DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12 April 2023. These drawings are not acceptable. While figure 2 was corrected, issues remain with the drawings as follows:
The drawings are objected to as color drawings without a granted petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2).
Figures 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 include color.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2) and MPEP §608.02.
If applicant does not wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and amend the brief description of the drawings section of the specification as noted above, applicant may file replacement black and white line drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d). See MPEP §608.02.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded: 37 CFR 1.84(l), which states:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Accordingly, merely converting the existing figures two a black & white format would be insufficient as, for example, figure 1 would not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) of all letters being “durable, clean, black.” Figure 1 has white lettering.
The drawings are further objected to because:
Figs. 4 and 8 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m), which states:
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. …. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Figures 4 and 8 include solid black shading areas.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification page 14 cites a Jerauld (2017) reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer based method to analyze mass, momentum, energy and charge transport …, the method comprising the steps of:
performing a first small scale multiphase simulation S1 of the first interface for a first portion of the first interface;
characterizing the first interface after the first small scale multiphase simulation S1;
statistically extending S1 results for the first interface to a second portion of the first interface with a larger area that the first portion;
performing a second multiphase simulation S2 for the second interface using the statistically extended first interface as characterized by the first small scale multiphase simulation S1 as a boundary condition;
characterizing the second interface after the second small scale multiphase simulation S2; and
repeating the first small scale multiphase simulation S1 using the second interface characterized by the second small scale multiphase simulation S2 as a boundary condition,
Overall, considering the entire claim describes a mathematical analysis. Relevant for the interpretation of respective claim terminology as being in a mathematical context, dependent claim 2 recites iterating the simulations until “a predetermined convergence criteria.” Accordingly, the simulations performed are properly interpreted as themselves being mathematical calculations.
Performing a small scale multiphase simulation of the first interface corresponds with performing respective mathematical calculations.
Characterizing the first interface corresponds with determining respective mathematical results from the first simulation mathematical calculations.
Performing a second multi-phase simulation for the second interface corresponds with performing respective additional mathematical calculations.
Characterizing the second interface corresponds with determining respective mathematical results from the second simulation mathematical calculations.
Repeating the first simulation using the results from the second is recitation to perform additional respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
…in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) via a computer simulation of the PEMFC to address water management in a physical PEMFC comprising a plurality adjacent layers comprising a first layer L1, a third layer L3, and a second layer L2 disposed between the first layer L1 and the third layer L3, a first interface L1/L2 between L1 and L2, a second interface L2/L3 between L2 and L3, each layer comprising a material having a porosity scale or non-porous structure distinct from each adjacent layer
…
wherein the multiphase simulations S1 and S2 each comprise simulation of one or more of the group consisting of momentum, energy, species, and charge transport across the interface between the simulated layers L1/L2 and L2/L3, respectively.
The proton exchange membrane is a recitation of the intended field of use for the respective calculations. Generally linking to field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The recited parameters representing momentum, energy, species, or charge transport is merely a general linking of the abstract idea mathematical calculations to a field of use.
The computer simulation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) or mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of iterating the S1 and S2 simulations until the first interface characterization has converged according to a predetermined convergence criteria.
Iterating until convergence corresponds with repeating respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second multiphase simulation S2 is a larger scale simulation than the S1 simulation.
A larger set of calculations for a second multiphase simulation remains a recitation of mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the third layer L3 comprises a bipolar plate (BP) formed of a non-porous material further comprising a channel configured to convey gas and/or fluid.
The proton exchange membrane and associated bipolar plate is a recitation of the intended field of use for the respective calculations. Generally linking to field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the third layer L3 comprises a bipolar plate (BP) formed of a non-porous material further comprising a channel configured to convey gas and/or fluid.
Claim limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of statistically extending the converged second interface to cover the entire bipolar plate.
Statistically extending is a recitation of a statistical method. Statistical calculations correspond with a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second layer L2 comprises a gas diffusion layers (GDL), and the second interface L2/L3 comprises a GDL/BP interface.
The proton exchange membrane and associated bipolar plate and gas diffusion layers is a recitation of the intended field of use for the respective calculations. Generally linking to field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second layer L2 comprises a gas diffusion layers (GDL), and the second interface L2/L3 comprises a GDL/BP interface.
Claim limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05 (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising the step of performing a multiphase simulation with only the bipolar plate using extended GDL/BP interface as boundary condition.
Performing the multiphase simulation using a respective boundary condition is further recitation to perform respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein L1 has a finer pore structure than L2.
The proton exchange membrane and associated pore structure is a recitation of the intended field of use for the respective calculations. Generally linking to field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein L1 has a finer pore structure than L2.
Claim limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05 (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of claim 8, wherein for the S1 simulation L1 is simulated at a representative elementary volume (REV) while only a fraction of L2 is captured.
The REV corresponds with recitation of mathematical structure of the mathematical model. The scale of the simulation and what proportion of the second layer is captured by the simulation does not change the nature of the simulation’s mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of forming the physical PEMFC according to the first interface characterization and the second interface characterization.
Forming a physical PEMFC corresponds to mere instructions to “apply” the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of forming the physical PEMFC according to the first interface characterization and the second interface characterization.
Claim limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(f) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Shimpalee, S., et al. "Multiscale Modeling of PEMFC Using Co-Simulation Approach" J. Electrochemical Society, vol. 166, F534-543 (2019) [herein “Shimpalee”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A computer based method to analyze mass, momentum, energy and charge transport in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) via a computer simulation of the PEMFC to address water management in a physical PEMFC comprising a plurality adjacent layers comprising a first layer L1, a third layer L3, and a second layer L2 disposed between the first layer L1 and the third layer L3, a first interface L1/L2 between L1 and L2, a second interface L2/L3 between L2 and L3, each layer comprising a material having a porosity scale or non-porous structure distinct from each adjacent layer.” Shimpalee page F534 left column third paragraph discloses “Several types of numerical models have been proposed to study water management problems inside the structure of a GDL and MPL.”
Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows a PEMFC with layers including “Gas diffusion layer,” “Microporous layer” and a “Macroscale” “Flowfield.” Shimpalee page F535 left column second paragraph discloses “The heat and mass transport inside flow-field, bipolar plage, and MEA are computed by the macroscale method.” According, the macroscale flowfield of figure 1 corresponds with a bipolar plate.
The “Microporous layer” corresponds with a first layer.
The “Gas diffusion layer” corresponds with a second layer.
The bipolar plate corresponds with a third layer.
Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows three distinct “interfacial boundary” which corresponds with the first and second interfaces between the respective layers.
Shimpalee page F542 right column discloses:
Conclusions
Multiscale model using co-simulation approach has been successfully demonstrated to predict the transports and electrochemical behaviors inside a PEMFC, which incorporates a detailed structure of gas diffusion layers and a micro porous layer into the microscale model.
Predicting transports and electrochemical behaviors corresponds with an analysis of charge transport, mass, momentum, and/or energy. Shimpalee page F535 right column third paragraph disclose “mass, momentum, and energy.”
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising the steps of: performing a first small scale multiphase simulation S1 of the first interface for a first portion of the first interface.” Shimpalee page F535 right column third paragraph disclose:
Microscale – The Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) is used in this microscale model. The LBM is also a CFD technique for engineering analysis to solve several complex fluid flow problems including multiphase flow and free surface models with complex geometries, such as a GDL.
The Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) microscale model for multiphase flow of the GDL corresponds with a first small scale multiphase simulation.
Claim 1 further recites “characterizing the first interface after the first small scale multiphase simulation S1; statistically extending S1 results for the first interface to a second portion of the first interface with a larger area that the first portion.” Shimpalee page F536 right column discloses:
These interfaces provide a connection between boundaries during the simulation and permit mass, energy and other continuum quantities to pass from one region to another (i.e., macroscale model to microscale model or vice versa) using data mappers approach. The data mappers allow one to interpolate field data available, either on a source mesh or a target mesh representation, so that the mapped fields can be used for applying boundary conditions on the target mesh.
Passing continuum quantities from microscale to macroscale corresponds with characterizing respective interfaces from the small scale first simulation of the microscale simulation. Interpolating field data to apply boundary conditions corresponds with statistically extending results from the first interface to another area. Passing continuum data from the microscale to the macroscale is extending from a smaller portion to a larger area of the macroscale.
Claim 1 further recites “performing a second multiphase simulation S2 for the second interface using the statistically extended first interface as characterized by the first small scale multiphase simulation S1 as a boundary condition.” Shimpalee page F535 left column disclose:
Macroscale.—A computational continuum mechanics (CCM) technique based on a commercial flow solver, STAR-CD 4.20, is used to solve the coupled governing equations for the macroscale model of the bipolar plate, the flow channel, and the MEA under unsteady-state conditions. These time-dependence equations incorporate mass, momentum, energy, and species transport equations.
The macroscale model of the bipolar plate corresponds with a second multiphase simulation for the second interface.
Claim 1 further recites “characterizing the second interface after the second small scale multiphase simulation S2; and repeating the first small scale multiphase simulation S1 using the second interface characterized by the second small scale multiphase simulation S2 as a boundary condition.” Shimpalee page F536 right column discloses:
These interfaces provide a connection between boundaries during the simulation and permit mass, energy and other continuum quantities to pass from one region to another (i.e., macroscale model to microscale model or vice versa) using data mappers approach. The data mappers allow one to interpolate field data available, either on a source mesh or a target mesh representation, so that the mapped fields can be used for applying boundary conditions on the target mesh.
Passing continuum quantities from macroscale to microscale corresponds with characterizing respective interfaces from the second simulation and repeating the first simulation using the characterization of the second interface from the second simulation as a boundary condition.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the multiphase simulations S1 and S2 each comprise simulation of one or more of the group consisting of momentum, energy, species, and charge transport across the interface between the simulated layers L1/L2 and L2/L3, respectively.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “momentum.”
Shimpalee page F535 left column disclose:
Macroscale.—A computational continuum mechanics (CCM) technique based on a commercial flow solver, STAR-CD 4.20, is used to solve the coupled governing equations for the macroscale model of the bipolar plate, the flow channel, and the MEA under unsteady-state conditions. These time-dependence equations incorporate mass, momentum, energy, and species transport equations.
Shimpalee page F535 right column third paragraph disclose “The LBM makes use of the statistical distribution function with real variables while conserving mass, momentum, and energy.”
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of iterating the S1 and S2 simulations until the first interface characterization has converged according to a predetermined convergence criteria.” Shimpalee page F536 left column last paragraph discloses “The convergence criteria for CFD-LBM simulation uses the stability parameter. The stability parameter must satisfy the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition.” The convergence criteria corresponds with a predetermined convergence criteria.
Claim 3 further recites “3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second multiphase simulation S2 is a larger scale simulation than the S1 simulation.” Shimpalee page F535 left column disclose:
Macroscale.—A computational continuum mechanics (CCM) technique based on a commercial flow solver, STAR-CD 4.20, is used to solve the coupled governing equations for the macroscale model of the bipolar plate, the flow channel, and the MEA under unsteady-state conditions. These time-dependence equations incorporate mass, momentum, energy, and species transport equations.
The macroscale model is a larger scale than the microscale simulation.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method of claim 2, wherein the third layer L3 comprises a bipolar plate (BP) formed of a non-porous material further comprising a channel configured to convey gas and/or fluid.” Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows a PEMFC with layers including “Gas diffusion layer,” “Microporous layer” and a “Macroscale” “Flowfield.” Shimpalee page F535 left column second paragraph discloses “The heat and mass transport inside flow-field, bipolar plage, and MEA are computed by the macroscale method.” According, the macroscale flowfield of figure 1 corresponds with a bipolar plate.
The bipolar plate corresponds with a third layer. The flow field of Shimpalee figure 1 is depicted as a flow channel and thus is configured to convey gas and/or fluid.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of statistically extending the converged second interface to cover the entire bipolar plate.” Shimpalee page F535 right column second paragraph discloses “the entire domain is solved for.” Shimpalee page F541 left column second paragraph discloses “The local potential of 0.56 V is predicted in this location where the average current is maintained at 1.0 A/cm2 as the same as other locations and entire cell.” Shimpalee abstract “co-simulation approach that incorporates a detailed structure of each scale dimension for every component of a fuel cell.” Making predictions for the entire cell, including ever component, corresponds to covering the entire bipolar plate.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second layer L2 comprises a gas diffusion layers (GDL), and the second interface L2/L3 comprises a GDL/BP interface.” Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows a PEMFC with layers including “Gas diffusion layer,” “Microporous layer” and a “Macroscale” “Flowfield.” Shimpalee page F535 left column second paragraph discloses “The heat and mass transport inside flow-field, bipolar plage, and MEA are computed by the macroscale method.” According, the macroscale flowfield of figure 1 corresponds with a bipolar plate.
The “Microporous layer” corresponds with a first layer.
The “Gas diffusion layer” corresponds with a second layer.
The bipolar plate corresponds with a third layer.
Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows three distinct “interfacial boundary” which corresponds with the first and second interfaces between the respective layers.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The method of claim 6, further comprising the step of performing a multiphase simulation with only the bipolar plate using extended GDL/BP interface as boundary condition.” Shimpalee page F535 left column disclose:
Macroscale.—A computational continuum mechanics (CCM) technique based on a commercial flow solver, STAR-CD 4.20, is used to solve the coupled governing equations for the macroscale model of the bipolar plate, the flow channel, and the MEA under unsteady-state conditions. These time-dependence equations incorporate mass, momentum, energy, and species transport equations.
The macroscale model of the bipolar plate corresponds with a multiphase simulation of the bipolar plate.
Shimpalee page F536 right column discloses:
These interfaces provide a connection between boundaries during the simulation and permit mass, energy and other continuum quantities to pass from one region to another (i.e., macroscale model to microscale model or vice versa) using data mappers approach. The data mappers allow one to interpolate field data available, either on a source mesh or a target mesh representation, so that the mapped fields can be used for applying boundary conditions on the target mesh.
Passing continuum quantities from microscale to macroscale corresponds with characterizing respective interfaces from the small scale first simulation of the microscale simulation. Interpolating field data to apply boundary conditions corresponds with using the extended interface as a boundary condition
Claim 9 further recites “9. The method of claim 8, wherein for the S1 simulation L1 is simulated at a representative elementary volume (REV) while only a fraction of L2 is captured.” Shimpalee page F536 right column discloses:
These interfaces provide a connection between boundaries during the simulation and permit mass, energy and other continuum quantities to pass from one region to another (i.e., macroscale model to microscale model or vice versa) using data mappers approach. The data mappers allow one to interpolate field data available, either on a source mesh or a target mesh representation, so that the mapped fields can be used for applying boundary conditions on the target mesh.
The source and target mesh representations correspond with representative elementary volumes. Passing continuum quantities from microscale to macroscale corresponds with characterizing respective interfaces from the small scale first simulation of the microscale simulation. Interpolating field data to apply boundary conditions corresponds with statistically extending results from the first interface to another area. Passing continuum data from the microscale to the macroscale is extending from a smaller portion to a larger area of the macroscale. Accordingly, only a fraction of L2 is captured in the microscale simulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimpalee, S., et al. "Multiscale Modeling of PEMFC Using Co-Simulation Approach" J. Electrochemical Society, vol. 166, F534-543 (2019) [herein “Shimpalee”] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 11,658,323 B2 Al-Smail [herein “Al-Smail”].
Claim 8 further recites “8. The method of claim 1, wherein L1 has a finer pore structure than L2.” Shimpalee page F535 figure 1 shows a PEMFC with layers including “Gas diffusion layer,” “Microporous layer” and a “Macroscale” “Flowfield.” Shimpalee page F535 left column second paragraph discloses “The heat and mass transport inside flow-field, bipolar plage, and MEA are computed by the macroscale method.” According, the macroscale flowfield of figure 1 corresponds with a bipolar plate.
The “Microporous layer” corresponds with a first layer.
The “Gas diffusion layer” corresponds with a second layer.
But Shimpalee does not explicitly disclose the relative pore size between the MPL and GDL; however, in analogous art of fuel cell analysis, Al-Smail column 7 lines 31-34 and 50-54 teaches:
Often, an intermediate porous layer is added between the GDL and catalyst layer to ease the transitions between the large pores in the GDL and small porosity in the catalyst layer.
….
a microporous layer (MPL) and are treated with materials such as PTFE to make them more hydrophobic. The MPL typically provides a smooth layer with plenty
The large pores of the GDL correspond with the MPL having a finer pore structure than the second layer, GDL.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimpalee and Al-Smail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use an intermediate porous MPL layer into the system of multiscale modeling of PEMFC for the advantageous purpose “to ease the transitions” between the GDL and catalyst layer. See Al-Smail column 7 lines 30-38.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimpalee, S., et al. "Multiscale Modeling of PEMFC Using Co-Simulation Approach" J. Electrochemical Society, vol. 166, F534-543 (2019) [herein “Shimpalee”] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 6,838,203 B2 Zheng [herein “Zheng”].
Claim 10 further recites “10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of forming the physical PEMFC according to the first interface characterization and the second interface characterization.” Shimpalee page F542 conclusion last line discloses “to find solution of designs and operational conditions in the PEMFC.
But Shimpalee does not explicitly disclose forming a physical PEMFC; however, in analogous art of fuel cells, Zheng column 10 lines 22-23 teaches “Thus, manufacturing in layers carries out fabrication of the fuel cell.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimpalee and Zheng. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use manufacturing a final design into the system of multiscale modeling of PEMFC for the advantageous purpose of continuing the process from the design stage. See Zheng column 9 lines 60-65.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,218,392 B2 Zhou; Yuqing et al.
teaches
Predicting liquid regions and vapor regions in bipolar plates of a fuel cell
Koido, T., et al. “An approach to modeling two-phase transport in the gas diffusion layer of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell” J. Power Sources, vol. 175, pp. 127-136 (2008)
Liquid–gas two-phaseflow in the gas diffusion layer (GDL) of PEMFCs;
Section 3.3 teaches empirical correlation of permeability and saturation measurements for the numerical computation of the transport simulation.
Carcadea, E., et al. “Influence of catalyst structure on PEM fuel cell performance – A numerical investigation” Int’l J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 44, pp. 12829-841 (2019)
Numerical investigation of catalyst microstructure. CFD with boundary conditions.
Carcadea, E., et al. “PEM fuel cell performance improvement through numerical optimization of the parameters of the porous layers” Int’l J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, pp. 7968-7980 (2020)
Numerical model of PEMFC.
MPL CFD. Polarization curves for different GDL thicknesses.
Iteratively solving governing equations.
Omrani, R. & Shabani, B. “Review of gas diffusion layer for proton exchange membrane-based technologies with a focus on unitised regenerative fuel cells” Int’l J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 44, pp. 3834-3860 (2019)
Technology background; focus on GDL properties.
Zhang, G. “Large-scale multi-phase simulation of proton exchange membrane fuel cell” Int’l J. Heat & Mass Transfer, vol. 130, pp. 555-563 (2019)
Multiphase CFD simulation of PEMFC using Eulerian-Eulerian model.
Computational domain including BP, GDL, MPL, Catalyst, and PEM.
Farzaneh, M., et al. “Pore‑Scale Transport and Two‑Phase Fluid Structures in Fibrous Porous Layers: Application to Fuel Cells and Beyond” Transport in Porous Media, vol. 136, pp. 245-270 (2021)
Pore-scale simulation reconstructed from CT scans using lattice Boltzmann.
Capillary fingering and contact angle.
Babay, M.A., et al. “Modeling and Simulation of a PEMFC Using Three-Dimensional Multi-Phase Computational Fluid Dynamics Model” IEEE 9th Int’l Renewable & Sustainable Energy Conf. (2021)
“mathematical model is built on equations that translate the conservation of mass, momentum, species, energy, charge, and transport of water in the membrane.”
No-slip boundary conditions.
Yang, D., et al. “Numerical simulation of two-phase flow in gas diffusion layer and gas channel of proton exchange membrane fuel cells” arXiv:2211.10084v1, preprint to Int’l J. Hydrogen Energy (Nov. 2022)
Gas transport in GDL and gas channel.
Technology background.
Volume-of-Fluid method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 14 June 2026
Prosecution Insights