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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/387,567 filed on 07 November 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
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 4-6 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.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the limitation claiming “a first rib width of the first rib changes in a stepwise manner” is unclear. This limitation appears to reference a singular rib, in which the width of that singular rib changes in a stepwise manner. However, the instant drawings and specification describe a stepwise change in the width of ribs among a plurality of ribs, i.e., one rib has a width, the next rib has a smaller width, the following rib has an even smaller width, so on and so forth. The drawings and specification do not show or describe the width of a singular rib changing in a stepwise manner. The drawings and specification do show/describe the width of a singular rib varying gradually, in a non-stepwise manner. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a first rib width of the first rib changes”.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the same reason as claim 4. Accordingly, the associated limitation in claim 5 is interpreted to read, “rib width decreases in a direction…”.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the same reason as claims 4-5. Accordingly, the associated limitation in claim 6 is interpreted to read, “rib width that changes in the longitudinal direction…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wuillemin (US-20150180061-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wuillemin discloses a fuel supply control device (gas distribution element; see Abstract), for an electrochemical cell (for a fuel cell; see Abstract), comprising: a separator (gas distribution element 10; see [0127]) disposed on one side of an electrochemical cell (see Fig. 3, Parts 10 and 50), wherein a fuel inlet (channels start on one side of the first layer 2… called inlet; see [0127]), a fuel outlet (channels 13 end on the other side of the first layer 2… called outlet; see [0127]), and a plurality of fuel channels (first layer 2 defines a flow pattern by a number of channels 13; see [0127]) are formed in the separator (gas distribution element 10 comprises a base layer 1, a first layer 2…; see [0127]), wherein the plurality of fuel channels are arranged to extend between the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet (channels start on one side of the first layer 2.. called inlet… channels 13 end on the other side of the first layer 2… called outlet; see [0127]); and a fuel supply control panel (second layer 3; see [0127]) stacked between the separator and the electrochemical cell (see Fig. 3, Parts 2 and 3), wherein a plurality of slits are formed in the fuel supply control panel (The second layer 3 is a homogenizing element comprising apertures 15; see [0128] and Fig. 4B Part 15) and arranged in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of fuel channels (see Fig. 4 Parts 13 and 15), wherein one or more fuel channels of the plurality of fuel channels has a channel width that changes in a longitudinal direction of the one or more of the fuel channels (the channels K1… K6 have slightly different shapes, for example a different width (see [0142] and Fig. 6F).
Regarding Claim 11, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1, wherein each fuel channel of the one or more fuel channels is divided into a plurality of sections each having the same length (see Fig. 4 Part 13).
Regarding Claim 15, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits extends in a direction orthogonal to the plurality of fuel channels (first apertures 15 extending in transverse direction with respect to the channels 13; see [0167]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuillemin (US-20150180061-A1) in view of Psaltis (WO- 2022106874-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1.
Wuillemin does not explicitly teach stepwise width variation. However, Psaltis discloses wherein the channel width changes in a stepwise manner between sections of a plurality of sections of the one or more fuel channels (the relative width of the fluidic canals 15 may be decreased from the entrance to the end; see Pg. 8 Lines 29-30).
Wuillemin and Psaltis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolysis. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Psaltis offers the motivation of equal velocity distribution (see Pg. 8 Lines 30-31).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuillemin (US-20150180061-A1) in view of Psaltis (WO-2022106874-A1) and Son et al. (US-10446856-B2), hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding Claim 3, Wuillemin and Psaltis together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 2.
Modified Wuillemin does not explicitly teach the width increasing from the inlet. However, Son discloses wherein a channel width increases in the stepwise manner in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet (the widths of the longitudinal and lateral channels 22 and 24 increase toward the reaction gas outflow holes; see Col. 6 Lines 1-3).
Wuillemin and Son are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel control to electrochemical cells. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Son offers the motivation of the reaction gas uniformly spreading in a region from the reaction gas inflow to the reaction gas outflow, resulting in an electrochemical reaction uniformly occurring over an area across which the reaction gas passes through the fuel cell (see Col. 6 Lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 4, Wuillemin and Psaltis together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 2, and ribs (channels bars 2a; see [0127]) but do not explicitly teach ribs with varying width. However, Son discloses a first rib (protrusion parts 26; see Col. 5 Line 21) disposed between a fuel channel of the one or more fuel channels and an adjacent fuel channel of the plurality of fuel channels (protrusion parts separated by the longitudinal channels and the lateral channels; see Col. 8 Lines 8-10), and wherein a first rib width of the first rib changes in a longitudinal direction of the fuel channel of the one or more fuel channels (protrusion parts 26 have a trapezoidal shapes; see Col. 5 Lines 40-41 and Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Son provides the motivation of adjusting the protrusion part to optimize the trade-off of the current collecting efficiency and the uniform spread of reaction gas (see Col. 6 Lines 15-23).
Regarding Claim 5, Wuillemin, Psaltis, and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 4. Son further discloses wherein the first rib width decreases in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet (protrusion parts separated by the channels; see Col. 8 Lines 8-10; and the width of the lateral channels 24 increases toward the reaction gas outflow holes; see Col. 5 Lines 62-64; because the protrusion parts define the boundaries of the channels, the width of the protrusion parts vary inversely to the width of the channels. This is also depicted in Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable the channel width to increase in width toward the outflow, thereby improving uniformity and the spread of reaction gas (see Son, Col. 6 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 6, Wuillemin, Psaltis, and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 4, wherein each rib, of a plurality of ribs comprising the first rib (protrusion parts 26; see Son Fig. 3): is disposed between adjacent fuel channels of the plurality of fuel channels (see Claim 4 rejection), and has a rib width that changes in the longitudinal direction of the fuel channels (see Claim 4 rejection). Regarding the equation describing the relationship relating the channel width in an ith section to the length of the fuel inlet, quantity of ribs, and rib width in the ith section, this is a relationship that naturally occurs due to the claimed structure of the apparatus when deciding/varying the width of the ribs. As previously explained, the channels are defined/delimited by the protrusions, and when a rib/protrusion width is changed, a channel width in the same section is inversely changed, and vice-versa (an increase in a width of the channels… decreases the areas of the protrusion parts; see Son, Col. 6 Lines 19-22). The length of the inlet, L in the equation, defines the total distance spanned by the flow space, which can be described as the sum of the widths of the channels and the widths of the ribs. This is shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application and, and the corresponding inlet of the prior art is disposed in the same manner, as seen in Fig. 4B, part 2b of Wuillemin. Based on the claimed equation, Applicant is not interpreting the outer walls of the flow space to be considered ribs, and therefore the outer walls of the prior art will not be considered ribs either. With this, it naturally follows that there is always one channel more than there are number of ribs in a given section. In other words, if there are 3 ribs, it follows that there will be 4 channels. This is shown in the annotated Fig. 2 of Son below. The numerator of the equation is L-(n X wri). This represents the sum of the channel widths, as (n X wri) is the sum of the rib widths in the ith section, and L is the sum of the rib widths and channel widths, as previously explained. The denominator is n+1, which represents the number of channels in that section, because n is the number of ribs, and as explained, there is always one more channel than there are ribs in each section. Therefore, because the width of the channels is uniform in each section, and the width of the ribs is uniform in each section, it naturally follows that the width of the channels in each section will be equal to the sum of the width of the channels divided by the total number of channels. This is a basic equation describing the natural relationship that occurs in this structure. The claimed equation does not change, dictate, or add any structural limitations to the apparatus, but merely describes the natural trade-off described by Son (see Col. 6 Lines 19-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuillemin (US-20150180061-A1) in view of Son et al. (US- 10446856-B2), hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding Claim 7, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1, wherein two or more of a plurality of sections of the one or more fuel channels have different channel widths (the channels K1… K6 have slightly different shapes, for example a different width (see [0142] and Fig. 6F).
Wuillemin does not explicitly teach a gradual change. However, Son discloses wherein the channel widths gradually change in a longitudinal direction (the widths of the longitudinal and lateral channels 22 and 24 increase toward the reaction gas outflow holes; see Col. 6 Lines 1-3 and Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Son offers the motivation of the reaction gas uniformly spreading in a region from the inflow to the outflow (see Col. 6 Lines 3-5).
Regarding Claim 8, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 7. Son further discloses wherein each of the different channel widths gradually increase in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet (the widths of the longitudinal and lateral channels 22 and 24 increase toward the reaction gas outflow holes; see Col. 6 Lines 1-3 and Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Son offers the motivation of the reaction gas uniformly spreading in a region from the inflow to the outflow (see Col. 6 Lines 3-5).
Regarding Claim 9, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 7. Son further discloses wherein a rib (protrusion parts 26; see Col. 5 Line 21) is disposed between a fuel channel of the one or more fuel channels and an adjacent fuel channel of the plurality of fuel channels (protrusion parts separated by the longitudinal channels and the lateral channels; see Col. 8 Lines 8-10), and wherein a rib width of the rib changes gradually in a longitudinal direction of the fuel channel of the one or more fuel channels (protrusion parts 26 have a trapezoidal shapes; see Col. 5 Lines 40-41 and Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Son provides the motivation of adjusting the protrusion part to optimize the trade-off of the current collecting efficiency and the uniform spread of reaction gas (see Col. 6 Lines 15-23).
Regarding Claim 10, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 9. Son further discloses wherein the rib width gradually decreases in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet (protrusion parts separated by the channels; see Col. 8 Lines 8-10; and the width of the lateral channels 24 increases toward the reaction gas outflow holes; see Col. 5 Lines 62-64; because the protrusion parts define the boundaries of the channels, the width of the protrusion parts vary inversely to the width of the channels. This is also depicted in Fig. 3). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable the channel width to increase in width toward the outflow, thereby improving uniformity and the spread of reaction gas (see Son, Col. 6 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach cross channels. However, Son discloses wherein at least one cross channel is formed across the plurality of fuel channels (lateral channels 24 crossing the flow direction of the reaction gas; see Col. 2 Lines 46-47 and Fig. 2), such that the at least one cross channel is configured to allow fuel to flow between the plurality of fuel channels (see Fig. 2, Parts 22 and 24). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it provides a configuration in which an electrochemical reaction uniformly occurs over an area across which reaction gas passes through the fuel cell (see Col. 2 Lines 29-32).
Regarding Claim 14, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 13. Wuillemin does not explicitly teach variation in the distance between the slits. However, as taught by Wuillemin and Son, the distance between, width of the openings, and the trade-off between channel/opening width and the distance of the surfaces between the channels/openings are all results-effective variables that affect the uniformity of the reaction gas flow and the current collecting efficiency (see Son, Col. 6 Lines 3-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary/change these variables in order to achieve their desired uniformity and current collecting efficiency.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1, 7, and 15. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1, 7, and 15 as the rejection of claim 16 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 16. The remaining limitations of claim 17 do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection as the rejection of claim 17 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 16. The remaining limitations of claim 18 do not exceed those of claim 8. Please refer to the claim 8 rejection as the rejection of claim 18 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 16. The remaining limitations of claim 19 do not exceed those of claim 13. Please refer to the claim 13 rejection as the rejection of claim 19 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Wuillemin and Son together disclose the fuel supply control device of claim 16. The remaining limitations of claim 20 do not exceed those of claim 14. Please refer to the claim 14 rejection as the rejection of claim 19 follows the same rationale.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuillemin (US-20150180061-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Wuillemin discloses the fuel supply control device of claim 1, wherein a slit, of the plurality of slits, located closer to the fuel inlet has a smaller slit width than a slit, of the plurality of slits, located closer to the fuel outlet (see Fig. 4E, apertures/slits 15, inlet 2b, outlet 2c). It is noted that this feature is disclosed in a different embodiment than the features of claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the slits of varying width of this embodiment into the earlier embodiment disclosed by Wuillemin because it would have increased the homogenizing effect on the flux of the fuel passing the channels 13 (see [0138]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights