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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 21, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The replacement sheet drawings filed August 24, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received July 21, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0229348).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus (fuel cell separator) comprising:
a plurality of flow field channels 100 (110/120), wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (defining the flow field channels 100) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs 141, 142 within the plurality of ribs (Figs. 2 below and further Figs. 4-7, 9-12b, and 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the blocking ribs 141 and 142 are attached to a base plate surface (Fis. 4-5 and corresponding disclosure).
As to claim 6, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs 141 and 142 within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels 100 (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claim 7, the plurality of ribs 141 and 142 are congruent (Figs. 4-6 for example)
As to claim 8, Kim discloses an fuel cell (paras. [0004]-[0006] disclosing the general fuel cell design in according with the inventive separator flow field discussed below) comprising:
a plurality of flow field channels 100 (110/120), wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (defining the flow field channels 100) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs 141, 142 within the plurality of ribs (Figs. 2 below and further Figs. 4-7, 9-12b, and 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, the blocking ribs 141 and 142 are attached to a base plate surface (Fis. 4-5 and corresponding disclosure).
As to claim 13, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs 141 and 142 within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels 100 (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claim 14, the plurality of ribs 141 and 142 are congruent (Figs. 4-6 for example)
As to claim 15, Kim discloses a method comprising:
creating a fuel cell (paras. [0004]-[0006] disclosing the general fuel cell design in according with the inventive separator flow field discussed below) with a plurality of flow field channels 100 (110/120), wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (defining the flow field channels 100) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs 141, 142 within the plurality of ribs (Figs. 2 below and further Figs. 4-7, 9-12b, and 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, the blocking ribs 141 and 142 are attached to a base plate surface (Fis. 4-5 and corresponding disclosure; note that the phrase “one of” is held to imply a single choice from the set of the plate and ribs).
As to claims 17-18, claim 16 recites that the blocking ribs are attached to one of a plate and the plurality of ribs. Claims 17-18 do not effectively require that the plurality of blocking ribs therein are in fact selected but only serves to further define features to the species (the plurality of ribs from one of the plate and the plurality of ribs) of claim 16. Claims 17-18 therefore further defines one species (the plurality of ribs from one of a plate and the plurality of ribs) but is still open to selection of the blocking ribs attached to either the plate or the ribs. As to the blocking ribs being attached to the plate, Kim still effectively reads on this as discussed above in claim 16.
As to claim 19, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs 141 and 142 within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels 100 (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claim 20, the plurality of ribs 141 and 142 are congruent (Figs. 4-6 for example).
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser et al. (EP1511102A2).
As to claim 1, Kaiser discloses an apparatus (bipolar plate) comprising:
a plurality of flow field channels, wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (walls between each flow path in the array of channels shown in Fig. 6 below) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs within the plurality of ribs (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
653
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the blocking ribs are attached to the ribs (walls) of each flow channel (Fig. 6 above and corresponding disclosure).
As to claim 6, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels (Fig. 6 for example).
As to claim 7, the plurality of ribs are congruent (Fig. 6 for example).
As to claim 8, Kim discloses an fuel cell (see pages 1-2 of the machine translation and the claims on page 14 of the machine translation) comprising:
a plurality of flow field channels, wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (walls between each flow path in the array of channels shown in Fig. 6 below) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs within the plurality of ribs (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
653
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the blocking ribs are attached to the ribs (walls) of each flow channel (Fig. 6 above and corresponding disclosure).
As to claim 13, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels (Fig. 6 for example).
As to claim 14, the plurality of ribs are congruent (Fig. 6 for example).
As to claim 15, Kim discloses a method comprising:
creating a fuel cell (see pages 1-2 of the machine translation and the claims on page 14 of the machine translation) with a plurality of flow field channels, wherein the plurality of flow field channels includes:
a plurality of ribs (walls between each flow path in the array of channels shown in Fig. 6 below) connecting an inlet and an outlet in a serpentine flow design; and
a plurality of blocking ribs within the plurality of ribs (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
653
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, the blocking ribs to the ribs defining the flow channels (Fig. 6 and corresponding disclosure; note that the phrase “one of” is held to imply a single choice from the set of the plate and ribs).
As to claim 19, gases flown in a serpentine pattern between the blocking ribs within the serpentine pattern of the plurality of ribs defining flow channels (Fig. 6 for example).
As to claim 20, the plurality of ribs are congruent (Fig. 6 for example).
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.
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 3-5, 10-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0229348) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Kadowaki et al. (JP 2000-251907A).
Note the rejection of claims 17-18 herein is to the alternative wherein blocking ribs are effectively attached to the ribs.
Kim teaches of providing an array of blocking ribs along a serpentine flow field channel as discussed above. The design provides for flow which includes a serpentine flow path between the blocking ribs along a larger serpentine flow path of the flow channel itself (as discussed above).
Kim does not teach of the blocking ribs attached to the ribs (claims 3, 10 and 17), of the blocking ribs including first and second sets of blocking ribs attached to different portions of the ribs (claims 4-5, 11-12, 17-18). Kim teaches of flow field designs wherein members provided in the serpentine flow field channel can improve flow efficiency therein.
Kadowaki is drawn to the same field of endeavor relating to fuel cell flow fields and improving fluid flow in the channels of the flow field plate. Kadowaki discloses that various flow field designs can be implanted including providing blocking ribs attached to the channel ribs themselves (Fig. 2, to claims 3, 10 and 17) with alternating blocking ribs therein attached to both the upper and lower portions of the ribs (claims 4-5, 11-12, 17-18). Kadowaki teaches that placement of blocking ribs in various ways can improve fluid flow within the flow channel.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As discussed above there has been prior legal precedent showing that rearrangement of a part in the face of a prior art teaching, a reasonable statement of such modification to be of routine design choice to provide the same desired benefit of either configuration.
In similar fashion, the difference between Kim and the claims noted above appears to be attachment of the blocking ribs to the ribs rather than the plate. Providing the blocking ribs of Kato to the plate or to the ribs/walls of the flow channels themselves (as taught by Kadowaki) can similarly improve fluid flow within the flow channel. Rearranging the placement/location of blocking ribs within a flow channel as taught by Kadowaki to the flow channel of Kato (which appreciated the inclusion of blocking ribs in the flow channel) is held to have been a matter of routine design choice for modifying fluid flow within the flow channel absent some unexpected advantage to the particular attachment of blocking ribs to the ribs rather than the plate.
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 flow field design of Kim to include blocking ribs provided at the ribs as taught by Kadowaki since it would have provided an alternative equivalent design to effectively improve fluid flow along the flow field channels. Furthermore, rearranging the placement of the ribs from the plate (Kim) to other places in the flow field channel including the ribs defining the flow channel (Kadowaki) would have been of routine design choice for modifying fluid flow within the flow channel absent some unexpected advantage to the particular attachment of blocking ribs to the ribs rather than the plate. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser et al. (EP 1511102A2) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Kadowaki et al. (JP 2000-251907A).
Kaiser teaches of providing an array of blocking ribs along the walls (ribs) of at least a portion of the flow channels of a serpentine flow field channel array as discussed above. The design provides for flow which includes a serpentine flow path between the blocking ribs along a larger serpentine flow path of the flow channel itself (as discussed above).
Kaiser does not teach of the blocking ribs including first and second sets of blocking ribs attached to different portions of the ribs (claims 4-5, 11-12, 17-18). Kaiser teaches of flow field designs wherein members provided in the serpentine flow field channel can improve flow efficiency therein.
Kadowaki is drawn to the same field of endeavor relating to fuel cell flow fields and improving fluid flow in the channels of the flow field plate. Kadowaki discloses that various flow field designs can be implanted including providing blocking ribs attached to the channel ribs themselves (Fig. 2, to claims 3, 10 and 17) with alternating blocking ribs therein attached to both the upper and lower portions of the ribs (claims 4-5, 11-12, 17-18). Kadowaki teaches that placement of blocking ribs in various ways can improve fluid flow within the flow channel.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As discussed above there has been prior legal precedent showing that rearrangement of a part in the face of a prior art teaching, a reasonable statement of such modification to be of routine design choice to provide the same desired benefit of either configuration.
In similar fashion, the difference between Kaiser and the claims noted above appears to be attachment of the blocking ribs to different portions of the ribs/walls. Providing the blocking ribs of Kaiser to upper and lower portions of the ribs of the flow channels themselves (as taught by Kadowaki) can similarly improve fluid flow within the flow channel. Rearranging the placement/location of blocking ribs within a flow channel as taught by Kadowaki to the flow channel of Kaiser (which appreciated the inclusion of blocking ribs in the flow channel) is held to have been a matter of routine design choice for modifying fluid flow within the flow channel absent some unexpected advantage to the particular attachment of blocking ribs to the ribs rather than the plate.
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 flow field design of Kaiser to include blocking ribs provided at the ribs at upper and lower portions of the ribs as taught by Kadowaki since it would have provided a suitable attachment design to effectively improve fluid flow along the flow field channels where blocking ribs are disposed on the flow channel walls/ribs themselves (Kaiser). Furthermore, rearranging the placement of the ribs to certain portions of the walls/ribs in the flow field channel including the ribs defining the flow channel (Kadowaki) would have been of routine design choice for modifying fluid flow within the flow channel absent some unexpected advantage to the particular attachment of blocking ribs to the ribs rather than the plate. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0136042 discloses a conventional serpentine flow field without blocking ribs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725