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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the second species associated with Fig. 5, Claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al. (US20160141677A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US20100304249A1), Suzuki (US20040115497A1), and Baba (JP2022077045A English Machine Translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Imanishi discloses a leak inspection method ([0008] method of detecting leakage) of inspecting a leak from an electrolyte membrane in a fuel cell including the electrolyte membrane and an anode and a cathode that sandwich the electrolyte membrane ([0029] electrodes arranged on opposite sides of an electrolyte membrane), the method comprising:
a gas confining step of confining a fuel gas ([0008] pressure detecting step) at a predetermined pressure in a fuel gas flow field for supplying the fuel gas ([0029] hydrogen, anode gas, supplied as reactive gas) to the anode; a gas supply step to supply ([0009] supplying reactive gas) the oxygen-containing gas ([0029] air, cathode gas, supplied as reactive gas) at a pressure equal to or lower than the predetermined pressure to the oxygen-containing gas flow field when the fuel gas is confined in the fuel gas flow field ([0009] measured pressure value is determined to be lower than the threshold pressure in the determining step), and supplying ([0009] supplying reactive gas) the fuel gas ([0029] hydrogen, anode gas, supplied as reactive gas) at a pressure equal to or lower than the predetermined pressure to the fuel gas flow field when the oxygen-containing gas is confined in the oxygen-containing gas flow field ([0009] measured pressure value is determined to be lower than the threshold pressure in the determining step);
However, Imanishi does not disclose that in the gas supply step, the oxygen-containing gas and fuel gas are continuing to be supplied; and in the measurement step that a switch provided to a wiring connecting the anode and the cathode without passing through the electrolyte membrane is in an OFF state.
Tsuchiya discloses a fuel cell ([0012] fuel cell) in which in the gas supply step, the and fuel gas is continuing to be supplied ([0014] maintaining a fixed fuel supply flow rate). Tsuchiya also discloses that when the fuel supply is continuously supplied, the fuel can be stably combusted and reformer thermal balance can be stabilized ([0014]).
Imanishi and Tsuchiya are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas supply step of Imanishi such that the gas supply step is continuing to supply the oxygen-containing gas and continuing to supply the fuel gas as taught by Tsuchiya in order to result in the fuel being stably combusted and reformer thermal balance being stabilized.
Suzuki discloses a fuel cell ([0029] fuel cell) in which in the gas supply step, the oxygen-containing gas is continuing to be supplied ([0031] oxidant gas continuously supplied). Suzuki also discloses that when the oxidant supply is continuously supplied, the pressure difference of the gas pressure between the fuel electrode and the oxidant electrode is maintained ([0031]).
Suzuki is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas supply step of Imanishi such that the gas supply step is continuing to supply the oxygen-containing gas as taught by Suzuki in order to maintain pressure difference of the gas pressure between the fuel electrode and the oxidant electrode.
Baba discloses a fuel cell leak inspection method ([0047] gas leak inspection) in which the measurement step has a switch ([0006] communication state switching unit with an on-off valve in the connecting pipe) provided to a wiring connecting the anode and the cathode without passing through the electrolyte membrane ([0047] gas through electrolyte membrane is prevented) in an OFF state ([0047] non-communication state). Baba also discloses that when the gas is not passed through the electrolyte membrane, cross leak of the gas can be prevented which improves detection accuracy of the inspection device ([0047]).
Baba is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas leak inspection methods for fuel cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring step in the leak inspection method of Imanishi such that the measuring step has a switch provided to a wiring connecting the anode and the cathode without passing through the electrolyte membrane in an OFF state as taught by Baba in order to improve detection accuracy of the inspection device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al. (US20160141677A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US20100304249A1), Suzuki (US20040115497A1), and Baba (JP2022077045A English Machine Translation provided with this Office Action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonezawa (US20190051915A1).
Regarding claim 2, Imanishi discloses the leak inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the amount of pressure change measured in the measurement step is compared with a reference amount of pressure change set in advance ([0008] predetermined threshold value), and the reference amount of pressure change indicates the amount by which the pressure of the gas confined in the gas confining step drops per unit time because of power generation ([0008] predetermined pressure is lower than pressure in the supply piping at a time of end of operation), when there is no leak from the electrolyte membrane ([0008] no leakage at predetermined threshold pressure).
Imanishi does not disclose that an anode portion that is part of the anode, and a cathode portion that is part of the cathode are connected by an inter-connector portion formed at the electrolyte membrane.
Yonezawa discloses a fuel cell with an anode and a cathode that sandwich an electrolyte membrane ([0032] membrane sandwiched by upper anode plate and lower cathode plate) in which an anode portion that is part of the anode, and a cathode portion that is part of the cathode are connected by an inter-connector portion formed at the electrolyte membrane ([0032] interconnector part sandwiched by portion of upper anode plate and lower cathode plate). Yonezawa also discloses that the inter-connector portion ensures the continuity of the relevant portion and reduces the electrical resistance value ([0060]).
Yonezawa is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells with an anode and a cathode that sandwich an electrolyte membrane.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the anode and cathode portion of modified Imanishi such that an anode portion that is part of the anode, and a cathode portion that is part of the cathode are connected by an inter-connector portion formed at the electrolyte membrane as taught by Yonezawa in order to ensure the continuity of the relevant portion and reduce the electrical resistance value.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al. (US20160141677A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US20100304249A1), Suzuki (US20040115497A1), and Baba (JP2022077045A English Machine Translation provided with this Office Action). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inai (US20030022044A1).
Regarding claim 3, Imanishi discloses the leak inspection method according to claim 1 but does not disclose the method further comprising a releasing step of releasing the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step, when a voltage value applied to the fuel cell becomes less than a predetermined voltage threshold value.
Inai discloses a leak inspection method ([0072] gas leak detection) further comprising a releasing step of releasing the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step ([0072] purged by an inert gas after gas leak detection is performed), when a voltage value applied to the fuel cell becomes less than a predetermined voltage threshold value ([0055] output voltage lower than predetermined voltage value). Inai also discloses that a releasing step is for the purpose of avoiding applying excessive thermal load on a solid polymer electrolyte membrane and a catalyst when hydrogen and oxygen remaining in a cathode and an anode react and generate heat ([0072]).
Inai is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas leak inspection methods for fuel cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the leak inspection method of modified Imanishi to comprise a releasing step of releasing the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step, when a voltage value applied to the fuel cell becomes less than a predetermined voltage threshold value as taught by Inai in order to avoid applying excessive thermal load on a solid polymer electrolyte membrane and a catalyst when hydrogen and oxygen remaining in a cathode and an anode react and generate heat.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al. (US20160141677A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US20100304249A1), Suzuki (US20040115497A1), Baba (JP2022077045A English Machine Translation provided with this Office Action), and Inai (US20030022044A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US20220255098A1).
Regarding claim 4, Imanishi discloses the leak inspection method according to claim 3, wherein the gas supply step comprises a stopping of the supply of the gas supplied ([0044] valves closed in the cathode and anode gas supply). Imanishi does not disclose that the releasing step releases the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step, after stopping the supply of the gas supplied in the gas supply step.
Tanaka discloses a leak inspection method ([0063] leak test), wherein the releasing step releases the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step ([0063] gas discharged after leak test is performed), after stopping the supply of the gas supplied in the gas supply step ([0053] exhaust stop valve closed in leak test).
Tanaka is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas leak inspection methods for fuel cells.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the steps of the leak inspection of modified Imanishi such that the releasing step releases the confining of the gas confined in the gas confining step, after stopping the supply of the gas supplied in the gas supply step as taught by Tanaka because applying the releasing step after stopping the supply step is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2141 III(D) (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oda et al. (US20140239962A1) discloses a fuel cell inspection method in which a detected current value is compared with a predetermined current value ([0010]).
Booden et al. (US20090255326A1) discloses a system and method for detecting an anode leak of an anode stream in a fuel cell stack ([Abstract])
Yoshida (WO2006082993A1) discloses a gas leakage detection device based on the fuel gas concentration detected ([Abstract])
Abouatallah et al. (US20060210850A1) discloses a method for diagnostic testing of an electrochemical cell stack in which a multiplexer and a voltage monitor are used in testing ([Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights