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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a resin portion of the second end plate” in line 6 (clause 3). However, “a resin portion” is previously recited in line 4 (clause 2) of claim 1 for the first and second end plates. For examination purposes, “a resin portion” recited in line 6 for second end plate is interpreted as corresponding to “a resin portion” previously recited in line 4 for the first and second end plates. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a resin portion” in line 6 to “the resin portion”.
Claims 2-4 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 5 also recites “a resin portion of the second end plate” in line 13 (clause 5). However, “a resin portion” is previously recited in line 12 (clause 4) of claim 5. For examination purposes, “a resin portion” recited in line 13 for second end plate is interpreted as corresponding to “a resin portion” previously recited in line 12 for the first and second end plates. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a resin portion” in line 13 to “the resin portion”.
Claims 6-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 5.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20180040907 A1), and further in view of over Yamaura (US 20180309151 A1), Takehiro (US 20230369615 A1), and Yang et al.(KR 20100118297 A, citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches a fuel cell apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 1-10), comprising: a cell stack comprising a plurality of unit cells stacked in a first direction (stack body 14 stacking fuel cells in a stacking direction A [0027]-[0028], Fig. 1-10); first and second end plates disposed on respective lateral ends of the cell stack (Fig 3, end plates 20a,20b), each of the first and second end plates has a resin portion (end plates 20a,20b including insulator 18a, 18b [0028]-[0029]; in view of instant application [0060] stating that the resin portion is insulative); a sacrificial electrode disposed on a resin portion of the second end plate (terminal plate 16a, 16b [0028] made of stainless steel [0055]; in view of instant application [0098] stating that the sacrificial electrode maybe made of “SUS”); the outer surface of the second end plate being opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface facing the cell stack (Fig 3 shows end plates 20a, and 20b with outer and inner surface, while the inner surface facing the cell stack). Ishida does not disclose a limitation wherein each of the first and second end plates being formed such that a metal portion is enveloped by a resin portion. However, Yamaura teaches the limitation wherein each of the first and second end plates (end plate 20) being formed such that a metal portion (metal plate body 30) is enveloped by a resin (Fig. 3, [0026], covering portion 40 made of plastic; in view of instant application [0060] stating that “plastic” is an example that meets the resin material) portion. Further, Ishida, and Yamaura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the resin portion of the end plates of Ishida by incorporating the metal portion enveloped by the resin portion as taught by Yamaura. Such a combination would result in the simple substitution of the resin portion of end plates of Ishida with the metal portion enveloped by a resin structure of Yamaura, providing the predictable result of a suitable end plate structure for the fuel cell apparatus. See In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) (see MPEP § 2144.06).
Further regarding claim 1, while, as stated above, Ishida teaches a sacrificial electrode disposed on a resin portion of the second end plate, Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, does not specifically disclose a limitation wherein a sacrificial electrode is adjacent to a cell having a highest potential among the plurality of unit cells. However, Takehiro discloses a sacrificial electrode adjacent to a cell having a highest potential among the plurality of unit cells (positioning a sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region closest to the high-potential unit cell at a fuel cell stack end to protect other members ([0042] [0044], Fig. 4). Takehiro teaches this arrangement effectively suppresses corrosion in the fuel cell and provides a fuel cell stack that can have a long life with an inexpensive configuration [0005]. Further, Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, and Takehiro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the sacrificial electrode as taught by modified Ishida adjacent to the highest-potential cell as taught by Takehiro to improve the corrosion protection of the fuel cell.
Further regarding claim 1, Ishida, as further modified by Yamaura and Takehiro, does not disclose limitations wherein (i) an outer coupling member coupled to an outer surface of the second end plate so as to be in contact with and support the sacrificial electrode, the outer surface being opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface facing the cell stack; and (ii) a first sealing member disposed between the outer surface of the second end plate and the outer coupling member. However, Yang teaches the limitations wherein (i) an outer coupling member (coupling means 500, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) coupled to an outer surface of the second end plate (end plate 100) so as to be in contact with and support an electrode such as the sacrificial electrode of modified Ishida, and as likewise taught by Ishida, as discussed above, the outer surface is opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface is facing the cell stack (Fig. 5, paragraph 21 of TECH-SOLUTION section); and (ii) a first sealing member (sealer 544) disposed between the outer surface of the second end plate and the outer coupling member (a sealer 544 provided on one surface of the coupling means 500, that is, the surface facing the end plate 100; the sealer is pressed between the outer surface of the end plate 100 and the outer surface of the coupling member 540). Yang also teaches that said sealer is configured to block fuel leakage between the end plate and the coupling member and said coupling means is configured to maintain a state in which the components of the fuel cell are coupled to each other (Tech-Solution section). Further, modified Ishida, and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would add the sealing member and coupling member as taught by Yang to the fuel cell taught by modified Ishida. Such a modification would have been motivated by improving blockage of fuel leakage and maintaining coupling between the fuel cell components, including the electrode and the end plate.
Claims 2, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, Takehiro, and Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raiser et al. (US 20050260479 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, Takehiro, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ishida further discloses a limitation wherein the second end plate comprises: a coolant inlet (coolant supply passage 36a, Fig. 2, [0031]-[0032]) formed to allow a coolant to flow into the cell stack therethrough and to allow the resin portion to be disposed therein (insulator 18a, Fig. 2); and a coolant outlet (discharge passage 38a, Fig. 2, [0031]-[0032]) formed to allow a coolant flowing out of the cell stack to be discharged therethrough and to allow the resin portion to be disposed therein (insulator 18b, Fig. 2). Modified Ishida does not teach a limitation wherein the sacrificial electrode comprises: a flow path portion disposed on the resin portion in a flow path in at least one of the coolant inlet or the coolant outlet; and a bent portion bent and extending from the flow path portion in a second direction so as to be disposed between the resin portion of the second end plate and the outer coupling member, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction. However, Raiser teaches the limitation wherein the sacrificial electrode (corrosion resistant member 48, [0017], [0018]) comprises: a flow path portion in a flow path in at least one of the coolant inlet or the coolant outlet (a portion of corrosion resistant member 48 next to fluid flow 42 in Fig. 3B, [0019]); and a bent portion bent and extending from the flow path portion in a second direction (a portion of corrosion resistant member 48 bent and extending from the flow path 42 in Fig. 3B, [0019]), the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (L-shaped corrosion resistant member 48 in Fig. 3B, [0019]). Raiser further teaches that the L-shaped structure of the corrosion resistant member allows contact with the fluid flow while also conducting electrical current between fuel cell stack and terminal plate [0018] thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0019]. Further, modified Ishida, and Raiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coolant passage taught by modified Ishida to include the sacrificial electrode having said flow path portion and said bent portion as taught by Raiser. Raiser teaches that the flow path portion is disposed on a sealing member (element 46, Fig. 3B) rather than on a resin portion, as cited in the instant claim. Accordingly, replacing Ishida’s resin portion with a sealing member represents a simple substitution of known element for another known element and is therefore obvious to a person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2144.06). In addition, Raiser teaches that the bent portion is positioned between fuel cell stack (24) and terminal plate (40) ([0017]), whereas the instant claim recites that the bent portion is disposed between the resin portion of the second end plate and the outer coupling member. This difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such modifications would have been further motivated by the desire to prevent coolant from contacting the terminal plate and to improve corrosion resistant of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, Takehiro, Yang, and Raiser teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the first sealing member is disposed between the outer coupling member and the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing member prevents fluid flow ([0019]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the fuel cell taught by modified Ishida to include the sealing member, as taught by Raiser. Raiser teaches multiple possible positions for the sealing member, whereas the instant claim recites that the first sealing member is disposed between the outer coupling member and the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode. This difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent fluid flow and to improve the sealing performance of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 4, Ishida, as modified by Yamaura, Takehiro, Yang, and Raiser, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 2 as discussed previously. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the first sealing member is disposed between the resin portion adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the outer coupling member. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing member prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0019]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the sealing member between the resin portion adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the outer coupling member, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (See MPEP 2144.04 (C).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20210126274 A1), and further in view of, Takehiro (US 20230369615 A1), and Raiser et al. (US 20050260479 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches a fuel cell apparatus (Fig. 11), comprising: a plurality of stack modules (first and second stack modules shown in Fig. 11, [0134]); a manifold block disposed on one of two lateral ends of the plurality of stack modules (Fig. 11, manifold block 510); and a side cover disposed on a remaining one of the two lateral ends of the plurality of stack modules (Fig. 11, side cover 520) wherein each of the plurality of stack modules comprises: a cell stack (Fig. 11, cell stack CS1, [0134]) comprising a plurality of unit cells stacked in a first direction (Fig. 2, cell stack 122); first and second end plates respectively disposed between one lateral end of the cell stack and the manifold block and between an opposite lateral end of the cell stack and the side cover (Fig.11, first and second end plates EP11 and EP12, [0124]), each of the first and second end plates being formed such that a metal portion is enveloped by a resin portion ([0076], [0077], metallic insert portion 114 is surrounded by the resin shell portion 116).
Further regarding claim 5, Heo does not disclose a limitation wherein a sacrificial electrode disposed on a resin portion of the second end plate adjacent to a cell having a highest potential among the plurality of unit cells, among the first and second end plates. However, Takehiro teaches the limitation wherein a sacrificial electrode (sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region) disposed on a resin portion (abstract and [0027]: sealing region made of resin that is adjacent to the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region) of the second end plate ([0007] and [0008]) adjacent to a cell having a highest potential among the plurality of unit cells, among the first and second end plates (([0042] and [0044], Fig. 4). Takehiro teaches this arrangement effectively suppresses corrosion in the fuel cell and provides a fuel cell stack that can have a long life with an inexpensive configuration [0005]. Further, Heo, and Takehiro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell taught by Heo by adding said sacrificial electrode and position it adjacent to the highest-potential cell, as taught by Takehiro, to improve the corrosion protection of the fuel cell.
Further regarding claim 5, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, does not disclose a limitation wherein a second sealing member disposed between an outer surface of the second end plate and the side cover, the outer surface being opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface facing the cell stack. However, Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that the outer surface of the second end plate is opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface facing the cell stack ([0019] and [0020], Fig. 3B). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow ([0019]). Further, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, and Raiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuel cell taught by modified Heo to include said sealing member, as taught by Raiser. Raiser teaches multiple possible positions for the sealing member, whereas the instant claim recites that a second sealing member disposed between an outer surface of the second end plate and the side cover. This difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent fluid flow and to improve the sealing performance of the fuel cell.
Claims 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo, as modified by Takehiro, and Raiser, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (KR 20100118297 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Heo, as modified by Takehiro and Raiser, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Heo further teaches that the outer surface of side cover is opposite an inner surface of the side cover, the inner surface facing the second end plate (Fig. 11, side cover 520 and end plates EP12 and EP22). Modified Heo does not teach a limitation in which the fuel cell apparatus further comprises an outer coupling member coupled to an outer surface of the side cover. However, Yang teaches an outer coupling member (coupling means 500, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) coupled to the end plate (end plate 100, Fig. 5, paragraph 21 of TECH-SOLUTION section), rather than an outer surface of the side cover. Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the outer coupling member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell. Further, modified Heo, and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would add the coupling member as taught by Yang to the fuel cell taught by modified Heo. Moreover, it would have been a design choice to couple the coupling member to the outer surface of the side cover, rather than to the end plate as in Yang; because this difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts to position the coupling member to the farthest place in a fuel cell apparatus, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such a modification would have been motivated by improving the coupling between the fuel cell components.
Regarding claim 7, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Heo further teaches a limitation wherein the second end plate included in each of the plurality of stack modules comprises: a coolant inlet formed to allow a coolant to flow into the cell stack therethrough and to allow the resin portion to be disposed therein; and a coolant outlet formed to allow a coolant flowing out of the cell stack to be discharged therethrough and to allow the resin portion to be disposed therein ([0062] and [0063], inflow communication portions IN11 and IN12, outflow communication portions OUT11 and OUT12).
Regarding claim 8, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Raiser further teaches a limitation wherein the sacrificial electrode ((corrosion resistant member 48 [0017], [0018])) comprises a flow path in a flow path in at least one of the coolant inlet or the coolant outlet (a portion of corrosion resistant member 48 next to fluid flow 42 in Fig. 3B, [0019]. Raiser teaches that this arrangement prevents fluid flow from contacting terminal plate.
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the fuel cell taught by modified Heo to include said flow path portion, as taught by Raiser. Raiser teaches that the flow path portion is disposed on a sealing member (element 46, Fig. 3B) rather than on a resin portion. Accordingly, replacing resin portion as taught by Heo with a sealing member represents a simple substitution of known element for another known element and is therefore obvious to a person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2144.06) Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent fluid flow from contacting terminal plate.
Regarding claim 9, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Raiser further teaches a limitation wherein the sacrificial electrode (corrosion resistant member 48 [0017], [0018]) comprises a bent portion bent and extending from the flow path portion in a second direction (a portion of corrosion resistant member 48 bent and extending from the flow path 42 in Fig. 3B, [0019]), the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (L-shaped corrosion resistant member 48 in Fig. 3B , [0019]). Raiser further teaches that the L-shaped structure of the corrosion resistant member allows contact with the fluid flow while also conducting electrical current between fuel cell stack and terminal plate [0018] thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0019].
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the fuel cell taught by modified Heo to include said bent portion, as taught by Raiser. In addition, Raiser teaches that the bent portion is positioned between fuel cell stack (24) and terminal plate (40) ([0017]), whereas the instant claim recites that the bent portion is disposed between the resin portion of the second end plate and the side cover. This difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to further prevent fluid flow from contacting terminal plate.
Regarding claim 10, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the second sealing member is disposed between the side cover and the bent portion. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the second sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the second sealing member between the side cover and the bent portion, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 11, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the second sealing member is disposed between the resin portion adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the side cover. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the second sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the second sealing member between the resin portion adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the side cover, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 12, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Raiser further teaches a limitation wherein the sacrificial electrode (corrosion resistant member 48 [0017], [0018]) comprises a bent portion bent and extending from the flow path portion in a second direction (a portion of corrosion resistant member 48 bent and extending from the flow path 42 in Fig. 3B, [0019]), the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (L-shaped corrosion resistant member 48 in Fig. 3B , [0019]). Raiser further teaches that the L-shaped structure of the corrosion resistant member allows contact with the fluid flow while also conducting electrical current between fuel cell stack and terminal plate [0018] thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0019].
Therefore, prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the fuel cell taught by modified Heo to include said bent portion, as taught by Raiser. In addition, Raiser teaches that the bent portion is positioned between fuel cell stack (24) and terminal plate (40) ([0017]), whereas the instant claim recites that the bent portion is disposed between the side cover and the outer coupling member. This difference constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04)). Such a modification would have been motivated by the desire to further prevent fluid flow from contacting terminal plate.
Regarding claim 13, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the second sealing member is disposed between the side cover and the resin portion of the second end plate. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the second sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the second sealing member between the side cover and the resin portion of the second end plate, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 14, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation in which the cell apparatus further comprises a third sealing member disposed between the outer coupling member and the side cover. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the third sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the third sealing member between the outer coupling member and the side cover, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 15, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the third sealing member is disposed between the outer coupling member and the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the third sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the third sealing member between the outer coupling member and the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 16, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation wherein the third sealing member is disposed between the side cover adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the outer coupling member. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the third sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the third sealing member between the side cover adjacent to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in the second direction and the outer coupling member, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Regarding claim 17, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Additionally, Raiser appears to teach a limitation in which the fuel apparatus further comprises a fourth sealing member disposed between the resin portion of the second end plate and the flow path portion or between the resin portion of the second end plate and the bent portion. Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement, sealing member 46) and discloses multiple possible positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that sealing prevents fluid flow and improves the sealing performance of the fuel cell ([0016]). Accordingly, it is the Examiner's position that the fourth sealing member may be positioned in alternative positions without adversely affecting operation of the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would position the fourth sealing member between the resin portion of the second end plate and the flow path portion or between the resin portion of the second end plate and the bent portion, as recited in the instant claim, in order to achieve improved sealing performance, as indicated by Raiser. Such positioning represents a mere rearrangement of known parts yielding predictable results and is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (C)).
Claims 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, as applied to claims 10, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 20220302480 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Modified Heo does not teach a limitation wherein a bending angle between the bent portion and the flow path portion is less than 90 by 1 to 5°. However, Fukui indicates an inclined section 96 (Fig. 5) disposed in a flow path channel (oxygen-containing gas supply passage 34a) having a bending angle less than 90° ([0060]). Although the inclined section is a different element than the sacrificial electrode with the bent portion and the flow path portion of the instant claim, Fukui evidences that forming a component disposed in a flow path with a bending angle less than 90° is known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this known flow path geometry to the bent portion of the sacrificial electrode in modified Heo by forming the bent portion at an angle slightly less than 90, as claimed, as a predictable change in shape and design choice yielding no unexpected results. See In 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Heo does not teach a limitation wherein the resin portion of the second end plate has a groove portion formed therein to allow at least part of the bent portion to be disposed therein, and wherein the bent portion has a thickness in the first direction, and the thickness is greater than a depth of the groove portion in the first direction. However, Fukui indicates a groove-shaped bypass channel 94 formed adjacent to plate 17 (Fig. 5). The bottom portion of plate 17 adjacent to the bottom part of groove 94 has a thickness that is greater than the depth of the groove-shaped bypass channel. Fukui demonstrates that forming a groove in a place such that an adjacent portion has a greater thickness than the groove depth is known in the art.
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 apply this knows structural relationship taught by Fukui to the bent portion as taught by modified Heo by forming the groove portion with a depth less than the thickness of the bent portion disposed adjacent thereto. Such a modification in the shape and design would have yielded no unexpected results. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious. See In 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20, Heo, as modified by Takehiro, Raiser, and Yang, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Modified Heo does not teach a limitation wherein the resin portion of the second end plate has a groove portion formed therein to allow at least part of the bent portion to be disposed therein, and wherein the bent portion has a thickness in the first direction, and the thickness is less than a depth of the groove portion in the first direction. However, Fukui indicates a groove-shaped bypass channel 94 formed adjacent to plate 17 (Fig. 5). The upper portion of plate 17 adjacent to the upper part of groove 94 has a thickness that is less than the depth of the groove-shaped bypass channel. Fukui demonstrates that forming a groove in a place such that an adjacent portion has a less thickness than the groove depth is known in the art.
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 apply this knows structural relationship taught by Fukui to the bent portion as taught by modified Heo by forming the groove portion with a depth greater than the thickness of the bent portion disposed adjacent thereto. Such a modification in the shape and design would have yielded no unexpected results. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious. See In 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728