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
The amendment filed 05/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are amended while claim 6 was cancelled; support for amendment can be found in paragraph [0185] of the specification; thus, claims 1-5, and 7-20 are pending and are rejected under prior art on their merits below. Of these, claims 1 and 5 are independent, and the remainder are dependent.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 of the previous Office action, are overcome by the amendment and are withdrawn; however, in light of the amendment, a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 9–12, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, specifically the limitation of the outer coupling member being in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode, have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the prior Office Action relying on Ishida in view of Yamaura, Takehiro, and Yang. However, the arguments are directed to limitations introduced by the amended claims that were not present in the claims at the time of the prior Office Action. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection relying on Ishida in view of Mezza, Takehiro, and Yang (see citations above) is made in light of the claim amendments filed on 05/09/2026.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 13, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, asserting that "None of these references, alone or in combination, addresses or suggests replacing a sacrificial electrode without removing a stack clamping member, nor do they propose any solution directed to such a problem," have been fully considered. However, neither the originally filed claims nor the amended claims recite this limitation. Accordingly, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. Therefore, a new ground of rejection relying on Ishida in view of Mezza, Takehiro, and Yang (see citations above) is made in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 05/09/2026, rather than the interpretation presented in Applicant's arguments.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 14, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to independent claim 5, specifically the limitation of the outer coupling member being in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode, have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the prior Office Action relying on Heo in view of Takehiro and Raiser. However, the arguments are directed to limitations introduced by the amended claims that were not present in the claims at the time of the prior Office Action. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection relying on Heo in view of Mezza, Takehiro, Yang and Raiser (see citations above) is made in light of the claim amendments filed on 05/09/2026.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 15, filed 05/09/2026, asserting that dependent claims 7-20 are allowable because each depends from allowable claim 5, have been fully considered. However, the amended claims indicate that claims 7-20 depend from claim 1, and no claims depend from claim 5. Consequently, this inconsistency also gives rise to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, as set forth below (see the 112(b) rejection below). For purposes of the prior art rejections, the Examiner has considered Applicant's arguments on page 15, as asserting that claims 7-20 depend from claim 5, consistent with the dependency set forth in the originally filed claims on 05/10/2023, notwithstanding the inconsistency in the amended claims. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below are presented based on the dependency of claims 7-20 from claim 5.
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 1-5 and 7-20 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 the limitation "without being separated" in line 10. However, it is unclear from the claim language what structures are being separated, or from what they are being separated. Specifically, the claim does not specify whether the phrase refers to the outer coupling member being separated from the sacrificial electrode, the sacrificial electrode being separated from the second end plate, or another structural relationship. Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-4, and 7-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " being in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode to support and fix the sacrificial electrode without separation" in line 18. However, the scope of this limitation is unclear. Specifically, while the claim recites that the sacrificial electrode is disposed on the resin portion of the second end plate and that the outer coupling member is coupled to an outer surface of the side cover, it is unclear how the recited outer coupling member is intended to be in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode while remaining coupled to the side cover. The claim does not identify which surface of the outer coupling member is in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode, nor does it recite the structural arrangement by which the outer coupling member reaches and directly contacts the sacrificial electrode. Furthermore, it is unclear what structure the phrase "without separation" modifies, i.e., whether the outer coupling member is required to remain without separation from the sacrificial electrode, whether the sacrificial electrode is required to remain without separation from the second end plate, or whether another structural relationship is intended. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites "the second end plate included in each of the plurality of stack modules" in line 2. However, claim 7 depends from claim 1, which does not recite "a plurality of stack modules." Rather, claim 1 recites "a cell stack comprising a plurality of unit cells." Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for "the plurality of stack modules" in claim 7. Although "a plurality of stack modules" is recited in claim 5, claim 7 does not depend from claim 5. Accordingly, claim 7 is indefinite.
Claims 8-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 7.
Claim 9 recites “the side cover" in line 3. However, none of the claims from which claim 9 depends recites a side cover, and claim 9 does not depend from claim 5, where the side cover is first introduced. Accordingly, the term "the side cover" lacks proper antecedent basis, and rendering claim 9 indefinite.
Claims 10-11, and 17-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 9.
Claim 10 recites "the second sealing member” in line 1. However, none of the claims from which claim 10 depends recites a second sealing member, and claim 10 does not depend from claim 5, where the second sealing member is first introduced. Accordingly, the terms "the second sealing member" lacks proper antecedent basis, and rendering claim 10 indefinite.
Claims 17-19 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 10.
Claim 11 recites "the second sealing member” in line 1. However, none of the claims from which claim 11 depends recites a second sealing member, and claim 11 does not depend from claim 5, where the second sealing member is first introduced. Accordingly, the terms "the second sealing member" lacks proper antecedent basis, and rendering claim 11 indefinite.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for depending upon claim 11.
Claim 12 recites "the side cover” in line 3. However, none of the claims from which claim 12 depends recites a side cover, and claim 12 does not depend from claim 5, where these elements are first introduced. Accordingly, the terms "the side cover" lacks proper antecedent basis, and rendering claim 12 indefinite.
Claims 13-16 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 12.
Claim 13 recites "the second sealing member” in line 2. However, none of the claims from which claim 13 depends recites a second sealing member, and claim 13 does not depend on claim 5, where the second sealing member is first introduced. Accordingly, the terms "the second sealing member" lacks proper antecedent basis, and rendering claim 13 indefinite.
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.
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 Mazza et al. (US 20040131917 A1), Takehiro (US 20230369615 A1), and Yang et al.(KR 20100118297 A, a new set of machine translation has been provided with line numbers to enable more accurate citations).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches a fuel cell apparatus ([0027]; Figs. 1-2), comprising: a cell stack comprising a plurality of unit cells stacked in a first direction ([0027-0030]; Figs. 1-2; stack body 14 comprising a plurality of power generation cells 12 stacked in stacking direction A); first and second end plates disposed on respective lateral ends of the cell stack ([0028-0029]; Fig. 2; end plates 20a and 20b disposed at opposite ends of stack body 14); and each of the first and second end plates being formed such that a metal portion is enveloped by a resin portion ([0055-0057]; Fig. 2; terminal plates 16a and 16b formed of electrically conductive metal and surrounded by insulators 18a and 18b formed of electrically insulating resin, such as polycarbonate or phenolic resin). Specifically, Ishida teaches terminal plate 16a disposed inside insulator 18a and terminal plate 16b disposed inside insulator 18b, whereby the metal portions are enveloped by the resin portions ([0055-0057]; Fig. 2).
Further, Ishida teaches an outer surface of the second end plate being opposite an inner surface facing the cell stack (Fig. 2; [0028-0029]), wherein the inner surface faces stack body 14 and the opposite surface forms the exterior of the fuel cell stack.
Ishida does not disclose a sacrificial electrode disposed on the resin portion of the second end plate adjacent to a cell having the highest potential among the plurality of unit cells.
However, Mazza teaches this limitation. Specifically, Mazza teaches applying a corrosion-resistant coating to an end plate of a fuel cell ([0008-0014]). Mazza teaches applying an anodized aluminum coating to exposed surfaces of the end plate, wherein the anodized coating provides corrosion resistance and protects the end plate from corrosion caused by process fluids ([0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end plate of Ishida by applying Mazza's coating thereto because both references are directed to fuel cell end plates, and Mazza teaches that the coating improves corrosion resistance and increases the durability of the end plate exposed process fluids ([0076]). As modified, the coating would be disposed on the end plate of Ishida, including the resin portion surrounding the metal portion.
Ishida, as modified by Mazza, does not disclose positioning the sacrificial electrode adjacent a cell having the highest electrical potential among the plurality of unit cells.
However, Takehiro teaches this limitation. Specifically, Takehiro teaches providing a sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region adjacent a highest-potential unit cell within a fuel cell stack ([0008-0009]). Takehiro further teaches that the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region is positioned adjacent the highest-potential unit cell so that the sacrificial region preferentially undergoes electrolytic corrosion, thereby protecting the remaining fuel cell components and extending the service life of the fuel cell stack ([0042-0044]).
Further, modified Ishida, 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 of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the coated sacrificial electrode of the modified Ishida adjacent the highest-potential unit cell as taught by Takehiro because Takehiro teaches that such positioning suppresses electrolytic corrosion of surrounding members and increases the operational life of the fuel cell stack ([0042-0044]).
Ishida, as modified by Mazza and Takehiro, does not disclose (i) an outer coupling member coupled to an outer surface of the second end plate opposite the inner surface facing the cell stack so as to be in surface contact with and support the sacrificial electrode to fix the sacrificial electrode without being separated; and (ii) a first sealing member disposed between the outer surface of the second end plate and the outer coupling member.
However, Yang teaches these limitations. Specifically, Yang teaches a coupling member 540 disposed on an outer surface of end plate 100 for pressing and maintaining the fuel cell components in a coupled state (page 4, lines 1-17; Figs. 4-5). Yang further teaches that the coupling member engages the end plate to maintain the components in compression and coupled together (page 4, lines 10-17). In addition, Yang teaches a sealer 544 disposed between the end plate 100 and coupling member 540 (page 4, lines 38-40; page 5, lines 1-18), wherein the sealer blocks leakage between the end plate and the coupling member while maintaining sealing during assembly and operation (page 5, lines 1-18).
Yang therefore teaches an outer coupling member disposed on the outer surface of the end plate in surface contact therewith and a sealing member disposed between the coupling member and the end plate.
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 to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coupling member and sealing member of Yang into the modified fuel cell of Ishida in order to maintain the fuel cell components in a coupled state and securely against the end plate while simultaneously preventing leakage between the coupled components. (page 4, lines 1-17; page 4, lines 38-40; page 5, lines 1-18)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishida in view of Mazza, Takehiro, and Yang to arrive at the claimed fuel cell apparatus. Since Mazza modifies Ishida by applying a corrosion-resistant coating to the outer surface of the end plate, and Takehiro teaches employing the sacrificial corrosion region adjacent the highest-potential unit cell, the modified end plate includes the sacrificial electrode/coating on its outer surface. Consequently, when Yang's coupling member is applied to the modified end plate, the coupling member is in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode (the coating on the outer surface of the end plate). The coupling member thereby supports and fixes the sacrificial electrode against the end plate without being separated while the sealing member remains disposed between the end plate and the coupling member. Such a modification would have predictably improved corrosion protection, structural integrity, and sealing performance while maintaining the sacrificial electrode securely in place.
Claims 2, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida, as modified by Mazza, 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 Mazza, 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 to 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 sacrificial electrode of modified Ishida to include the flow path portion and the bent portion taught by Raiser while maintaining the sacrificial electrode on the resin portion of the second end plate, as taught by modified Ishida in order to allow contact with the fluid flow while also conducting electrical current between fuel cell stack and terminal plate [0018 of Raiser] thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0019 of Raiser].
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the sacrificial electrode of modified Ishida is disposed on the resin portion of the second end plate and is supported by the outer coupling member with the first sealing member disposed therebetween. Incorporating Raiser's flow path portion and bent portion into the sacrificial electrode would have predictably allowed the sacrificial electrode to contact coolant flowing through the coolant inlet and/or outlet while maintaining the corrosion-protection and sealing arrangement already provided by modified Ishida.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida, as modified by Mazza, 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 Mazza, 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).
Claims 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20210126274 A1), and further in view of Mazza et al. (US 20040131917 A1), Takehiro (US 20230369615 A1), Yang et al. (KR 20100118297 A, a new set of machine translation has been provided with line numbers to enable more accurate citations), and Raiser et al. (US 20050260479 A1).
the Examiner has considered Applicant's arguments filed 05/09/2026, see page 15, as asserting that “claims 7-20 depend from claim 5”, consistent with the dependency set forth in the originally filed claims on 05/10/2023, notwithstanding the inconsistency in the amended claims. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below are presented based on the dependency of claims 7-20 from claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches a fuel cell apparatus (Fig. 11), comprising: a plurality of stack modules ([0134], Fig. 11, first and second stack modules); 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]); an outer surface of the second end plate being opposite an inner surface of the second end plate, the inner surface facing the cell stack (Figs. 2, and 11), 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 surrounded by resin shell portion 116).
Heo does not disclose a limitation wherein a sacrificial electrode disposed on the 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, Mazza teaches applying a corrosion-resistant coating to an end plate of a fuel cell ([0008-0014]). Mazza teaches applying an anodized aluminum coating to exposed surfaces of the end plate, wherein the anodized coating provides corrosion resistance and protects the end plate from corrosion caused by process fluids ([0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end plate of Heo by applying Mazza's corrosion-resistant coating thereto because both references are directed to fuel-cell end plates, and Mazza teaches that the coating improves corrosion resistance and increases the durability of the end plate exposed to process fluids ([0076]). As modified, the coating would be disposed on the resin portion surrounding the metal portion of the second end plate.
Heo, as modified by Mazza, does not disclose positioning the sacrificial electrode adjacent to a cell having a highest potential among the plurality of unit cells, among the first and second end plates.
However, Takehiro teaches this limitation. Specifically, Takehiro teaches providing a sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region adjacent a highest-potential unit cell within a fuel cell stack ([0008-0009]). Takehiro further teaches that the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region is positioned adjacent the highest-potential unit cell so that the sacrificial region preferentially undergoes electrolytic corrosion, thereby protecting the remaining fuel-cell components and extending the service life of the fuel-cell stack ([0042-0044]).
Further, modified Heo and Takehiro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the corrosion-resistant coating of modified Heo adjacent the highest-potential unit cell as taught by Takehiro because Takehiro teaches that such positioning suppresses electrolytic corrosion of surrounding members and increases the operational life of the fuel cell stack ([0042-0044]).
Further regarding claim 5, Heo, as modified by Mazza and Takehiro, does not disclose an outer coupling member coupled to an outer surface of the side cover opposite an inner surface facing the second end plate, and being in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode to support and fix the sacrificial electrode without separation.
However, Yang teaches a coupling member 540 disposed on an outer surface of end plate 100 for pressing and maintaining the fuel cell components in a coupled state (page 4, lines 1-17; Figs. 4-5). Yang further teaches that the coupling member engages the end plate to maintain the components in compression and coupled together (page 4, lines 10-17).
Further, modified Heo and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to fuel-cell stacks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang's coupling member into the modified fuel-cell apparatus of Heo. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to couple the coupling member to the outer surface of the side cover rather than directly to the end plate as shown in Yang because the side cover forms the outermost structural member adjacent the second end plate in Heo. Such relocation 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 (page 4, lines 10-17 of Yang). To the extent claim 5 further requires that the outer coupling member be "in surface contact with the sacrificial electrode to support and fix the sacrificial electrode without separation," the structural relationship required by this limitation is unclear for the reasons set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, the obviousness analysis is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Further regarding claim 5, Heo, as modified by Mazza, Takehiro, and Yang, does not disclose a limitation wherein a second sealing member disposed between an outer surface of the second end plate and the side cover.
However, Raiser teaches a sealing member (sealing engagement; sealing member 46) and discloses multiple suitable positions for the sealing member ([0016], [0017], [0019], [0020]). Raiser further teaches that the sealing member prevents fluid flow ([0019]).
Further, modified Heo and Raiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to fuel-cell sealing structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second sealing member of Raiser between the outer surface of the second end plate and the side cover of the modified fuel-cell apparatus of Heo because Raiser teaches that the sealing member prevents fluid leakage while maintaining an effective seal. Such relocation would merely constitute a rearrangement of known sealing elements performing the same function without producing any new or unexpected results and would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heo in view of Mazza, Takehiro, Yang, and Raiser to arrive at the claimed fuel-cell apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, modified Heo teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 5 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, modified Heo 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 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]). Raiser further teaches that this arrangement prevents fluid flow from contacting terminal plate ([0019]).
Therefore, prior to 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 sacrificial electrode of modified Heo to include the flow path portion taught by Raiser while maintaining the sacrificial electrode on the resin portion of the second end plate, as taught by modified Heo in order to allow contact with the fluid flow and thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0018-0019].
Regarding claim 9, modified Heo 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 to 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 sacrificial electrode of modified Heo to include the bent portion taught by Raiser while maintaining the sacrificial electrode between the resin portion of the second end plate and the side cover, as taught by modified Heo, in order to allow contact with the fluid flow while also conducting electrical current between fuel cell stack and terminal plate [0018 of Raiser] thereby preventing the fluid flow from contacting the terminal plate [0019 of Raiser].
Regarding claim 10, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo teaches the sacrificial electrode is disposed between the resin portion of the second end plate and the side cover (Heo as modified by Mazza), 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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 Mazza, Takehiro, Yang, and Raiser, as applied to claims 10, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 20220302480 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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, modified Heo 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights