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 .
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination based on the clams filed on 05/31/2023.
Claim(s) 1-9 & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NPL: "Mechanical simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell stack using representative elementary volumes of stamped metallic bipolar plates" by Charon et al.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: "Mechanical simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell stack using representative elementary volumes of stamped metallic bipolar plates" by Charon et al. in further view of NPL: “Feasibility of periodic surface models to develop gas diffusion layers: A gas permeability study” by Didari et al.
This action is made non-final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NPL: "Mechanical simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell stack using representative elementary volumes of stamped metallic bipolar plates" by Charon et al.
Regarding Claim 1
Charon teaches A computer-implemented method ([P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶5]: “The software package mainly implemented is SAMCEF Field, LMS Samtech' Graphical User Interface driving al finite elements based SAMCEF solvers, and fi necessary SAMCEF user commands.” The examiner interprets where Computer-implemented method is shown in workstations using SAMCEF software.) for automating generation of a representative volume elements (RVE)
([FIG. 13]:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where automating generation is shown in the process to generate a model with homogenized equivalent domains.) unit fuel cell model, : ([Abstract]: “The control of the performance of a fuel cell needs the knowledge of mechanical stresses. A finite element model submitted to operational static loads is developed for pure mechanical analysis of a stack.” The examiner interprets where RVE Model is shown in a FE model developed for mechanical analysis of a stack.) comprising the steps of: receiving a finite element model (FEM) of a unit cell ([P.13197 § “The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell.” The examiner interprets where the unit cell is shown in the mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell") of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) ([P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶2 Bullet 1]: “• A stack of three individual components forming the active part of the cell:
•the membrane/electrodes assembly, i.e. the proton ex- change membrane +catalysts on anode and on cathode sides
•two gas diffusion layers (GDL)
° a metallic bipolar plate (BP) distributing the gas (an anode and a cathode side) and the cooling fluid.”), wherein the unit cell comprises a first bipolar plate and a second bipolar plate; ([FIG. 8]:
PNG
media_image2.png
304
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where bipolar plates are shown in the modeling of a "single cell" including anodic and cathodic bipolar plates.) receiving an input identifying a unit region ([P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2]: “Repetitive fragments with specific shapes are identified and considered as "Elementary Volumes".” comprising a discretization of the FE unit cell
([FIG. 2]:
PNG
media_image3.png
126
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where discretization is shown in "Specific segments" identified for discretization.) based on at least one of the group consisting of geometric features of the first and/or second bipolar plate of the unit cell, a repeated feature in the geometric features, and a region of symmetry in the geometric features; ([P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-section: The BP described as a mosaic ¶Table 1]:
PNG
media_image4.png
300
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[FIG. 1]:
PNG
media_image5.png
752
886
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where geometric features/symmetry is shown in four specific geometric shapes (BP1-BP4) within the active zone of the bipolar plates based on parallel channels and curvatures.) receiving a mesh rule corresponding to the unit region; (See [FIG.13], [P.13197 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell ¶4]: “Since the mesh size of the bipolar plates is of about 1.5 mm, only a fourth of a single fuel cel can be analysed in a single run. It corresponds to about 60,000 finite elements.” [P.13199 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell Sub-Section: Validation ¶1]: “Since
the mesh size of the refined model used for establishing the mechanical properties of homogeneous materials is 0.1 mm, its geometrical dimension is limited, for computing reasons, to about 20 x 20 mm.” [P.13200 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell Sub-Section: Validation ¶3]: “Fig 6 shows the displacements obtained with the refined complete model: 0.1 mm mesh size, about 2000 nodes, 6000
finite elements and 750,000 DoFs. Fig. 7 shows the displacements of the homogenised model with equivalent material: 5 mm mesh size, about 50 nodes, 25 finite elements and 1000 DoFs! Avery good agreement is reached.”
[FIG. 6]:
PNG
media_image6.png
370
500
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[FIG. 7]:
PNG
media_image7.png
376
504
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where receiving a mesh rule is shown in the homogenization process (FIG. 13) requiring a "Meshing configuration" input & the reference further specifying mesh sizes. (e.g., 1.5 mm for bipolar plates, 0.1 mm for refined models) and based on the FE unit region and the mesh rule, generating an RVE unit region corresponding to the FE unit region. (See [FIG.13], [P.1 §Abstract]: “The homogenisation technique was applied, replacing cell parts with composite finite elements or homogenised representative elementary volumes.” The examiner interprets where Generating RVE unit region based on FE region and mesh rule is shown in replacing cell parts with "homogenised representative elementary volumes" & FIG. 13 (Step 1) showing "HOMOGENIZATION" taking "Components of initial model" and "Meshing configuration" to produce a "Model with homogenized equivalent domains".
Regarding Claim 2
Charon teaches the method of claim 1 (See Claim 1). Charon teaches wherein the RVE unit region corresponds to an FE unit region comprising a portion of a gasket (See [FIG. 8 & 13], [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶6]: “Fig. 9c (no compression state) shows the composites that need to be created. In this modelling procedure of the peripheral area, gaskets are part of the 5 layers composite volume.”
[FIG. 9]:
PNG
media_image8.png
284
536
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where RVE unit region corresponds to FE unit region comprising a portion of a gasket is shown in an "OUTER SEALING AREA" (FIG. 8) modeled using the same homogenization technique applied to plates, in the citation: "In this modelling procedure of the peripheral area, gaskets are part of the 5 layers composite volume" used to create the RVE, and FIG. 13 listing "Gasket" as a component of the initial model for the "HOMOGENIZATION" phase.) disposed between the first bipolar plate and the second bipolar plate. (See [FIG. 8&9], [P.13197 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell ¶2 Bullet 2]: “A single fuel cell generally consists of solids with their geometrical shapes and mechanical properties:
…
• Sealing joints isolating the active area and the hydrogen, air, and cooling circuits” [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶5]: “Fig. 9 shows the connection between sealing and active areas. Without any compression the gasket of the peripheral area is not stressed and a gap exists in the sealing zone (white zone of Fig. 9). However, after the assembly of the stack, the gap disappears: the GDL and BP are in contact and the gasket is compressed. The thickness of both zones becomes equal.” The examiner interprets where Gasket disposed between first and second bipolar plate is shown in "A single fuel cell generally consists of... Sealing joints", FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrating the "Gasket" situated in the peripheral area between the anodic and cathodic bipolar plates, after assembly "the GDL and BP are in contact and the gasket is compressed" between components.
Regarding Claim 3
Charon teaches the method of claim 2 (See Claim 2). Charon teaches wherein the unit cell further comprises a polymer electrolytic membrane, (See [P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶2 Bullet 1 Sub-Bullet: 1]: The examine interprets where Unit cell comprises a polymer electrolytic membrane is shown in a single fuel cell stack consists of "the membrane/electrodes assembly, i.e. the proton exchange membrane + catalysts on anode and cathode sides".) a gas diffusion layer, (See [FIG. 8 & 13], [P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶2 Bullet 1 Sub-Bullet: 2]: The examiner interprets where Unit cell comprises a gas diffusion layer is shown in the active part of the cell includes "two gas diffusion layers (GDL)" & FIG. 8 and FIG. 13 explicitly labeling and including the "GDL" as a component of the initial model.) a cathode, (See [P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶2 Bullet 1 Sub-Bullet: 1], [FIG. 8], & [P.13201 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶4]: “The anode part of the BP, the anodic GDL, the MEA (Membrane/electrodes assembly), the cathode GDL and the cathode part of the BP are considered in the active area. In the model, the anodic BP and the cathode BP are grouped as a solid composite structure.” and an anode. (See [P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶2 Bullet 1 Sub-Bullet: 1], [FIG. 8], & [P.13201 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶4])
Regarding Claim 4
Charon teaches the method of claim 2 (See claim 2). Charon teaches further comprising the steps of:
receiving a scenario definition (See [FIG. 13] & [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Stack assembly ¶1]: “ A five cell stack with an assembly pressure of 1 MPa was modelled (Fig 10) and is given here as an example.” [FIG. 10]:
PNG
media_image9.png
306
480
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where receiving a scenario definition Is shown in a specific model simulation "with an assembly pressure of 1 MPa" & FIG. 13 illustrating "Boundary conditions" as a required input for the homogenization process.) regarding a clamping force ( [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4]: “A lot of local investigation studies are reported in the literature. They generally implement local 2D EF models (in opposite to full stack models). Full stack models were implemented particularly for investigation of the effect of clamping pressure on the stress distribution in the stack.”) applied to the FE unit cell; ([P.13197 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell ¶3]: “The mechanical parts are volume and composite finite elements that are assembled either by bonding or by contact. Typical loads can be applied: thermal field applied to the nodes and preload produced by interference of part geometries.) and based on the scenario definition, ([P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶4]: “Indeed each extracted fragment is considered as a REV and treated by the finite element method according to the cases outlined above.” generating an RVE unit region scenario. (See [FIG.13] & [P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶5]: “The displacements from tensile, shear and bending loads of the REVs were compared to those of the equivalent solids with homogeneous material. The Fig 3, concerning the fragment
BP2, shows the good accordance between the displacements, confirming the validity of the assumption of the orthotropic nature of the equivalent materials.” The examiner interprets where Generating an RVE unit region scenario is shown in using the homogenization phase to compute results for the REV, noting that "displacements from tensile, shear and bending loads of the REVs were compared" & FIG. 13 showing that Step 1 (Homogenization) produces a "Model with homogenized equivalent domains" based on the "Boundary conditions" (loads).)
Regarding Claim 5
Charon teaches the method of claim 4 (See claim 4). Charon teaches wherein the scenario definition further comprises a translation of the first bipolar plate (See [FIG. 13], [P.13198 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar ¶8]: “ In order to get the shear moduli, displacements are imposed: Δy and Δz in the YZ plane, Ax and Az in the XZ plane, and finally Δx and Δxy in the XY plane such that the angular deviations are equal to a small angle 𝜃. In this case, tan𝜃≈0. The stresses σxy, σyz and σzx for case (d), (e) and (1) respectively and then the shear moduli can be computed:
Gxy = σxy/(2𝜃), Gyz =σyz/(2𝜃), Gxz = σzx/(2𝜃) (8)” [P.13198 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar ¶6]: “Let's consider the case (a), the left external XY plan of the body is fixed in direction X but all DoFs are fixed at the centre of this area. A constant displacement (strain) of the right XY plan is applied in X direction. Let Fx be the sum of all reaction forces in X direction in this plan. It yields:
σxx = Fx/ (Y0Z0), σyy = σzz = 0. Consequently Ex = σxx /εxx, vxy = -εxx/ εyy and vxz = -εzz/εyy • (5)”
The examiner interprets where Scenario definition comprises a translation of the first bipolar plate is shown in computing mechanical characteristics, "displacements are imposed" on the plate segments (REVs); and description of a case where "a constant displacement (strain)... is applied in X direction" to a plan of the REV body. In FEA, imposed displacement is the technical equivalent of "translation"; and where; FIG. 13 identifies "Boundary conditions" (which include these displacements) as a required input for the homogenization process.) with respect to the second bipolar plate. (See [P.13201 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶4], [FIG. 8 & 9], [P.13198 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar ¶6]: The examiner interprets where With respect to the second bipolar plate is shown in a single cell model comprising "BP anodic side" and "BP cathodic side" [FIG. 8]; describing a scenario where "one hand the body is fixed... all DoFs are fixed at the centre of this area. A constant displacement... is applied" to another plan. This describes relative translation (one plate/face fixed, the other moved). And FIG. 9 illustrates the "Model after initial loading" where the plates have translated relative to one another such that "the gap disappears" and the gasket is compressed.)
Regarding Claim 6
Charon teaches the method of claim 4 (see claim 4). Charon teaches further comprising the step of simulating the gasket behavior (See [FIG.13], [P.13203 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Stack assembly ¶3]: “ The mean contact pressure due to the assembly is 1 Mpa. Fig. 11 shows the resulting pressure distribution with a minimum of 0.7 Mpa and a maximum of 1.26 MPa. The contact pressure is higher in two homogeneous blocks (homogenized set of the BP) located above and below the middle of the membrane.”
[FIG. 11]:
PNG
media_image10.png
318
652
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where simulating the gasket behavior is shown during stack assembly, "the gasket is compressed" and that the simulation calculates the "resulting pressure distribution" and "contact pressure;" and where FIG. 13 (Step 2) shows "Contact pressures" and "Stresses" as outputs of the REV-based stack computation.)
of the RVE unit region (See [Abstract], [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶5], [P.13200 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶1]: “To model a cell, various components from the inner active area and also from the outer sealing area have to be assembled” The examiner interprets where of the RVE unit region is shown in the "OUTER SEALING AREA," the "homogenisation technique was applied" to create REVs (RVEs).) in the presence of the clamping force (See [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4], [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Stack assembly ¶1], [FIG. 13]: The examiner interprets where In the presence of the clamping force is shown in the mechanical modeling implemented "for investigation of the effect of clamping pressure on the stress distribution;” detailing a simulation "with an assembly pressure of 1 MPa" and calculating the response of the RVE-based model under this load.)
Regarding Claim 7
Charon teaches the method of claim 6 (See claim 6). Charon teaches further comprising the step of recording the simulation results (See [FIG. 6, 11, 13], [Table 1], [P.13204 §From a homogenised stack simulation to local results ¶4]: “Four files on hard disk are created, they contain:
1 The nodal displacements at the boundaries of the sensitive area coming from the homogeneous structure model
2 The corresponding nodal coordinates
3 The coordinates of the nodes of the created shell
4 The commands prescribing the nodal displacements are generated using the three previous files” The examiner interprets where Recording the simulation results is shown in the simulation process resulting in data being saved for analysis; "Four files on hard disk are created, they contain: 1 The nodal displacements... 2 The corresponding nodal coordinates…;” FIG. 13 (Step 2) identifying the specific step of "Selecting the results: Strains, Stresses, Contact pressures;” graphical records of these results in FIG. 6 ("Displacements computed"), FIG. 11 ("Contact pressure"), and Table 1 ("Homogenised coefficients"). of the RVE unit region in the presence of the clamping force. (See [P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶4], [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4], [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Stack assembly ¶1], [FIG. 10], [P.13204 §From a homogenised stack simulation to local results Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶5]: “The computation results show that the average values of stresses in the membrane are the same as those of the homogenized model.” The examiner interprets where Of the RVE unit region in the presence of the clamping force is shown in "each extracted fragment [unit region] is considered as a REV;” that "the computation results show that the average values of stresses... are the same as those of the homogenised model;” The load applied during this computation is the "clamping pressure" or "assembly pressure")
Regarding Claim 8
Charon teaches the method of claim 6 (See Claim 6). Charon teaches further comprising the step of determining a material property for a component of the RVE unit region (See [FIG.13] & [Table 1]: The examine interprets where Determining a material property for an RVE unit region component is shown in identifying a "HOMOGENIZATION" phase that takes the "Components of initial model" and requires the "Definition of the element types associated to the mesh (Composites; volumes)" and "Mechanical properties of equivalent materials" & "Homogenised coefficients" [Table 1] to represent these components in the global stack model.) based on the simulating of the gasket behavior of the RVE unit region (See [P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶4] & [FIG.13]: The examiner interprets where Based on the simulating of the gasket behavior is shown in "each extracted fragment is considered as a REV" and displacements are computed to determine their characteristics; Specifically, FIG. 13 showing that the "HOMOGENIZATION" (property determination) of the "Sealing zone stack" includes the "Gasket" as an input component to produce the "Equivalent volumes for PB [peripheral block];” where the resulting "equivalent domains" are derived from the simulated mechanical response of the constituent layers, including the gasket.) in the presence of the clamping force. (See [FIG.13], ( [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4] [P. 13202 Col. 1]: “An alternative approach consists in creating the gasket as volume elements which can be preloaded at initial condition.” : The examiner interprets where In the presence of the clamping force is shown in the properties determined under "Boundary conditions" (loads) and the investigation specifically targeting the "effect of clamping pressure;” and where FIG. 13 illustrates the "HOMOGENIZATION" phase (the determination of properties) utilizes these "Boundary conditions" as an input.)
Regarding Claim 9
Charon teaches A computer-implemented method ([P.1 [Title]: “Mechanical simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell stack using representative elementary volumes of stamped metallic bipolar Plates” for automating generation of a representative volume element (RVE) ([P.1 §Abstract]: The examiner interprets where for automating generation of RVE is shown in using the "homogenization technique... replacing cell parts with... homogenised representative elementary volumes" (REVs)).) fuel cell global model ([P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4]: “A lot of local investigation studies are reported in the literature. They generally implement local 2D EF models (in opposite to full stack models).”), comprising the steps of:
receiving an RVE unit cell model; (See [FIG. 8 & 9]: The examiner interprets where Receiving an RVE unit cell model is shown in "Modelling a single cell" (unit cell) and its "Homogenised model" version composed of composite RVE structures.) receiving pressure and closure data for the RVE unit cell model; (See [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4], {FIG. 13], [P.13202 §Modelling of a full stack Sub-Section: Homogenization work at cel level ¶5], [Table 1]: The examine interprets where Receiving pressure and closure data for the RVE unit cell model is shown in the simulation investigating the "effect of clamping pressure on the stress distribution;” where FIG. 13 (Step 2) identifies "Selecting the results: ... Contact pressures" as part of the computation; where specifically, modeling the non-linear "gasket compression" using "homogenised coefficients" derived from the relationship between load (pressure) and deformation (closure).) receiving surface data for the RVE unit cell model; , (See [FIG. 13] & [P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶1]: “Specific areas with the same topology are identified on each side of bipolar plates.” The examiner interprets where Receiving surface data for the RVE unit cell model is shown in identifying "Specific areas with the same topology" and "Specific areas... identified on each side of bipolar plates" based on parallel teeth and curvatures; and where FIG. 13 shows selecting "Facets" (surface data) to create sets for the homogenization process.) and producing a CAD discretization for the RVE unit cell model, (See [FIG. 13]: The examiner interprets where Producing a CAD discretization for the RVE unit cell model is shown in FIG. 13 (Step 1) showing a "HOMOGENIZATION" phase that produces a "Model with homogenized equivalent domains" by using a "Meshing configuration" and "Creation of sets composed of Elements [and] Nodes". This constitutes a discretization of the cell model into representative volumes.) wherein the RVE unit cell comprises a bounding box. (See [FIG. 9 & 13] & [P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2]: The examiner interprets where RVE unit cell comprises a bounding box is shown in "Elementary Volumes" as "Repetitive fragments with specific shapes";” and where FIG. 9 shows these regions (active and sealing) as rectangular blocks. In Finite Element software, a "fragment" defined by coordinates/facets for the purpose of a homogenization calculation (as in FIG. 13) is the functional and geometric equivalent of a "bounding box.")
Regarding Claim 13
Charon teaches the method of claim 9 (See claim 9). Charon teaches further comprising the step of receiving data indicating the RVE unit cell model is one of the group (See {FIG. 13] & [P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2}: The examiner interprets where Receiving data indicating the RVE is unique or repetitive is shown in the modeling methodology relying on identifying and tagging different types of elementary volumes; stating:: "repetitive fragments with specific shapes are identified;” further distinguishing these from localized boundary features by defining "Equivalent volumes for PB [Peripheral Block]".) consisting of a unique bounding box 1( See [FIG. 9 & 13] & [P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2],
[Table 2]:
PNG
media_image11.png
198
318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where Unique bounding box is shown in distinct "sets" for the homogenization process. While the central area is "repetitive," the peripheral blocks (PB) are defined as unique segments that complete the sealing boundary of the stack. These PBs are modeled as individual, non-repeating sub-volumes (unique bounding boxes) within the global assembly.) and a repetitive bounding box. (See [P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2],[ P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶1], [FIG. 9], [P.13197 §The Mechanical Modelling of a Single Fuel Cell ¶5], [Table 1], : The examiner interprets where Repetitive bounding box is shown in identifying "Repetitive fragments" and "Specific areas with the same topology;” where these fragments are illustrated as rectangular blocks (bounding boxes) in FIG. 9; wherein the described software (SAMCEF), the identification of these as "repetitive" constitutes receiving data that allows the duplication of their homogenized properties.)
Regarding Claim 14
Charon teaches the method of claim 9 (See Claim 9). Charon teaches further comprising the steps of: receiving mesh parameters for the RVE fuel cell global model; (See [FIG. 13]: The examiner interprets where Receiving mesh parameters for the RVE global model is shown in the global stack model requiring specific discretized definitions; where FIG. 13 (Step 1 & 2) identifies the "Meshing configuration" and the "Definition of the element types associated to the mesh" as necessary computerized inputs.) determining a material for the RVE fuel cell global model; (See [FIG. 13]: The examiner interprets where Determining a material for the RVE global model is shown in a phase where the software defines the "Mechanical properties of equivalent materials;” and where FIG. 13 shows that Step 2 ("Implementation on the full stack") requires the input of these material properties to create the "Equivalent volumes" that represent the homogenized behavior of the stack components.) And producing the RVE fuel cell global model. (See [P.13196 §Introduction: from a detailed single cell to a homogenized full stack ¶4], [Abstract],
[FIG. 12]:
PNG
media_image12.png
320
1028
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where Producing the RVE fuel cell global model is shown in the result of the methodology: "Full stack models were implemented" using the "homogenisation technique" to produce a computational representation of the entire assembly (FIG. 12) for mechanical simulation.)
Regarding Claim 15
Charon teaches the method of claim 14 (See claim 14). Charon teaches further comprising the steps of: receiving a material property for a component of an RVE unit region, (See [FIG. 13]: The examiner interprets where Receiving a material property for a component of an RVE unit region is shown in a "HOMOGENIZATION" phase (FIG. 13, Step 1) where specific areas of the cell (RVE unit regions) are simulated to determine their mechanical characteristics; where the methodology explicitly requires the identification and input of the "Mechanical properties of equivalent materials" derived from these unit regions; where using these properties to represent components like the gasket within the representative volume [P. 13198-13199].) and assigning a material for a corresponding component of the RVE fuel cell global model. (See [FIG. 12 & 13], [P.1 §Abstract], [P.13197 §The mechanical modelling of a single fuel cell Sub-Section: The concept of representative elementary volume ¶1]: “Repetitive fragments with specific shapes are identified and considered as "Elementary Volumes". An equivalent domain is associated to each elementary volume, i.e. the rectangular parallelepiped surrounding the elementary volume. The equivalent elementary volume of a bipolar plate is bounded with the four cross sections and the two plans passing through the tops of the lands. They constitute the larger parallel faces of the equivalent domain.” The examiner interprets where Assigning a material for a corresponding component of the RVE global model is shown in an "IMPLEMENTATION ON THE FULL STACK" phase (FIG. 13, Step 2) where the "equivalent domains" (global components) are populated; where the technique consists of "replacing cell parts with equivalent homogenised representative elementary volumes;” where In the described software implementation (SAMCEF), this replacement constitutes the assignment of the properties (materials) calculated in Step 1 to the corresponding "Equivalent volumes" or "Equivalent domains" in the global stack assembly shown in FIG. 12.)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: "Mechanical simulation of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell stack using representative elementary volumes of stamped metallic bipolar plates" by Charon et al. in further view of NPL: “Feasibility of periodic surface models to develop gas diffusion layers: A gas permeability study” by Didari et al.
Regarding Claim 10
Charon teaches The method of claim 9 (See claim 9). Charon does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of receiving reference plane data for the RVE unit cell model. Didari teaches further comprising the step of receiving reference plane data for the RVE unit cell model ([Abstract]: “A geometric modeling scheme called periodic surface model (PS) is used to construct three dimensional (3D) models of a gas diffusion layer's (GDL) microstructure, which allows for rapid model construction and modification of representative volume elements (RVE) with embedded periodic boundary conditions. The reconstructed PS models are optimized with the help of the genetic algorithm embedded in MATLAB to generate models with refined mesh for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. The GDL geometry is built in ANSYS/ICEM CFD, automatically, using a customized code that couples MATLAB and ICEM. To verify the validity of the suggested modeling approach the microstructures of the GDLs with different porosity and fiber orientation are generated and the in-plane and throughplane permeability and tortuosity are calculated using ANSYS/FLUENT software. The numerically predicted values of in-plane and through-plane permeability are compared to experimental measurements. Using the genetic algorithm significantly decreases the fibers intersection volume in the RVE, especially as porosity decreases. It has been found that the tortuosity of the GDL is a function of the spatial orientation of the fibers in the RVE, when the fibers are at a small angle, the in-plane tortuosity can be higher than the through-plane tortuosity.” The examiner interprets where Receiving reference plane data for the RVE unit cell model is shown in the automated selection of regions by utilizing reference plane data (e.g., mid-surfaces) for geometry partitioning.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Charon to include the step of receiving reference plane data. The motivation would have been to automate the manual identification of repetitive segments, thereby increasing modeling throughput and accuracy [See Didari’s abstract] (MPEP § 2144.04, "Automating manual activity"). The use of reference planes to define boundaries and "splits" in a 3D model is a routine and conventional practice in Computer-Aided Engineering that yields the predictable result of automated sub-model generation (MPEP § 2143, "Predictable results"). Thus, the claimed invention is merely the application of a known technique to a known process to yield a predictable result.
Charon establishes that the efficiency of the representative volume approach depends on identifying "repetitive fragments" and "areas with the same topology". However, the manual identification of these areas is admitted by the current application to be "laborious," "time-consuming," and "error-prone". The motivation to integrate the automation step from Didari is the desire to enhance efficiency and reduce human error by automating a manual activity [1144.04].
The use of reference planes (e.g., mid-surfaces and symmetry planes) is a routine engineering practice in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software (such as CATIA, mentioned in the specification) used to partition complex 3D geometries. Providing these planes as a digital input allows the system to automatically calculate "splits" and define symmetrical bounding boxes, a predictable improvement over manual selection.
At the time of the invention, researchers were actively seeking to reduce the labor-intensive setup for multiscale RVE models. Incorporating standard reference geometry inputs into the established Charon framework was a logical and routine extension of existing modeling practices to achieve the stated goal of automation.
Regarding Claim 11
Charon in combination with Didari teaches the method of claim 10 (See Claim 10). Charon further comprising the step of determining a surface symmetry (See [P.13197 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates ¶2], [P.13199 §The homogenization method applied to bipolar plates Sub-Section: Determination of the elementary volumes ¶1]: The examiner interprets where determining a surface symmetry is shown in "repetitive fragments" and "areas with the same topology" identified to implement the model.
Charon fails to explicitly teach further comprising the step of determining a surface symmetry with respect to the reference plane data. Didari teaches with respect to the reference plane data (See [Abstract]: The examiner interprets were with respect to the reference plane data is shown in the plane data. Determining symmetry relative to a provided plane is a standard geometric operation in CAD/CAE software.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Charon to include the step of determining symmetry relative to the plane data of Didari. The motivation would have been to automate the manual identification of the "repetitive fragments" and "topologically identical areas" described by Charon (MPEP § 2144.04, "Automating manual activity"). The use of reference planes to calculate symmetry and define boundaries in a 3D model is a routine and conventional practice in Computer-Aided Engineering that yields the predictable result of automated sub-model generation (MPEP § 2143, "Predictable results"). Thus, the claimed invention is merely the application of a known technique to a known process to yield a predictable result.
Charon establishes that the RVE method requires identifying "repetitive fragments" and "areas with the same topology" [pg. 13197-13198]. The specification of the application acknowledges that performing this identification manually is "laborious" and "time-consuming". The motivation to determine symmetry using the plane data from Didari is the desire to enhance efficiency and reduce human error by automating a manual selection task.
The use of reference planes (e.g., mid-surfaces and symmetry planes) to find mirror-image or identical surfaces is a routine, well-known engineering practice in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Engineering (CAE) software. Providing these planes as a digital input (Didari) and having the computer calculate symmetry relative to them (11.a-b) yields the predictable result of automated RVE region identification.
A POSITA seeking to improve the setup speed of the multiscale models described in Charon 2014 would naturally turn to standard CAD reference geometry tools to replace the manual "topology" identification described in the reference.
Regarding Claim 12
Charon teaches the method of claim 9 (See claim 9). Charon fails to explicitly teach wherein the surface data comprises an RVE unit cell mid surface. Didari teaches wherein the surface data comprises an RVE unit cell mid surface (See [Abstract]: The examiner interprets where Surface data comprises an RVE unit cell mid surface is shown in the use of mid-surfaces as the primary surface data input to automate the splitting of fuel cell geometries into representative regions.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Charon to use the mid-surface data of Didari. The motivation would have been to automate the manual identification of repetitive segments and boundary facets described by Charon (MPEP § 2144.04, "Automating manual activity"). The use of mid-surfaces to define geometry and "splits" in thin-layered 3D models is a routine and conventional practice in Computer-Aided Engineering that yields the predictable result of simplified and automated sub-model generation (MPEP § 2143, "Predictable results"). Thus, the claimed invention is merely the application of a known technique to a known process to yield a predictable result.
Charon identifies that the model requires selecting specific "areas" or "facets" for homogenization pg. 13204]. The specification of the application admits that manual selection of these boundary facets is "laborious" and "time-consuming". The motivation to use a mid-surface as the surface data is to simplify the modeling workflow and increase efficiency. By using a single mid-surface instead of multiple external boundary facets, the software can automatically calculate geometric "splits" for all constituent layers simultaneously.
The use of mid-surfaces to represent thin-walled structures (like bipolar plates and MEAs) is a routine, well-known engineering technique in Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to reduce computational complexity and simplify geometric partitioning. Applying this standard tool to the RVE framework of Charon yields the predictable result of a more automated and computationally efficient model generation process.
A POSITA seeking to improve the setup speed of the multiscale models described in Charon 2014 would naturally turn to Didari’s teaching of mid-surface-based partitioning; a standard modeling automation technique, to replace the manual facet selection described in the reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARIC RAYJEE MARKS whose telephone number is (571)467-6372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/AARIC R MARKS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 See Spec [0088]: “The first portion (CAD discretization) 910 deals with the geometry preparation to generate RVE unit cell model. The inputs to the section are the bounding boxes generated in the discretization step (as per the first portion 410 and second portion 450 of the first plug-in 400, described above), the mid-surface of the fuel cell and, optionally, the planes of symmetry.
Prosecution Insights