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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/11/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2011/0183227 A1, hereafter Tanaka).
With regard to claim 1, Tanaka teaches a separator (separator 24) for a fuel cell, the separator being configured to face a power generating unit of the fuel cell (membrane electrode assembly 22) [0032], the separator comprising:
multiple main passages (oxidant gas channels 36) configured to face the power generating unit and allow reactant gas (oxidant gas) to flow through the main passages [0036, fig. 4];
a supply side manifold hole (oxidant gas inlet manifold 28a) configured to supply the reactant gas towards the main passages [0036, fig. 4];
a discharge side manifold hole (oxidant gas outlet manifold 28b) configured to discharge the reactant gas from the main passages [0036, fig. 4];
multiple supply side connecting passages (connection channels 48a) that connect the supply side manifold hole and the main passages to each other [0041, fig. 4];
multiple discharge side connecting passages (connection channels 48b) that connect the discharge side manifold hole and the main passages to each other [0041, fig. 4];
wherein at least one of the supply side connecting passages and the discharge side connecting passages has a protrusion (50a and 50b) that protrudes toward (in the height direction) the power generation unit, the protrusion being partially provided in an extending direction of the connecting passage (at end of passage) [0042-0043, fig. 4, fig. 6].
With regard to claim 3, Tanaka teaches all of the supply side connecting passages (connection channels 48a) and all of the discharge side connecting passages (connection channels 48b) each have the protrusion (50a or 50b) (as seen in fig. 4) [0042-0043, fig. 4, fig. 6].
With regard to claim 4, Tanaka teaches at least one of the supply side connecting passages (connection channels 48a) and at least one of the discharge side connecting passages (connection channels 48b) each have the protrusion (50a or 50b) (as seen in fig. 4) [0042-0043, fig. 4, fig. 6].
With regard to claim 5, Tanaka teaches the supply side connecting passages (connection channels 48a) and the discharge side connecting passages (connection channels 48b) each have the protrusion (50a or 50b) (as seen in fig. 4) [0042-0043, fig. 4, fig. 6]. Tanaka further teaches the supply side connecting passages and discharge side connecting passages are symmetrical with respect to a center in a planar direction of the separator for the fuel cell as seen in annotated fig. 4 [0042-0043, fig. 4].
PNG
media_image1.png
480
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2007/0178359 A1, hereafter Peng).
With regard to claim 2, Tanaka does not explicitly teach protrusions arranged over an entire width of the passage. However, in the same field of endeavor, Peng teaches the use of protrusions (150) that extend across the entire width of a passage (flow channel 121) [0047, fig. 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the protrusions of Peng with the connection passages of Tanaka for the benefit of increased flow rate in downstream sections and favorable current characteristics [Peng 0047].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2007/0178359 A1, hereafter Peng) and further in view of Suda (US 2011/0123887 A1, hereafter Suda).
With regard to claim 6, Tanaka teaches a fuel cell stack comprising stacked single cells (unit cells 12), each single cell including a power generating unit (MEA 22), a first separator (24), and a second separator (26), the first and second separators holding the power generating unit between the first and second separators [0030-0032], wherein
the first separator of each single cell is adjacent to the second separator of another single cell (separator 24 of one unit cell would be above separator 26 of an adjacent lower unit cell) [0030-0032, fig. 1-2], at least one of the first separator and the separator being the separator for the fuel cell according to claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) [0032-0043, fig. 4, fig. 6] and including a cooling passage (coolant channel 38) on a surface (24b) opposite to a surface (24a) on which the main passages are provided [0036, fig. 4] and the cooling passage being configured to allow coolant flow through the cooling passage [0034-0036], wherein
the cooling passage is located between an adjacent pair of the connecting passages (central region of separator 24 between connection channels 48a and connection channels 48b) [0032-0043, fig. 4].
Tanaka does not explicitly teach protrusions arranged over an entire width of the passage. However, in the same field of endeavor, Peng teaches the use of protrusions (150) that extend across the entire width of a passage (flow channel 121) [0047, fig. 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the protrusions of Peng with the connection passages of Tanaka for the benefit of increased flow rate in downstream sections and favorable current characteristics [Peng 0047].
Tanaka teaches the cooling passages are provided on the surface (24b) opposite to a surface (24a) on which the main passages are provided and teaches adjacent passages are connected (as seen in fig. 4) [0032-0043, fig. 4] but does not explicitly teach the passages are connected by a groove and does not teach the groove is formed by the protrusion. However, in the same field of endeavor, Suda teaches the use of overlapping grooves to connect adjacent coolant channels and teaches that grooves are formed on the back side of protrusions [0037, 0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the connecting grooves and corresponding grooves and protrusions of Suda with the cooling passages and protrusions of Tanaka for the benefit of allowing for guiding coolant to provide uniform temperature distribution [Suda 0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights