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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that Heo fails to provide the forming unit as claimed. Applicant submits that Heo’s gasket support portions are a feature of the gasket itself and not a feature of the separator plate protruding out of the plate toward the sub-gasket. Secondly, Applicant argues that Heo fails to provide the low region as claimed. Applicant submits that the limitation as provided is a variation in the heigh of a gasket line in the stacking direction of the stack that compensate for a metal protrusion on the first separator because Heo does not have a metal-based protrusion on the first separator. Thirdly, applicant submits that the support protrusions are press-formed out of the separator 31 itself, and protrude from the metal plate toward the sub-gasket. Applicant submits that Heo does not provide the same structure as argued.
However, amended claim 1 and 15 claim that the “forming unit including a plurality of support protrusions formed at predetermined interval therebetween to protrude from the first separator toward the sub-gasket;” the claims do not require that the forming unit is part of the first separator, rather the claim provides the limitation that the forming unit protrudes and occupies the space from the first separator, which Heo does provide with the support protrusions of the gasket. Moreover, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because independent claims 1 and 15 do not claim a metal-based protrusion of the first separator. The limitation as provided in the claim is “a low region corresponding to a region where the forming unit of the first separator is formed” and the “forming unit including a plurality of support protrusions formed at predetermined interval therebetween to protrude from the first separator toward the sub-gasket” does not correspond to the argued metal-based protrusion. That is, the press-formed separator having protrusions from the metal plate toward the sub gasket is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US-20170018786-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heo teaches a fuel cell separator with a gasket for improved sealing to be provided in a fuel cell stack (see e.g., Heo; [0014]-[0015]). Heo teaches the structure of the fuel cell with the separator may specifically include:
a separator assembly for a fuel cell, in which a pair of opposing separators are stacked (see e.g., Heo; [0006] regarding separators disposed at the exterior of the GDL’s which are at the portion in which the cathode and anode are disposed, and “fuel cell stack” which means multiple fuel cells are stacked together) with a sub-gasket surrounding and supporting a membrane-electrode assembly (see e.g., Heo; [0006]-[0007], [0014]-[0015] regarding gasket stacked at exterior of electrolyte membrane), the separator assembly comprising:
a first separator of the opposing separators (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0030] regarding the anode side separator plate), wherein the first separator includes:
a first reaction surface disposed to face the membrane-electrode assembly on a first side thereof and flowed with a first reaction gas (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a <anode response surface>, [0031]-[0034], regarding anode reaction surface 122 for hydrogen gas);
a first cooling surface to be cooled in a second side thereof (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a <anode cooling surface>, [0031]-[0034], regarding cooling surface 124); and
a forming unit including a plurality of support protrusions formed at predetermined interval therebetween to protrude from the first separator toward the sub-gasket (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0036] regarding gasket support portions 138 and 139 on the anode separator which extend, and [0047]-[0048] regarding gasket support portions 238 and 239 on the cathode separator); and
a second separator of the opposing separators (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, [0030] regarding the cathode side separator plate), wherein the second separator includes:
a second cooling surface disposed on a first side thereof to face the first cooling surface of the first separator to be cooled (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b <cathode cooling surface>, [0031]-[0032], regarding cathode cooling surface 224);
a second reaction surface through which a second reaction gas flows in a second side thereof (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b <cathode response surface>, [0031]-[0032] regarding cathode reaction surface 222 which reactant air flows);
a reaction surface gasket line for airtightness of the first reaction surface or the sub-gasket of the first separator with the second reaction surface (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a [0030] regarding gaskets integrated on both surfaces of each separator and may be continuously connected, [0033]-[0034] wherein the anode gasket 130 may include side line 132 and particularly airtight lines 134 formed on the anode reaction surfaces 122 and fig. 2b, [0044]-[0045] regarding airtight lines 234 on the cathode separator reaction surface); and
a cooling surface gasket line forming an airtight line between the first cooling surface of the first separator and the second cooling surface (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0033]-[0034] regarding anode gasket 130 provided with cooling surface-side airtight line 135 and fig. 2b, [0045] regarding cooling surface side airtight line 235 on the cathode separator),
wherein among reaction surface gasket lines formed in the second separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3 regarding cathode reaction surface gasket lines 234), a low region corresponding to a region where the forming unit of the first separator is formed is lower than a high region corresponding to a region where the forming unit is not formed (see e.g., fig. 3 regarding the area around the forming unit comprising a plurality of gasket support portions 238, the region R1 corresponding to a low region and the area outside of the region R1 corresponding to a high region; [0054] wherein the gasket in region R1 may have a thickness equal to or greater than half the thickness of the gasket in regions other than the above region R1 and equal to or less than the thickness of the gasket in regions other than the above region R1). Heo teaches that this variation in thickness optimizes the injection molding capability of the gasket and the contact pressure of the gasket (see e.g., Heo; [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the thickness of the gasket in the low region R1 less than the thickness of the gasket in other regions outside of R1 in order to optimize the injection molding capability of the gasket and the contact pressure of the gasket (see e.g., Heo; [0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1,
wherein a first surface of the sub-gasket is in contact with the forming unit of the first separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0033], [0036], wherein a first surface may correspond to a contact surface between the gasket 130 and the forming unit support portions 138 of the anode response surface; the gasket 130 comprising of side line 132 and airtight lines 134 and 135 are on top of the surface, and particularly, airtight line 135 “may be formed integrally with a plurality of gasket support portions 138”), and a second surface of the sub-gasket is in contact with the low region of the reaction surface gasket line, in the region where the forming unit of the first separator is formed (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3 wherein a second surface may correspond to a contact surface between the gasket 130 and the low region R1 on the anode response surface, which is in a region where the forming unit with a plurality of gasket support portions 138 is formed; the thickness of the gasket thins which forms a new surface, as taught above regarding claim 1, for contact with the low region).
