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 .
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 6-8 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.
Each of claims 6-8 recites the limitation "said stacking direction" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Office does not reject the claim language “ring-like seal member” under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the term is clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as meaning a seal that encompasses an interior space, such as a circular O-ring or seals having non-circular shapes (e.g. as shown by Beckman et al (US 2004/0038102, fig. 4) or Kunz et al (US 2016/0351921, fig. 3)).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al (US 2004/0038102) in view of Warrier et al (WO 2005/008104).
Beckman et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and [0042]-[0045]) a separator (21) used in a stack structure in which a cell (3) with a base layer including an electrolyte membrane and the separator are alternately stacked. The separator (21) included a metal plate and a ring-like seal member (13) arranged on a surface of the metal plate.
Beckman et al fail to teach the metal plate including a regulator provided near the seal member and contacting the base layer.
Note that the claim term “regulator” is being interpreted in accordance with the specification (e.g. paragraph [0066] as filed) as being a device which functions to prevent excessive compression of a seal member.
In the same field of endeavor of stacked electrochemical cells, Warrier et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, first paragraph on page 3 and both full paragraphs on page 10) that compression stops (50) may be provided adjacent to seals (48) that were located between stacked separators (24) and cells (12, including base layer 16). The compression stops (50) functioned to provide a regulated maximum amount of compression of the seal (48). The effect of the compression stops was to reduce creep forces on the separator thereby improving the long-term durability of the stack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added one or more of the compression stops taught by Warrier et al to the separator of Beckman et al for the purpose of regulating a maximum compression amount of the seal to reduce creep forces to improve the long-term durability of the stack.
Regarding claim 2, the compression stops of Warrier et al were projections that “can be machined as an integral part of the metallic frame”.
Regarding claim 3, Warrier et al show compression stops only on one side of the separator. However, Beckman et al provided seal members on both sides of the separator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have duplicated the compression stops of Warrier et al for protection of both seal members of Beckman et al by adding a compression stop on both sides of the separator in the stacking direction.
Regarding claim 4, Beckman et al teach (see paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and [0010]) a stack of electrochemical cells, the cells being either fuel cells or electrolysis cells. Beckman et al further teach (see abstract, figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0042]-[0045]) that the stack included a plurality of cells (MEAs 3) and a separator (21) that were alternately stacked with each other. The separator (21) included a metal plate and a ring-like seal member (13) arranged on a surface of the metal plate.
Beckman et al fail to teach the metal plate including a regulator provided near the seal member and contacting the base layer.
Note that the claim term “regulator” is being interpreted in accordance with the specification (e.g. paragraph [0066] as filed) as being a device which functions to prevent excessive compression of a seal member.
In the same field of endeavor of stacked electrochemical cells, Warrier et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, first paragraph on page 3 and both full paragraphs on page 10) that compression stops (50) may be provided adjacent to seals (48) that were located between stacked separators (24) and cells (12, including base layer 16). The compression stops (50) functioned to provide a regulated maximum amount of compression of the seal (48). The effect of the compression stops was to reduce creep forces on the separator thereby improving the long-term durability of the stack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added one or more of the compression stops taught by Warrier et al to the separator of Beckman et al for the purpose of regulating a maximum compression amount of the seal to reduce creep forces to improve the long-term durability of the stack.
Regarding claim 5, each of the separators of Beckman et al included an outer peripheral seal member (13) located between an outer peripheral part of the base layer (3) and an outer peripheral part of the separator (21). The compression stops of Warrier et al were located near an outer peripheral seal member and contacted the base layer (16).
Regarding claim 6, each of the cells of Beckman et al included (see paragraphs [0016]-[0019]) a cathode catalyst layer layered on one side of the membrane and a cathode gas diffusion layer (16) layered on the cathode catalyst layer. Beckman et al further show (see fig. 4) the metal plate included a distribution hole (10b) for outputting a product of the cathode, such as hydrogen gas, and (see paragraphs [0057]-[0058]) a seal member located around the distribution hole when viewed in the stacking direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided additional compression stops as taught by Warrier et al proximate to these additional seal members for the same purposes as noted above.
Regarding claim 7, each of the cells of Beckman et al included (see paragraphs [0016]-[0019]) an anode catalyst layer layered on one side of the membrane and an anode gas diffusion layer (15) layered on the cathode catalyst layer. Beckman et al further show (see fig. 4) the metal plate included a distribution hole (10a) for inputting a reactant to the anode, such as water, and (see paragraphs [0057]-[0058]) a seal member located around the distribution hole when viewed in the stacking direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided additional compression stops as taught by Warrier et al proximate to these additional seal members for the same purposes as noted above.
Regarding claim 8, each of the cells of Beckman et al included (see paragraphs [0016]-[0019]) an anode catalyst layer layered on one side of the membrane and an anode gas diffusion layer (15) layered on the cathode catalyst layer. Beckman et al further show (see fig. 4) the metal plate included a distribution hole (10b) for outputting a product from the anode, such as oxygen gas, and (see paragraphs [0057]-[0058]) a seal member located around the distribution hole when viewed in the stacking direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided additional compression stops as taught by Warrier et al proximate to these additional seal members for the same purposes as noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794