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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by English translation of JP2006228533A [Takaichi]
Regarding claim 1, Takaichi teaches a molding method of a separator for a fuel cell preventing warping of the separator and enhancing sealing capability without having recessed and projecting part in the periphery of a passage [abs]. Takaichi teaches a first separator [#15; 0020] having a first bead [0022; #24]; and a second separator superposed with the first separator [#15; 0020] and having a second bead [0022; #24] formed at a position opposite to the first bead [depicted below];
wherein the first separator further includes a first protrusion [0039; #42b] disposed close to the first bead and protruding from a first separator front surface in the same direction as a protruding direction of the first bead, and the second separator further includes a second protrusion [0039; #42b] disposed close to the second bead, protruding from a second separator rear surface in a direction opposite to a protruding direction of the second bead, and fit able to the first protrusion [0039; The caulking forming portion 42 includes a protrusion 42a formed at the tip of the convex portion 40 of the upper die 39 and a concave portion 42b formed at the tip of the convex portion 40 of the lower die 36 that receives the protrusion 42a.]. Please refer to the annotated figures below that illustrate the structural elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
504
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takaichi teaches variation in heights of the separators [0023] and as illustrated below, it can be seen that Takaichi teaches a protrusion height of the first protrusion (H1) from the first separator front surface is set to be less than a bead height of the first bead from the first separator front surface (H2).
PNG
media_image3.png
465
185
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
507
233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Takaichi teaches wherein a plurality of the first protrusions and the second protrusions are disposed at predetermined intervals along a longitudinal direction of the first bead and the second bead [please refer to illustration in claim 1, it illustrates a couple of fist/second protrusions as claimed; 0029-0030].
Regarding claim 5, Takaichi teaches wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion have a tapered cross-sectional shape that protrudes obliquely with respect to a vertical direction from the first separator front surface or the second separator rear surface [depicted below; 0042; 42a/42b are tapered and protrudes obliquely as claimed].
PNG
media_image5.png
546
655
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Takaichi teaches wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion in a state of being fitted to each other have a first fitting gap between a rear surface of the first protrusion and a front surface of the second protrusion along a bead longitudinal direction of the first bead and the second bead, and a second fitting gap between the rear surface of the first protrusion and the front surface of the second protrusion along a bead perpendicular direction perpendicular to the bead longitudinal direction that is set to be equal to or less than the first fitting gap [0028-0030, 0039; the two separators 15 and 15 are overlapped so that the concave strips 16 and 16 are brought into contact with each other; caulking forming portion 42 for forming a caulking portion that meshes with each other at a separator contact portion that is a portion where the two separators 15 and 15 are overlapped with each other is provided on the upper die 36 and the upper die 36. It may be formed on the mold die 39. The caulking forming portion 42 includes a protrusion 42a formed at the tip of the convex portion 40 of the upper die 39 and a concave portion 42b formed at the tip of the convex portion 40 of the lower die 36 that receives the protrusion 42a].
Regarding claim 7, Takaichi teaches wherein the first separator and the second separator are made of a stainless-steel or titanium metal plate [0019].
Regarding claim 9, Takaichi teaches wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion are formed of at a circular cross-sectional shape and/or an elliptical cross-sectional shape in an upper view [illustrated in claim 1].
Regarding claim 10, Takaichi teaches wherein two or more of the second protrusions are fitted to one of the first protrusions [depicted in annotated figures in claim 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of JP2006228533A [Takaichi]
Regarding claim 3, Takaichi is silent with respect to wherein the first protrusion is disposed at a position within at least 10mm from a bead center position of the first bead. However, 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 Takaichi and set first protrusion is disposed at a position within at least 10mm from a bead center position of the first bead as claimed, as this is an obvious variation in the sizes of the angles with no change in the function of the fuel cell structure and it would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143). As noted in the instant specification para 0044, having the first protrusion within 10mm of the first bead allows to stabilize the sealing property. Takaichi teaches that the protrusions 43 and 43 formed in the contact part of the separators 15 and 15 are crushed and entangled, the contact area between them increases, and the electroconductivity can be aimed [0042] and the seal member, i.e the bead, is used to enhance an improved adhesion of the separators. Thus, a person skilled in the art would easily be able to modify the structure and have the first protrusion within 10mm of the first bead to further stabilize the sealing property of the fuel cell structure.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ.
Regarding claim 8, Takaichi does not teach a laser joining part provided at a position close to the first protrusion and the second protrusion, or the first bead and the second bead, and joining the first separator and the second separator superposed on each other by laser welding. However, it is noted, this limitation “laser joining part” is considered a product by process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Takaichi teaches the first/second protrusion and the first/second bead as claimed, thus meets the claimed limitations accordingly. The examiner does not give patentable weight to the laser joining part as the claims are directed to the apparatus and Takaichi teaches the required structure.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of JP2006228533A [Takaichi] further in view of English translation of JP2006309989A [Nakaji] .
Regarding claim 11, Takaichi teaches the separators and first/second beads as claimed, however is silent with respect to the first and second recess as claimed. Nakaji teaches a fuel cell stack [abs]. Nakaji further teaches the separators have the first and second recesses as claimed [0030, #35/#37-illustrated below].
Thus, Takaichi in view of Nakaji teach wherein the first separator further includes a first recess disposed close to the first bead and recessed from the first separator front surface in a direction opposite to a protruding direction of the first bead, and the second separator further includes a second recess disposed close to the second bead, recessed from the second separator rear surface in the same direction as the protruding direction of the second bead, and fittable to the first recess [please refer to the annotated figures below that depict the structural features as claimed].
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 Nakaji to further include the recesses as claimed as this allows the separators of the fuel cell to be engaged with one another which further enables a stable fuel cell structure [0018].
PNG
media_image6.png
409
697
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
465
185
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729