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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/26/23 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 1/26/23 are considered.
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 4 is 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, the limitation “type” pertaining to “hot melt-type” is unclear since it is unknown if “type” is referring to intrinsic or extrinsic properties. Appropriate corrections are required.
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, claim 12, discloses “dummy gas diffusion layers are a size smaller than that of the gas diffusion layer,” which is unclear i.e. is it a whole size smaller, a half size smaller etc. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims dependent on the rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Analysis
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the “hot melt-type pressure sensitive adhesive” limitation will be interpreted as hot melt pressure sensitive adhesive. Please see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US Publication 2019/0288301).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the Inoue et al. reference discloses a fuel cell stack with a plurality of reaction cells (12) stacked on each other and at least one pair of dummy cells stacked with the plurality of stacked reaction cells interposed therebetween (Fig. 2). The dummy cell comprising a pair of dummy gas diffusion layers (Fig. 10) on each other. A pair of separators (130, 105, 108) which are on the pair of dummy gas diffusion layers interposed therebetween in the fuel cell stack, and in which gaskets (frame; 122, 82) are disposed in an outer region of a region where the dummy gas diffusion layers are disposed. Joint parts made of resin melt (120; P178) are arranged between the dummy gas diffusion layers and the gaskets (Fig. 10) and between the pair of separators (Fig. 2), the joint part configured to prevent a reaction gas flowing from one separator to another separator.
The Inoue et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the joint parts are airtight, however, airtight is an “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
The Inoue et al. reference does not explicitly disclose that the components are laminated, however laminated is a product-by-process claim limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since stack components are the same as to that of the Applicant' s, Applicant' s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the Inoue et al. reference discloses the joint parts become molten to impregnate the diffusion layer, that is molten has a higher compressibility than a solid diffusion layer.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the Inoue et al. reference discloses the joint parts become molten to impregnate the diffusion layer, that is molten has a higher compressibility than solid gaskets (frame).
Regarding claim 4, the Inoue et al. reference discloses the joint part resin to be a hot melt adhesive
The Inoue et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the joint parts are pressure sensitive adhesive, however, pressure sensitive is an “intended use” language and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, the Inoue et al. reference discloses the dummy cell does not include a membrane electrode assembly (Fig. 10; that is without the membrane and catalyst for reaction).
Regarding claim 9, the Inoue et al. reference discloses each of the reaction cell comprise a reaction region in a center and a pair of manifold regions. Each manifold region comprising a plurality of manifolds configure to provide or discharge reaction gas or cooling water (Fig. 1-3). The dummy cell comprises an inner region corresponding to the reaction region (middle of the stack) of the reaction cell and an outer region corresponding to the pair of manifold regions and the joint part is arranged in a region wherein the inner region and the outer region are in contact with each other (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, the Inoue et al. reference discloses the reaction gas is configured to flow into one of a pair of outer regions formed on the pair of separators (the manifold is located on the outer regions of the stack), pass between one of the pair of separators and the dummy gas diffusion layers (105), and then discharge to the other of the pair of outer regions, and wherein the reaction gas is not configured to flow between the other of the pair of separators and the dummy gas diffusion layers (108; P109).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishwama et al. (US Publication 7,799,480) in view of Chen (US Publication 2010/0173206)
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, the Nishwama reference discloses a fuel cell stack with a plurality of reaction cells stacked on each other and at least one pair of dummy cells stacked with the plurality of stacked reaction cells interposed therebetween. Each dummy cell (80) comprising a pair of dummy gas diffusion layers (88, 90) on each other. A pair of separators (82, 84) which are stacked with the pair of dummy gas diffusion layers interposed therebetween in the fuel cell stack, and in which gaskets (64, 62) are disposed in an outer region of a region where the dummy gas diffusion layers are disposed. Seal gaskets (92a, 92b) are arranged between the dummy gas diffusion layers (Fig. 4) and the gaskets and between the pair of separators, the seal gaskets configured to prevent a reaction gas flowing from one separator to another separator. The Nishwama reference discloses seal gasket (92) blocks the flow of oxidant, fuel and coolant (air tight, does not leak) but does not explicitly disclose the kind used for the seal gasket to prevent leakage. However, the Chen reference disclose hot melt adhesive that can also work as airtight gaskets and blocks liquids from leaking. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate hot melt adhesive that can also work as airtight gaskets disclosed by Chen for the seal gaskets disclosed by the Nishwama reference to prevent unwanted leakage.
The Nishwama in view of the Chen reference does not specifically disclose that components are laminated, however laminated is a product-by-process claim limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since stack components are the same as to that of the Applicant's, Applicant' s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claims 5, the Nishwama reference discloses that the dummy cell comprises two carbon papers on either side of a metal plate (86) which is not equivalent to a membrane in a membrane electrode assembly in the reaction cells, thus it does not comprise membrane electrode assembly of the reaction cells.
Regarding claim 9, the Nishwama reference discloses wherein each reaction cell comprises a reaction region in a center and a pair of manifold regions, each manifold region comprising a plurality of manifolds configured to provide or discharge reaction gas or cooling water, wherein the dummy cell comprises an inner region corresponding to the reaction region of the reaction cell and an outer region corresponding to the pair of manifold regions, and wherein the sealing gasket (Applicant’s claimed adhesive) is arranged in a region where the inner region and the outer region are in contact with each other (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, the Nishiwana reference discloses the sealing gasket is arranged in a space except for a path through which the reaction gas is flow into or discharged from the dummy gas diffusion layers in the space between the dummy gas diffusion layers and the gaskets (Fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752