Regarding claim 3, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1,
wherein an edge region of the sub-gasket is bent by a height difference between the low region and the high region of the reaction surface gasket line (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3, [0054], wherein the low region R1 and the high region [all regions other than R1] would thereby form a bent edge region due to the height difference between the two regions), so that a first surface of the sub-gasket is in contact with the first reaction surface of the first separator and a second surface of the sub-gasket is in contact with the high region of the reaction surface gasket (see e.g., Heo; figs. 2-3, wherein a first surface may correspond to a region of contact between the anode response surface with the gasket, such as around region R1, and a second surface may correspond to a region of contact between the gasket and the high region, which may be every region other than R1 that includes the gasket).
Regarding claim 4, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1.
Heo teaches the low region and the high region with the support protrusions as described above regarding claim 1. Heo does not specify the height or exact dimensions of the components. However, in order to optimize the injection molding capability of the gasket and the contact pressure of the gasket (see e.g., Heo; [0054]), it would be obvious to have the height of the low region lower than a heigh of the high region by a height of the support protrusions.
MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. states “In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).”
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1,
wherein among the cooling surface gasket line formed on the second separator, a width of the region where the forming unit is formed is wider than a width of the support protrusions (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, [0048] wherein the forming unit of the cathode cooling surface comprises a plurality of support portions 239 such that a width of the forming unit spans the whole width of the separator plate to include all the support portions of 239a-c, which is wider than the width of each individual support protrusion 239).
Regarding claim 6, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1.
Heo discloses wherein among the cooling surface gasket line formed on the second separator, a protrusion unit protruding toward the first cooling surface of the first separator is formed along an edge portion of the forming unit formed with the support protrusions in the region where the forming unit is formed (see e.g., Heo; [0044]-[0045], fig. 2b, regarding side line 232 which may correspond to a protrusion unit, the side line 232 wraps around a circumference of the separator plate, the side line 232 being among cooling surface gasket lines because it blocks reactant gas or coolant from flowing to the outside [0045], the side line 232 being along an edge portion of the forming unit area of the plurality of support protrusions 238).
Regarding claim 7, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1. Heo further discloses wherein the protrusion unit is formed so that the support protrusions are in contact with a region in the forming unit where the support protrusions are not formed (see e.g., Heo; [0044]-[0045], fig. 2b, regarding side line 232 corresponding to the protrusion unit, the side line 232 contacting areas of the forming unit around the area of the plurality of gasket support portions 239, which may be region without the support protrusions as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 6,
wherein the protrusion unit is formed in a shape of a dot at a predetermined interval (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, 3, regarding gasket support portions 238, 239 which are dotted across the separator plate at consistent intervals).
Regarding claim 9, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1,
wherein among low region of the reaction surface gasket lines formed in the second separator, only a region that contacts with the support protrusions through the gasket is in contact with the sub-gasket (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, 3, wherein the region may correspond to a plane in which the support protrusions 238 contact the low region R1; the planar region therefore contacts the support protrusions through the sub-gasket by being the interface in which they contact, and is also in contact with the sub-gasket itself).
Regarding claim 10, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 9,
wherein among low region of the reaction surface gasket lines formed on the second separator, a region not in contact with the support protrusions through the sub-gasket is formed to have a height lower than the support protrusions through the sub-gasket (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, 3, wherein the region may correspond to a small area inside the low region R1, the region being contained by the bounds of R1 such that the region is not in contact with the support protrusions 238, and the region having a height of zero because the region is an area rather than a volume such that the region has a height lower than the support protrusions 238).
