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 .
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
The term “generally sinusoidal-wave shape” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally sinusoidal-wave shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is suggested deleting the term generally in order to overcome this rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al (JP 2000-251907 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Oda et al (JP 2000-251907 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oda discloses a separator for a fuel cell (anode-side channel plate; paragraph [0020]) comprising: a plurality of flow channels configured to flow gas or product water through the separator (paragraph [0023]), wherein the plurality of flow channels are provided at a plurality of points with projections that project in first and second directions (convex retention portions; paragraph [0022]), each of the plurality of flow channels is provided at a set point thereof with a corresponding one of the projections (paragraph [0022]) and some of the projections that project in one direction among the first and second directions are aligned on one straight line (paragraph [0022]).
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising an adjacent flow channel not provided with the projection at a same point corresponding to the set point of a former flow channel.
However, it would have been obvious to use the straight channels in Fig. 5 between each of the channels in Fig. 2 in order to provide the desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Oda discloses the separator of claim 1 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising each of the projections has a streamlined shape having no angle therein or an angled shape having two or more angles (convex retention portions having shapes; paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Oda discloses the separator of claim 1 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the plurality of flow channels comprise: first flow channels, wherein the first flow channels are provided therein with projections that project in the first direction (paragraph [0023]); and second flow channels, wherein the second flow channels are provided therein with projections that project in the second direction (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Oda discloses the separator of claim 3 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the first flow channels and the second flow channels are alternately arranged (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Oda discloses the separator of claim 4 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the projections provided in the first flow channels or the projections provided in the second flow channels are aligned on the one straight line (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Oda discloses the separator of claim 1 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the plurality of flow channels are defined between a plurality of land members (ribs; paragraph [0022]), wherein the land members project upwards while extending in a direction in which the plurality of flow channels extend (paragraph [0022]) and wherein the land members are spaced apart from each other (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Oda discloses the separator of claim 6 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the plurality of land members comprise: first land members at which the projections are formed such that the projections project toward the flow channels (ribs in Fig. 2; paragraph [0022]); and second land members at which the projections are not formed (ribs in Fig. 5; paragraph [0022])
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising first land members at which the projections are formed such that the projections project toward the flow channels and second land members at which the projections are not formed in the same embodiment
However, it would have been obvious to use the straight ribs in Fig. 5 between each of the ribs with protrusions in Fig. 2 in order to provide the desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising the first land members and the second land members being alternately arranged.
However, it would have been obvious to use the straight ribs in Fig. 5 between each of the ribs with protrusions in Fig. 2 in order to provide the desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising each of the first land members has a straight-line shape (ribs in Fig. 5; paragraph [0022]) and wherein each of the second land members has a streamlined shape that is partially concave or convex (ribs in Fig. 2; paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the first land members and the second land members are arranged in a direction of gravity (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising the second land members decreasing in stages in surface area thereof moving toward a ground surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the second land members so that they are decreasing in stages in surface area thereof moving toward a ground surface because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising portions of the second land members corresponding to the projections formed at the first land members are provided therein with grooves.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the protrusion such that part or all of the projections contact the second land members portions of the second land members corresponding to the projections formed at the first land members are provided therein with grooves because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Oda discloses the separator of claim 7 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising the projections project toward the second land members such that part or all of the projections contact the second land members.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the protrusion such that part or all of the projections contact the second land members because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Oda discloses the separator of claim 13 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising a portion of each of the projections having a groove formed therein.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the protrusion such that a portion of each of the projections having a groove formed therein because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Oda discloses the separator for a fuel cell (anode-side channel plate; paragraph [0020]) comprising: a plurality of land members extending generally along a gas flow direction (ribs; paragraph [0022]); a plurality of flow channels formed between the plurality of land members (paragraph [0023]); and projections extending from a first set of the land members (paragraph [0023]), the projections being located at a plurality of points along the flow channels (paragraph [0023]), and the projections projecting into the flow channels in first and second directions (paragraph [0023]); wherein a first set of the projections extends in the first direction into a first set of the flow channels at a first set of the points (paragraph [0023]) and wherein a second set of the projections extend in the second direction into the second set of the flow channels at a second set of the points (paragraph [0023]).
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising a second set of the flow channels, being located adjacent the first set of the flow channels, is not provided with any of the projections at the first set of the points and the first set of the flow channels is not provided with any of the projections at the second set of the points.
However, it would have been obvious to use the straight channels in Fig. 5 between each of the channels in Fig. 2 in order to provide the desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, Oda discloses the separator of claim 15 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising each of the projections generally has a shape of a rounded hump, a rounded trapezoid, a rectangle or a triangle (convex retention portions having shapes; paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Oda discloses the separator of claim 15 as noted above and Oda discloses the separator comprising a second set of the land members has a straight-line shape (ribs in Fig. 5; paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Oda discloses the separator of claim 15 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising the projections project toward the second land members such that part or all of the projections contact the second land members.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the protrusion such that part or all of the projections contact the second land members because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, Oda discloses the separator of claim 15 as noted above.
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising a second set of the land members comprises grooves formed therein and the grooves being located opposite of and adjacent to the projections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the protrusion such that a second set of the land members comprises grooves formed therein and the grooves being located opposite of and adjacent to the projections. because doing so provides a desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
The convex and concave retention sections are not limited to a uniform shape (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Oda discloses a separator for a fuel cell (anode-side channel plate; paragraph [0020]) comprising: a first land member extending generally along a first longitudinal direction (ribs in Fig. 2; paragraph [0022]); a second land member extending generally along a gas flow direction (ribs in Fig. 5; paragraph [0022]), the second land member being separated from the first land member by a first flow channel (paragraph [0023]); a first set of projections extending from the first land member generally in a first lateral direction and extending into the first flow channel (paragraph [0022]), the first lateral direction being generally perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction (paragraph [0022]); a third land member extending generally along the gas flow direction (paragraph [0022]), the third land member being separated from the first land member by a second flow channel (paragraph [0023]); and a second set of projections extending from the first land member generally in a second lateral direction and extending into the second flow channel (paragraph [0022]), the second lateral direction being generally perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction (paragraph [0022]) and the second lateral direction being generally opposite of the first lateral direction (paragraph [0022]).
Oda does not disclose the separator comprising a second set of the flow channels, being located adjacent the first set of the flow channels, is not provided with any of the projections at the first set of the points and the first set of the flow channels is not provided with any of the projections at the second set of the points.
However, it would have been obvious to use the straight channels in Fig. 5 between each of the channels in Fig. 2 in order to provide the desired gas flow in the same direction (paragraph [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights