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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, especially reciting “a stacking direction” in claim 1, are sufficient to overcome the rejection grounds under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims adding a second projection formed on the metal plate at a central side of the seal member, are sufficient to overcome the rejection grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the prior Office action. However, after further search, new grounds of rejection are presented below addressing the new claim limitations.
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 A1) in view of Warrier et al (WO 2005/008104 A2) and Hermann et al (US 2010/0136402 A1).
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 (1) a regulator provided near the seal member and contacting the base layer and (2) providing at least two regulators, one located peripherally outside the seal member and a second located peripherally inside the seal member.
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.
Regarding (1), 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 (2), in the field of electrochemical cells, Hermann et al teach (see fig. 2, paragraph [0015]) providing two compress stops (201) adjacent opposite sides of a seal which provided the additional function of “allow[ing] registration of the seal on the flange during the assembly process”. “Registration” as used by Hermann et al would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as meaning “the act of providing proper alignment or proper relative position”.1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided at least a second compression stop located inside the seal of Beckman et al as suggested by Hermann et al for providing proper alignment of the seal on the metal plate as suggested by Hermann et al.
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. Note that when duplicating the compression stops on both sides of the separator, at least one first compression stop (those located peripherally outside the seal) would have been located on the first side of the separator in the stacking direction and at least one second compression stop (those located peripherally inside the seal) would have been located on the second side of the separator in the stacking direction because both the first and the second compression stops would have been provided on both sides of the separator.
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. See the discussion above of Beckman et al with Warrier et al and Hermann et al with respect to the separator of claim 1.
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
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 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
1 See cited definitions of “Registration” (1) and “Registering” (8).
Prosecution Insights