Regarding claim 11, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 9,
wherein a surface of the low region of the reaction surface gasket line formed on the second separator is formed in an uneven shape in which embossed units and engraved units are alternately formed, and wherein the embossed units of the low region are formed in a region in contact with the support protrusions through the sub-gasket, and the engraved units of the low region are formed in a region that does not contact with the support protrusions through the sub-gasket.
Regarding claim 13, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1,
wherein the first reaction region which a flow path through which the first reaction gas flows is formed is formed in a central region of the first separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0030]-[0031], wherein the first reaction region may be reaction surface 122 where hydrogen gas flows and is positioned in a central region of the separator),
a plurality of manifolds are formed in first and second regions of the first reaction region (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0030], wherein the first reaction region may include the area of the manifolds 110, wherein first and second regions within the first reaction region may overlap with where the manifolds are formed), and any one of the manifolds is a reaction gas inflow manifold which the first reaction gas flows (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0030], regarding hydrogen manifold 112),
between the reaction gas inflow manifold and the first reaction region, wherein a plurality of first reaction gas inflow flow paths protruding and penetrating in a direction of the first reaction surface are formed between the reaction gas inflow manifold and the first reaction region so that the first reaction gas introduced through the reaction gas inflow manifold flows from the first cooling surface to the first reaction surface (see e.g., Heo; [0032], regarding hydrogen apertures 126 which are arranged between the hydrogen manifold 112 and the anode reaction and cooling surface 122 and 124), and
wherein the forming unit is formed to be spaced from the first reaction gas inflow flow paths by a predetermined interval in a first reaction region direction (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0036], regarding gasket support portions 138, 139 which are spaced apart from the manifold 112 by a predetermined interval in a first reaction region direction, which is horizontally across the figure).
Regarding claim 14, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 12,
wherein in the first separator, a plurality of first reaction gas inflow flow paths is spaced apart by a predetermined interval along a width direction of the first separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0030], [0034], [0036], regarding manifolds 110 which provide gas flow and are spaced apart at predetermined intervals in the width direction of the separator), and the plurality of first reaction gas inflow flow paths are formed in parallel in a flow direction (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, wherein the manifolds 110 all have reaction gas flowing into the page, which are all parallel to each other) and a vertical direction of the first reaction gas (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0035]-[0036], regarding manifolds 110 having hydrogen manifold 112 for the first reaction gas, hydrogen, flowing into the page corresponding to a vertical direction), and wherein the plurality of support protrusions are spaced apart along the width direction of the first separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0036]-[0038], regarding gasket support portions 138, 139 which are spaced out along the width direction of the separator), and are formed on a line parallel to a line in which the first reaction gas inflow flow paths are formed (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, wherein the gasket support portions 138, 139 are formed on a line parallel to a the theoretical line drawn horizontally across the manifolds 110).
Regarding claim 15, Heo discloses
a fuel cell stack (see e.g., Heo; [0006]), which is formed by stacking a sub-gasket surrounding and supporting a membrane-electrode assembly and a pair of gas diffusion layers (see e.g., Heo; [0006]), the fuel cell stack comprising:
a plurality of unit cells including a first separator and a second separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a-b, regarding anode and cathode separator),
wherein the first separator and the second separator facing each other in adjacent unit cells are bonded and integrated (see e.g., Heo; [0006], regarding how anode separator and cathode separator are integrated),
wherein the first separator is disposed on a first surface thereof to face the membrane-electrode assembly to form a first reaction surface through which a first reaction gas flows (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0031]-[0033], regarding anode reaction surface 122 which reactant hydrogen gas flows), to form a first cooling surface to be cooled on a second surface thereof (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0031]-[0033] regarding anode cooling surface, coolant surface 124), and to form a forming unit in which a plurality of support protrusions are formed at predetermined intervals therebetween to protrude from the first separator toward the sub-gasket (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0036]-[0038], regarding gasket support portions 138, 139 which are formed at predetermined intervals and extend to support the sub-gasket),
wherein the second separator is disposed on a first surface thereof to face the first cooling surface of the first separator to form a second cooling surface (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, regarding cathode cooling surface 224), a second reaction surface through which a second reaction gas flows on a second surface thereof (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, [0031]-[0032], regarding cathode reaction surface 222 for reactant air flow), and
in the second reaction surface, a reaction surface gasket line for airtightness is formed between the second reaction surface and either of the first reaction surface or the sub-gasket of the first separator (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a [0030] regarding gaskets integrated on both surfaces of each separator and may be continuously connected, fig. 2b, [0044]-[0045] regarding airtight lines 234 on the cathode separator reaction surface), and
a cooling surface gasket line is formed on the second cooling surface to form an airtight line between the first cooling surface of the first separator and the second cooling surface (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2b, [0045]-[0047], regarding airtight line 235 on the cathode cooling surface-side),
and wherein among reaction surface gasket lines formed in the second separator, (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3 regarding cathode reaction surface gasket lines 234), a low region corresponding to a region where the forming unit of the first separator is formed is lower than a high region corresponding to a region where the forming unit is not formed (see e.g., fig. 3 regarding the area around the forming unit comprising a plurality of gasket support portions 238, the region R1 corresponding to a low region and the area outside of the region R1 corresponding to a high region; [0054] wherein the gasket in region R1 may have a thickness equal to or greater than half the thickness of the gasket in regions other than the above region R1 and equal to or less than the thickness of the gasket in regions other than the above region R1). Heo teaches that this variation in thickness optimizes the injection molding capability of the gasket and the contact pressure of the gasket (see e.g., Heo; [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the thickness of the gasket in the low region R1 less than the thickness of the gasket in other regions outside of R1 in order to optimize the injection molding capability of the gasket and the contact pressure of the gasket (see e.g., Heo; [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Heo teaches the fuel cell stack of claim 15,
wherein a first surface of the sub-gasket contacts with the forming unit in the region where the forming unit of the first separator is formed (see e.g., Heo; fig. 2a, [0033], [0036], wherein a first surface may correspond to a contact surface between the gasket 130 and the forming unit support portions 138 of the anode response surface; the gasket 130 comprising of side line 132 and airtight lines 134 and 135 are on top of the surface, and particularly, airtight line 135 “may be formed integrally with a plurality of gasket support portions 138”), and a second surface thereof contacts with the low region of the reaction surface gasket line (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3, [0043], wherein a second surface may correspond to a contact surface between the gasket 130 and the low region R1 on the anode response surface; the thickness of the gasket which thins forms a new surface for contact with the low region).
Regarding claim 17, Heo teaches the fuel cell stack of claim 15,
wherein the sub-gasket is bent by a height difference between the low region and the high region of the reaction surface gasket line in an edge region thereof (see e.g., Heo; fig. 3, [0054], wherein the low region R1 and the high region [all regions other than R1] would thereby form a bent edge region due to the height difference between the two regions), so that a first surface thereof contacts with the first reaction surface of the first separator and a second surface thereof contacts with the high region of the reaction surface gasket line (see e.g., Heo; figs. 2-3, wherein a first surface may correspond to a region of contact between the anode response surface with the gasket, such as around region R1, and a second surface may correspond to a region of contact between the gasket and the high region, which may be every region other than R1 that includes the gasket).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US-20170018786-A1), and in further view of Van Boeyen (US-20150030957-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Heo teaches the separator assembly of claim 1. Heo does not explicitly disclose wherein a gasket line for airtightness is not formed in the first reaction surface and the first cooling surface of the first separator. However, Van Boeyen discloses that a seal may be formed on an bipolar plate corresponding to a first separator, wherein the bipolar plate is flat and does not have a gasket line for airtightness, wherein the seal is formed by having the gasket comprise of shark knife edge protrusions and compressed with the bipolar plate (see e.g., Van Boeyen; [0117], [0110], [0120]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first separator taught by Heo such that the first separator is flat and does not comprise of gasket lines for airtightness and instead uses a gasket with protrusions formed to the bipolar plate by compression as disclosed by Van Boeyen in order to limit unintended release of hydrogen from the cell (see e.g., Van Boeyen; [0013]).
Regarding claim 18, Heo teaches the fuel cell stack of claim 15. Heo does not explicitly disclose wherein a gasket line for airtightness is not formed in the first reaction surface and the first cooling surface of the first separator. However, Van Boeyen discloses that a seal may be formed on an bipolar plate corresponding to a first separator, wherein the bipolar plate is flat and does not have a gasket line for airtightness, wherein the seal is formed by having the gasket comprise of shark knife edge protrusions and compressed with the bipolar plate (see e.g., Van Boeyen; [0117], [0110], [0120]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first separator taught by Heo such that the first separator is flat and does not comprise of gasket lines for airtightness and instead uses a gasket with protrusions formed to the bipolar plate by compression as disclosed by Van Boeyen in order to limit unintended release of hydrogen from the cell (see e.g., Van Boeyen; [0013]).
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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights