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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 01/28/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104 alongside newly pending claims 8 and 9. Claims 2 and 5-6 have been canceled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C.112 (b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi (U.S. Pub. US 2012/0013185).
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches a fuel cell unit (1, Figs. 1 and 5, see [0029]) comprising:
a fuel cell stack (2, Fig. 5);
a power converter (61, Fig. 5) configured to convert electric power of the fuel cell stack (see [0036]);
a first auxiliary (4u, Fig. 5) device configured to assist operation of the fuel cell stack (see [0046]), and
a second auxiliary device (54i, Fig. 5) configured to assist in the operation of the fuel cell stack (see [0046]); wherein
the power converter (61) is disposed on a first surface (lower surface, Fig. 5) of the fuel cell stack,
the first auxiliary device (4u) and the second auxiliary device (54i, Fig. 5) are connected to a second surface (right surface, Fig. 5) of the fuel cell stack (2) via a stack manifold (see Fig. 4),
a normal direction of the first surface (lower surface) and a normal direction of the second surface (right surface) intersect (see Fig. 5 and [0057]),
in a plan view of the fuel cell unit viewed from a side (right side, Fig. 5) of the first auxiliary device (4u),
an area surrounded by an outer edge of the first auxiliary device (4u) is referred to as an area A (area A, Annotated Fig. 5, below),
an area surrounded by an outer edge of the fuel cell stack (2) is referred to as an area B1 (area B1, Annotated Fig. 5, below),
an area surrounded by an outer edge of the power converter (61) is referred to as an area B2 (area B2, Annotated Fig. 5, below),
an area obtained by adding the area B1 and the area B2 together is referred to as an area B3 (area B3, Annotated Fig. 5, below),
the area A (area A) overlaps at least part of the area B1 (area B1) and at least part of the area B2 (area B2, see Annotated Fig. 5, below),
an entirety of the area A (area A) is included inside the area B3 (area B3, see Annotated Fig. 5, below),
an area surrounded by an outer edge of the second auxiliary device (54i) is referred to as an area C (area C, Annotated Fig. 5, below), and
an entirety of the area C (area C) is included inside either the area B1 (area B1) or the area B2, and
a proportion of a portion of the area A that overlaps the area B1 (portion of area A on 2, Annotated Fig. 5, below) to the entirety of the area A (area A) is 50% or more (50%),
It is the position of the Examiner that the second auxiliary device (54i) is connected to a second surface (right surface) of the fuel cell stack since the left surface is connected to the right surface through the body of the fuel cell stack, thereby indirectly connecting the auxiliary device and second surface.
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that, in a plan view, viewed from the right side of 4u, the annotated area C below would visibly overlap with and thereby be included inside the area B1. Moreover, as noted in the preceding office action it is the position of the Examiner that “an area surrounded by…” is interpreted as describing any area within the claimed boundaries; this would allow for an area C smaller than the surface of the inverter 54i. Since Ohashi depicts the auxiliary device (54i, Fig. 5) as being disposed on the side surface of the fuel cell stack (2), there necessarily exists a possible area C, selected to have 100% of its area overlapping with B1. The annotated area C, below, is selected in this manner.
Further, this interpretation of “an area surrounded by…” would allow for an area A smaller than the surface of the auxiliary device 4u. Since Ohashi depicts the auxiliary device (4u, Fig. 5) as being disposed on the side surface of both the fuel cell stack (2) and converter (61), there necessarily exists a possible area A, selected to have 50% of its area overlapping with B1 and 50% overlapping with B2. The annotated area A, below, is selected in this manner.
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
523
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ohashi teaches wherein the first auxiliary (4u) device is configured not to protrude from the area B3 (see Annotated Fig. 5, above).
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi teaches the first auxiliary device (4u, Fig. 5) is at least one of a gas-liquid separator (gas liquid separator, [0046]), a humidifier, or an ejector.
Regarding claim 7, Ohashi teaches wherein a proportion of a portion of the area A (portion of area A on 61, Annotated Fig. 5, above) that overlaps the area B2 (area B2, Annotated Fig. 5, above) to the entirety of the area A (area A) is 50% or more (50%).
As noted above and in the preceding office action it is the position of the Examiner that “an area surrounded by…” is interpreted as describing any area within the claimed boundaries; this would allow for an area A smaller than the surface of the auxiliary device 4u. Since Ohashi depicts the auxiliary device (4u, Fig. 5) as being disposed on the side surface of both the fuel cell stack (2) and converter (61), there necessarily exists a possible area A, selected to have 50% of its area overlapping with B1 and 50% overlapping with B2. The annotated area A, above, is selected in this manner.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Pub. US 2012/0013185), in view of Sugita et al (U.S. Pub. US 2012/0258378).
Regarding claim 8, Ohashi teaches a portion of the area B3 that overlaps the area A (area A, Annotated Fig. 5, under claim 1), but
does not explicitly disclose wherein a proportion of a portion of the area B3 that overlaps the area A to the entirety of the area B3 is 30% or more and 50% or less.
However, absent a showing of technical significance or criticality of the claimed range of proportions, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness for modifying the substantially identical invention of Ohashi by optimizing the overlap between area A and B3. A person of ordinary sill in the art would have recognized that the relative size and orientation of these components could be modified or optimized for design simplicity, space constraints, or mountability.
Moreover, Sugita teaches components of a fuel cell assembly as not protruding beyond the boundary of a fuel cell stack to increase mountability (see [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and arrangement of the first auxiliary device surrounding area A of Ohashi, through routine optimization, as taught by Sugita, to increase the convenience of mounting the fuel cell in a vehicle ([0116]). Further, it has been held that rearrangement of parts and changes in size/proportion require only routine optimization.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ohashi (U.S. Pub. US 2012/0013185) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ohashi (U.S. Pub. US 2012/0013185), in view of Naito et al (U.S. Pub. US 2014/0110185).
Regarding claim 9, Ohashi appears to teach wherein the second auxiliary device (54i, Fig. 5) is configured not to protrude from the area B3 (area B3, see Annotated Fig. 5, under claim 1).
It is the position of the Examiner that Ohashi depicts the second auxiliary device (54i) as not protruding from the annotated area B3, in a plan view, viewed from the right side of 4u.
Further, Naito teaches wherein the secondary auxiliary device (40, Figs. 2-3, see [0027 and 0040]) is configured not to protrude from the area B3 (area B3, Annotated Fig. 3, below).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
519
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Applicant’s argument that Ohashi does not teach the Area C relies on 54i and 4u not being disposed on the same surface. However, the first and second auxiliary devices are not claimed to be disposed on the same surface; rather claim 1 recites they are “connected to a second surface of the fuel cell stack”. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, above, Ohashi teaches an indirect connectivity for the second auxiliary device (54i). Thus, in a plan view, viewed from a side of 4u, the area C would superimpose with the areas B1/B3 and teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9 (see 35 U.S.C 102 rejection, above). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, applicant’s argument that Ohashi does not teach or suggest proportion regarding the area of the fuel cell is not persuasive. While Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the areas A or B1 in written form in the specification, the regions depicted in the drawings (namely, Fig. 5) of Ohashi anticipate the claimed areas. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, above, the claim language does not require that the area A is defined by the outer edge of the first auxiliary device, merely that it is “surrounded by” it (i.e., contained within). Thus, Ohashi necessarily teaches an outer edge of an auxiliary device surrounding an area A and a portion of area A that possess the proportional relationship limitations of claims 1 and 7 (see 35 U.S.C 102 rejection, above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723