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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110a” has been used to designate two different items in Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a sheet frame comprising a plurality of sheets bonded together, configured to surround a border of the insert in an outer area of the insert, bonded at the border of the insert and an interface thereof.” It is submitted that the italicized language is unclear. The phrase “at an interface thereof” seems redundant, and it is also unclear if the sheets are bonded together (to each other) at the border, or if the sheets are bonded to the border, or if the sheet frame as a whole is bonded to the border. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 16 recite “an outermost angle of the insert.” The term “angle” is not understood, it appears that this should be “edge.”
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016149320.
Regarding claim 1, the reference teaches a fuel cell comprising an insert composed of a membrane electrode assembly (5) (polymer electrolyte, first electrode, second electrode, [0012], [0013]), a sheet frame (6) surrounding a border of the insert at an outer area of the insert (Figs. 2, 7-9), the sheet frame having a discharge flow field formed therein (21) along a length direction proximate an edge in a width direction to discharge generated water generated from the insert (abstract, Figs. 2, 7-9). The fuel cell further comprises separation plates (3, 4) on both surfaces of the frame, the plates having flow fields formed therein and configured to supply a reaction gas and discharge generated water generated from the insert.
JP ‘320 does not expressly teach gas diffusion layers, as recited in claim 1. However, this feature would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because gas diffusion layers are conventional components in polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Accordingly, the limitation would be rendered obvious.
JP ‘320, in Figures 4, 5, and 6, appears to show that element 6 (or “2”), the frame, comprises two layers. Although the text of the translation does not appear to discuss the composition or structure of the frame, a skilled artisan can reasonably conclude that the frame comprises two layers from the above-noted figures. However, it is not taught that the layers are “bonded” together and are “bonded at the border of the insert” as recited in claim 1.
However, the invention as whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because it is first known in the art to bond frames (or sealing frames) to membrane electrode assemblies in fuel cell stacks. Such bonding increases structural integrity and reduces the risks of gas leaking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to bond the frame of JP ‘320 to the membrane electrode assembly (the “insert”) thereof.
In addition, it would have been obvious to bond the sheets of the frame together so as to have them function as one integral unit and increase their structural integrity and functionality. Therefore, a plurality of sheets bonded together would be obvious to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 8, on either separation plate, a gasket (35, 45) surrounds the insert (Fig. 2, central gasket on each plate), wherein the discharge flow field (21a, 21b, Fig.9 (right-angled portions adjacent 63i, 62i, 61o)), is formed between an outermost edge of the insert and a position where the sealing gasket is provided (see seal borders surrounding 32i, 32o, 42o in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the use of an engineering plastic having a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 40 as the frame material would also have been obvious one skilled in the art. Different types of plastics are known for use in fuel cell frames, including rigid plastics and more elastic plastics. It would have been obvious to use a relatively rigid plastic having the having the recited CTE as the frame material of JP ‘320 in particular since additional, presumably elastic, seals 35, 45, are already provided on the fuel cell separators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 recites that the plurality of sheets includes two base sheets and a flow field sheet, among other features, and claim 10 recites that the plurality of sheets includes two base sheets and two flow field sheets. JP ‘320, applied above, does not teach or fairly suggest this subject matter.
Yoo et al (US 20210184239) is noted as teaching a discharge flow field inside an elastomeric cell frame, but fails to teach or suggest the multilayer sheet structure of the claims. It is noted that the instant application discloses the advantages of the recited multilayer sheet structure with respect to such an elastomeric frame.
Schiegl et al (US 20240047710) is cited as disclosing a generally relevant frame structure, but the reference is directed to a redox flow battery that does not require gas diffusion layers as recited in the claims. The frame also appears to be a distributor and does not appear to function as a discharge flow field to discharge generated water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
September 26, 2026
