposed on each of two ends of the cell stack. The examiner finds this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as filed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 17 include limitations to an element comprising “a metal portion subjected to molecular adhesion surface treatment.” While the surface treatment is given patentable weight since the limitation implies a structure of a modified surface (MPEP 2113), the examiner finds that the claims do not require that the entire metal portion is subjected to the treatment on all surfaces, just on at least a part of the surface of the metal portion. Additionally, the “a surface of the metal portion” of claim 8 will be interpreted as any surface of the metal portion, and the surface will not be interpreted as necessarily having a molecular adhesion surface treatment.
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 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimuzu et al. (US 2018/0034091) in view of Takeyama et al. (US 2016/0133952).
Regarding claim 1, Shimuzu teaches a fuel cell comprising:
a cell stack, or stacked body (20), comprising a plurality of unit cells (10) stacked in a first direction, or stacking direction (Figure 1, [0013]);
an end plate disposed on both ends of the cell stack, i.e. the end plate, or first end plate (30) and another end plate, or second end plate (31) (Figure 1, [0013]), the end plate (30) comprising a metal portion, or being made of metal ([0015]), and a resin portion, or resin layer (590), on at least a portion of a surface of the metal portion of the end plate (Figure 3, [0025]);
an enclosure, or case (40), coupled to the end plate (30) via bolts (50) to envelop the cell stack (20) (Figure 1, [0013]); and
an outer gasket, or seal member (SL), disposed between the enclosure (40) and the end plate (530), and being in contact with the metal portion of the end plate (Figure 3, [0025]).
Further regarding claim 1, Shimuzu is silent on a metal portion subjected to molecular adhesion surface treatment.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell stack (10) including an end plate (170F) having a metal portion, or metal plate of aluminum, ([0046]), wherein (i) a metal portion is subjected to a molecular adhesion surface treatment, or corner cutting tool having a rough finish that creates a surface roughness on a hole circumference (Figure 2B, [0030]), and (ii) a resin portion, or seal member (200) formed of a resin, is disposed on at least a portion of a surface of the metal portion (170F) (Figure 2A, [0027]). Takeyama further teaches that the use of the cutting process, or molecular adhesion surface treatment, is desirable to form the curved surface processing mark which prevents stress concentration from the seal member ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the molecular adhesion surface treatment of Takeyama in the end plate of Shimuzu in order to prevent stress concentration from the seal member, or resin portion.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 7, the claim limitations are shown in annotated Figure 3 of Shimuzu:
PNG
media_image1.png
694
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Shimuzu and Takeyama are both silent on the adhesion strength between the metal and resin portions. However, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to discover, through routine experimentation, workable ranges for the adhesion strength in order to ensure that the resin remains adhered to the metal plate. MPEP 2144.05 II.A
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimuzu in view of Takeyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazza et al. (US 2004/0131917).
The teachings of Shimuzu and Takeyama as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Shimuzu in view of Takeyama teaches the fuel cell of claim 1 but fails to teach an anodizing layer.
Mazza teaches an end plate for a fuel cell ([0008]) wherein all surfaces of the endplate are treated with a hard anodized coating in order to minimize risk of surface corrosion of the end plate ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide an anodizing layer on all surfaces of the end plate of Shimuzu in view of Takeyama such as suggested by Mazza in order to minimize risk of surface corrosion. Further, by providing the anodizing layer on all surfaces, the boundary of claim 8 is necessarily covered.
Regarding claim 9, it is seen in Figure 3 of Shimuzu that the metal portion is filleted at the boundary with the third resin portion.
As for claim 10, the claimed structure is seen in the gray shaded oval near the third resin portion in annotated Figure 3 above.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaura (US 2018/0309151) in view of Takeyama.
The teachings of Takeyama as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, Yamaura teaches a fuel cell (10) comprising a plurality of stack modules, or stack body (12);
a manifold block, or end plate (20), and a side cover, or other end plate (14), and an enclosure, or case (18), coupled to both via bolts (61) to envelop the stack (12) (Figures 1 and 2).
Yamaura further teaches that the manifold block (20) includes a first outer gasket, or loop-shaped gasket (50); metal portion, or metal plate body (30), and portion, or covering portion (40) made of polypropylene (Figure 3, [0026], [0038]).
Yamaura is silent on the second outer gasket and resin portion on the side cover (14); however, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to duplicate those parts as provided for the manifold block in order to ensure proper sealing (with a second outer gasket) and to provide a covering portion for reactant through holes in the side cover in cases where the fuel cell system has requirements that the side cover also serve as a manifold block, as in when access to certain reactants is limited by the space allotted. It has been held that mere duplication and rearrangement of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI
Yamaura is silent on a molecular adhesion surface treatment and the portion being resin.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell stack (10) including an end plate (170F) having a metal portion, or metal plate of aluminum, ([0046]), wherein (i) a metal portion is subjected to a molecular adhesion surface treatment, or corner cutting tool having a rough finish that creates a surface roughness on a hole circumference (Figure 2B, [0030]), and (ii) a resin portion, or seal member (200) formed of a resin, is disposed on at least a portion of a surface of the metal portion (170F) (Figure 2A, [0027]). Takeyama further teaches that the use of the cutting process, or molecular adhesion surface treatment, is desirable to form the curved surface processing mark which prevents stress concentration from the seal member ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the molecular adhesion surface treatment of Takeyama in the end plate of Shimuzu in order to prevent stress concentration from the seal member, or resin portion.
As for claims 18-19, it is seen in Figure 3 of Yamaura that the same structural elements as discussed above with reference to claims 2-3 and Shimuzu are found.
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
Prosecution Insights