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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 26 May 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 26 May 2026.
New rejections are provided herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al (US 2024/0060194 A1) in view of Wenzel et al (US 2021/0202963 A1).
As to claim 1, Stone discloses A water electrolyzer (Title “electrolyzer” Note citation will be drawn to the figures where separate figures of the prior art show common structures to the device of the prior art) comprising:
a plurality of cells (Fig. 5 cells 501 of stacks 503 that form repeat units 1100 as shown in Fig. 11A); and
a plurality of separators (# 1107 with additional structure as cited below as seen in Fig. 11a),
the water electrolyzer having a stack structure with said cells and said separators stacked alternately (See Fig. 5),
each of said cells (Fig. 1) including:
a base layer including an electrolyte membrane (Fig. 1 #160);
a catalyst layer layered on a surface of said electrolyte membrane (Fig. 1 #120; and
a gas diffusion layer layered on a surface of said catalyst layer (Shown explicitly Fig. 11D 1121 [0267]),
each of said separators including:
a metal plate (#1107 [0615], [0335]) with a distribution hole (#s 4319/4327/4321/4323/4329/4325 as seen in Fig. 43); and
a ring-like flow path member located between said base layer and said metal plate in a stacking direction and surrounding said distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction (#1131),
a ring-like seal member arranged on a surface of said metal plate on the opposite side to said flow path member and surrounding said distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction #s 4621/4615 when stacked with 1701 Fig .46 with seals 1705/1703),
said flow path member including a flow path through which said gas diffusion layer and said distribution hole communicate with each other (#3301 [0301]).
Stone fails to explicitly disclose wherein said metal plate including a regulator provided near said seal member and contacting said base layer, said regulator contacting i) a base layer of one of said cells layered on one side of the stacking direction of said cell and said separator, and ii) a base layer of another of said cells layered on the other side of the stacking direction, respectively.
Wenzel discloses using a regulator provided near said seal member and contacting said base layer, said regulator contacting i) a base layer of one of said cells layered on one side of the stacking direction of said cell and said separator, and ii) a base layer of another of said cells layered on the other side of the stacking direction, respectively. (#s 19a/b [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a regulator as taught by Wenzel with the electrochemical cell of Stone in order to prevent irreversible plastic deformation of the sealing elements and prevent leaking from the seals (Wenzel [0062]).
As to claim 2, Stone further discloses wherein each of said cells includes:
a cathode catalyst layer that is said catalyst layer layered on said electrolyte membrane on one side; and a cathode gas diffusion layer that is said gas diffusion layer layered on said cathode catalyst layer on the one side ([0011], [0234], [0239] shown explicitly Fig. 79 #s 7914)
said metal plate includes a hydrogen distribution hole that is said distribution hole for distributing hydrogen output from said cathode gas diffusion layer (#s 2821 or 2819 as outlet from the cathode flow layers),
each of said separators includes a cathode flow path member that is said flow path member located between a cathode-side surface of said base layer and said metal plate in said stacking direction and surrounding said hydrogen distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction, and said cathode flow path member includes a hydrogen flow path that is said flow path through which said cathode gas diffusion layer and said hydrogen distribution hole communicate with each other. (# 1127 cathode flow field Fig. 121D outlet port 4930).
As to claim 3, Stone further discloses each of said cells includes:
an anode catalyst layer that is said catalyst layer layered on said electrolyte membrane on the other side (#305); and an anode gas diffusion layer that is said gas diffusion layer layered on said anode catalyst layer on the other side, ([0011], [0234], [0239] anode PTL 1109 Fig. 11a shown explicitly Fig. 79 #s 7914)
said metal plate includes:
a water distribution hole that is said distribution hole for distributing water to be supplied to said anode gas diffusion layer (#s 4319/4327/4321 Fig. 43; and
an oxygen distribution hole that is said distribution hole for distributing oxygen output from said anode gas diffusion layer (#s 4325/4329/4323,
each of said separators includes:
a first anode flow path member that is said flow path member located between an anode-side surface of said base layer and said metal plate in said stacking direction and surrounding said water distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction (#1115); and
a second anode flow path member that is said flow path member located between said anode-side surface of said base layer and said metal plate in said stacking direction and surrounding said oxygen distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction (#1111),
said first anode flow path member includes a water flow path that is said flow path through which said anode gas diffusion layer and said water distribution hole communicate with each other (#3733), and
said second anode flow path member includes an oxygen flow path that is said flow path through which said anode gas diffusion layer and said oxygen distribution hole communicate with each other (#3735).
As to claim 4, Stone further discloses said flow path member includes:
a first surface contacting said metal plate (See Fig. 11A #s 1107 next to 1131); and
a second surface contacting said base layer (See Fig. 19 1131 contacting MEA 1105 via 1123), and
said flow path is a groove formed at said first surface (See groove Fig. 36 3501).
As to claim 5, Stone further discloses each of said separators further includes a ring-like seal member arranged on a surface of said metal plate on the opposite side to said flow path member and surrounding said distribution hole when viewed in said stacking direction #s 4621/4615 when stacked with 1701 Fig .46 with seals 1705/1703),
when viewed in said stacking direction, said flow path member is arranged at a position overlapping said seal member (See Fig. 17), and
said second surface of said flow path member is a flat surface (See Fig. 17 where the member is planar shaped and thus flat).
As to claim 6, Stone further discloses said groove penetrates said first surface of said flow path member in a direction in which said gas diffusion layer and said distribution hole are connected to each other. (See Fig. 36 #2827 with groove 3501 thereby enabling the fluidic connection to inside the gasket into the cathode reaction area with the GDL [0305]).
As to claim 7, Stone further discloses said groove is a recess formed at a part of said first surface except both end portions thereof defined in a direction in which said gas diffusion layer and said distribution hole are connected to each other (Fig. 11E #3301/2835, and said both end portions of said flow path member are in non-contact with said metal plate. (See Fig. 11D and E which show the structures on the opposite side metal plate 1107 as seen in Fig. 11A thus not in contact with 1107).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim limitations with respect to the regulator of instant claim 1 on pgs. 8-10 of the response, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 may 2026 with respect to Stone have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the flow path member and the seal member to not directly contact each other in a stacking direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the separator, flow path member, and seal member are on opposite sides of the metal plate, this argument is not persuasive because there are seal members on both sides of the metal plate (See Fig. 11A #s 1133 and 1117a-c) thus on opposite side of the flow path member 1131.
No further arguments are presented.
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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights