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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “60A” and “60B” in Fig. 3B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeguchi et al. (U.S. 2010/0227257).
Regarding claim 1, Takeguchi discloses a separator made of metal for use in an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, cathode separator 10B of fuel cell 100 formed of metal; Paragraph 0072, lines 8-9, and Paragraph 0078), the separator comprising:
a first gas flow channel having a serpentine shape (see e.g. Fig. 2, left serpentine groove of first main gas channel 18; Paragraph 0081);
a second gas flow channel having a serpentine shape (see e.g. Fig. 2, right serpentine groove of first main gas channel 18; Paragraph 0081); and
a gas discharge manifold into which gas discharged from each of the first gas flow channel and the second gas flow channel flow (see e.g. Fig. 2, downstream end of each groove connected to gas discharging manifold hole 52; Paragraph 0081, lines 1-5),
wherein the first gas flow channel and the second gas glow channel are provided in a first region and a second region, respectively that are divided from each other by a predetermined line parallel to a direction of the anode gas that flows into the anode gas discharge manifold (see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 provided respectively to the left and right of central axis C parallel to the flow direction into discharge manifold 52; Paragraph 0081, lines 12-14, and Paragraph 0081).
The separator being an “anode separator” and “for use in an electrochemical hydrogen pump” are statements of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Takeguchi discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed separator as stated above and would therefore be capable use as an anode separator in an electrochemical hydrogen pump. Further, Takeguchi discloses that an anode separator of the electrochemical cell may have the same configuration as the cathode separator described above (see e.g. Paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 5, Takeguchi discloses the first gas flow channel and the second gas flow channel being connected to the gas discharge manifold without intersecting each other (see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 shown connected to gas discharge manifold 52 without intersecting; Paragraph 0081, lines 1-5)
Regarding claim 7, Takeguchi discloses the first gas flow channel including a plurality of flow channels, and the plurality of flow channels merge downstream into a decreased number of flow channels (see e.g. Fig. 9, left first gas channels 18D and 18C which merge into one downstream; Paragraph 0120, lines 5-13).
Regarding claim 8, Takeguchi discloses the first gas flow channel including a plurality of flow channels, and the plurality of flow channels merge downstream into a decreased number of flow channels (see e.g. Fig. 9, right first gas channels 18A and 18B which merge into one downstream; Paragraph 0120, lines 5-13).
Regarding claim 10, Takeguchi discloses the serpentine shapes being linearly symmetrical with respect to the predetermined line (see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 formed symmetrically with respect to central axis C; Paragraph 0081, lines 12-14, and Paragraph 0081).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi in view of Takeguchi et al. (U.S. 2004/0157103, hereinafter Takeguchi2).
Regarding claim 2, Takeguchi teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 as stated above. Takeguchi does not teach a first gas supply manifold through which the gas that flows into the first gas flow channel flows, and a second gas supply manifold through which the gas that flows into the second gas flow channel flows, instead teaching a single gas supply manifold for the first and second gas flow channels (see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 connected to gas supplying manifold hole 51; Paragraph 0081, lines 1-3).
Takeguchi2 teaches electrode separator plates for a fuel cell (see e.g. Abstract), the separator plates comprising two independent gas flow channels which may originate from either a shared supply manifold or two separate supply manifolds (see e.g. Figs. 9 and 11, separator plate 10 with gas flow channels 15a and 15b connected to separate gas inlet-side manifold apertures 11a and 11b or shared gas inlet-side manifold aperture 11; Paragraph 0072, lines 7-10, and Paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator of Takeguchi to comprise two separate gas supply manifolds for the first and second gas flow channels instead of a single shared gas supply manifold as taught by Takeguchi2 as an alternate suitable gas supply configuration for an electrode separator plate for a fuel cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Takeguchi teaches a first inlet of the first gas flow channel and a second inlet of the second gas flow channel being adjacent to each other (see e.g. Takeguchi Fig. 2, inlets of the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 shown entering the upper end of the dotted area of the cathode 4B next to each other; Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Takeguchi as modified by Takeguchi2 teaches the predetermined line being a line connecting a midpoint between the first gas supply manifold and the second gas supply manifold with a center of the gas discharge manifold (see e.g. Takeguchi see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 on either side of central axis C, Paragraph 0081, lines 12-14, and Paragraph 0081; see e.g. Takeguchi2 Fig. 9, central axis of separator plate 10B connecting midpoint of inlet-side manifold apertures 11a and 11b and center of shared outlet-side manifold aperture 13, Paragraph 0072, lines 7-10, and Paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 13, Takeguchi teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 as stated above. Takeguchi does not explicitly teach a ratio of a flow channel depth of the first gas flow channel to a flow channel width of the first gas flow channel and a ratio of a flow channel depth of the second gas flow channel to a flow channel width of the second gas flow channel both being equal to or less than 0.5.
Takeguchi2 teaches electrode separator plates for a fuel cell (see e.g. Abstract), the separator plates comprising gas flow channels machined to have a channel width of 2 mm and a depth of 1 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0108), resulting in a depth to width ratio of 0.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second gas flow channels of Takeguchi to have a depth of 1 mm and width of 2mm, resulting in a flow channel depth to width ratio of 0.5, as taught by Takeguchi as suitable dimensions for gas flow channels of an electrode separator plate for a fuel cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi in view of Takeguchi2, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gambini et al. (U.S. 2019/0221867).
Regarding claim 4, modified Takeguchi teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Takeguchi does not explicitly teach a total of an opening area of the first anode gas supply manifold and an opening area of the second anode gas supply manifold being larger than an opening area of the gas discharge manifold.
Gambini teaches electrochemical cells including an anode plate defining a plurality of channels forming an anode flow field facing an anode catalyst layer (see e.g. Abstract and Paragraph 0010, lines 3-12), the electrochemical cell further including an anode feed manifold and anode discharge manifold in communication with the anode flow field (see e.g. Paragraph 0010, lines 16-26), wherein the cross-sectional areas of each of the manifolds in the cell may varied, e.g. with some larger than others, and be sized based on different variables, such as to minimize fluid pressure variations along an electrochemical cel stack (see e.g. Paragraph 0051). Paragraph 0029 of the instant specification similarly describes making the total opening area of the supply manifolds larger than the opening area of the discharge manifold to better gold down increases in pressure loss, i.e. minimize pressure variation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relative opening areas of the supply manifolds and discharge manifold of modified Takeguchi to be varied in size, e.g. with the supply area larger than the discharge area as claimed, as taught by Gambini to minimize/optimize fluid pressure variations in an electrochemical cell stack including the separator. MPEP § 2144.05 II states “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."”. The relative sizes of each of the manifolds is a results-effective variable influencing fluid pressure variations, i.e. pressure loss, as taught by Gambini above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi in view of Liao et al. (CN 110424024 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 6, Takeguchi teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 1 as stated above. Takeguchi does not teach the first gas flow channel and the second gas flow channel both becoming greater in amplitude of their serpentine shapes as they extend inward from their respective inlets and becoming smaller in amplitude of their serpentine shapes as they extend outward toward their respective outlets. Takeguchi does however teach the serpentine shapes of each of the gas flow channels filling up the entire area of the adjacent electrode, which is exemplified as rectangular (see e.g. Takeguchi Fig. 2, rectangular cathode separator 10B with the two serpentine grooves of main gas channel 18 filling the entire region of the main surface of the cathode 4B; Paragraph 0079, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0081).
Liao teaches an electrode plate and flow field (see e.g. Paragraph 0014), the electrode plate being circular with a serpentine flow path that increases in amplitude moving away from the inlet and decreases in amplitude toward their amplitude following the width of the circle (see e.g. Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0038, lines 1-7), enabling fluid to be evenly supplied to the active area of the circular electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2, fluid distributed to circular electrodes 3; Paragraph 0033 and Paragraph 0038, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second gas flow channels of Takeguchi to have their serpentine shapes increase in amplitude extending from their inlets and then decrease in amplitude toward their outlets when the adjacent electrode is circular as taught by Liao to enable the reactant gas to reach the entire area of the electrode. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi in view of Takeguchi2, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Unoki et al. (U.S. 2009/0181269).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Takeguchi teaches all the elements of the separator of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Takeguchi does not teach the first gas flow channel and second gas flow channel each extending from the respective first and second gas supply manifold, then bending toward the line connecting the midpoint between the first gas supply manifold and the second gas supply manifold with the center of the gas discharge manifold, then bending toward the gas discharge manifold and then starting the respective serpentine shape of first gas flow channel and second gas flow channel. Takeguchi as modified by Takeguchi2 instead teaches the first and second gas flow channels being adjacent each other extending from the respective manifolds toward the gas discharge manifold before starting their serpentine shapes in the electrode-contacting area of the separator (see e.g. Takeguchi Fig. 2, the two grooves of main gas channel 18 extending straight down from supply manifold 51 before starting to serpentine shape in the dotted cathode region 4B, Paragraph 0018; see e.g. Takeguchi2 Figs. 9, flow channels 15a and 15b extending from inlet-side manifold apertures 11a and 11b toward outlet-side manifold aperture 13 before starting to serpentine in electrode portion 1E, Paragraphs 0072 and 0087). Takeguchi as modified by Takeguchi2 does however teach the first and second gas flow channels mirroring each other about the center line of the separator which connects the midpoint between the first and second gas supply manifolds with the center of the discharge manifold (see e.g. Takeguchi Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 formed symmetrically with respect to central axis C, Paragraph 0081, lines 12-14, and Paragraph 0081; see e.g. Takeguchi2 Fig. 9, central axis of separator plate 10B connecting midpoint of inlet-side manifold apertures 11a and 11b and center of shared outlet-side manifold aperture 13, Paragraph 0072, lines 7-10, and Paragraph 0087).
Unoki teaches a fuel cell stack (see e.g. Abstract) comprising anode and cathode separators each gas channels formed with a serpentine shape in a region in contact with a membrane electrode assembly (see e.g. Paragraph 3, anode separator 19A with gas channel 21 and cathode separator 19C with gas channel 31; Paragraph 0231), wherein the flow channels can go straight from a supply manifold toward the opposite side of the separator with the discharge manifold before starting to serpentine in the active electrode region (see e.g. Fig. 19A, anode gas inlet portions 21B extending straight from inlet manifolds 122I to anode gas reaching portion 21A to start serpentine; Paragraphs 0377-0378), as described above with modified Takeguchi, or can extend down from a supply manifold set off to the side, turn toward the line at which the serpentine will start and then extend toward the opposite side of the separator with the discharge manifold before starting to serpentine in the active electrode region (see e.g. Figs. 19C and 19E, anode gas inlet portions 21B extending down from side supply manifolds 322I/422I turning towards the line at which the anode gas reaching portion 21A starts and then extending down to start the serpentine at said portion; Paragraphs 0337-0378),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second gas flow channels of modified Takeguchi to symmetrically extend down from their respective supply manifolds offset to the side before turning inward toward the centerline adjacent which the serpentine starts and then extending down toward the discharge manifold to enter the electrode region to start the serpentine as taught by Unoki as an alternate suitable configuration for the inlet portion of a serpentine flow channel of an electrode separator. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (U.S. 2019/0173114) in view of Takeguchi.
Regarding claim 14, Sakai teaches an electrochemical hydrogen pump (see e.g. Fig. 2A, electrochemical hydrogen pump 100; Paragraph 0051, lines 1-2) comprising:
an electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 2B, electrolyte membrane 11; Paragraph 0051, line 4);
an anode provided on a first principal surface of the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 2B, anode 13 on a main surface of membrane 11; Paragraph 0052, lines 4-6);
a cathode provided on a second principal surface of the electrolyte membrane (see e.g. Fig. 2B, cathode 12 on other main surface of membrane 11; Paragraph 0052, lines 3-4);
an anode separator provided on the anode (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, anode separator 17 on anode 13; Paragraph 0067, lines 3-4); and
a voltage applier that applies a voltage between the anode and the cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2A, current adjuster/voltage applier 102; Paragraph 0054, lines 1-3),
wherein the electrochemical hydrogen pump causes, by using the voltage applier to apply a voltage, protons taken out from an anode gas supplied onto the anode to move to the cathode via the electrolyte membrane and produces compressed hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraphs 0053 and 0056).
Sakai does not explicitly teach the anode separator being the anode separator according to claim 1, but does teach the anode separator comprising a serpentine anode gas flow channel (see e.g. Fig. 2B, anode gas flow path 33; Paragraph 0072, lines 4-7) and an anode gas discharge manifold into which anode gas discharged from the flow channel flows (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, anode gas outlet manifold 30 communicating with anode flow path 33; Paragraph 0080), as well as the desire to provide sufficient humidity to the gas supplied to the anode (see e.g. Paragraphs 0025-0026).
Takeguchi teaches a separator made of metal for use in an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, cathode separator 10B of fuel cell 100 formed of metal; Paragraph 0072, lines 8-9, and Paragraph 0078), the separator comprising: a first gas flow channel having a serpentine shape (see e.g. Fig. 2, left serpentine groove of first main gas channel 18; Paragraph 0081); a second gas flow channel having a serpentine shape (see e.g. Fig. 2, right serpentine groove of first main gas channel 18; Paragraph 0081); and a gas discharge manifold into which gas discharged from each of the first gas flow channel and the second gas flow channel flow (see e.g. Fig. 2, downstream end of each groove connected to gas discharging manifold hole 52; Paragraph 0081, lines 1-5), wherein the first gas flow channel and the second gas glow channel are provided in a first region and a second region, respectively that are divided from each other by a predetermined line parallel to a direction of the anode gas that flows into the anode gas discharge manifold (see e.g. Fig. 2, the two grooves of first main gas channel 18 provided respectively to the left and right of central axis C parallel to the flow direction into discharge manifold 52; Paragraph 0081, lines 12-14, and Paragraph 0081); this separator capable of producing a high-humidity high-gas-concentration electrode region and improving electrochemical cell performance (see e.g. Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode separator of Sakai to particularly comprise the separator of Takeguchi as a particular suitable electrode separator for an electrochemical cell including serpentine flow paths connected to a gas discharge manifold that further produces a high-humidity high-gas-concentration electrode region and improves electrochemical cell performance. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795