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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application, of claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9-20 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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) 9-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0143251).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Morimoto teaches an electrochemical-cell stack assembly (10) (i.e., fuel cell stack) (paragraph [0047]), comprising:
an electrochemical-cell stack (14) (i.e., stacked body) (paragraph [0049]); and
a compression system configured to hold the electrochemical-cell stack in a state of compression (see figures 1-3) (paragraph [0037]), the compression system comprising:
a first endplate (20a) and a second endplate (20b) positioned at opposite ends of the electrochemical-cell stack (see figure 1) (paragraph [0048]);
a set of tension members (60) (i.e., connector bars) (paragraph [0035], [0048]) coupled to the first endplate and the second endplate and configured to maintain a fixed distance between the first endplate and the second endplate (paragraph [0035], [0048]);
a compression plate (64) (i.e., pressure plate) disposed between the second endplate and the electrochemical-cell stack (paragraph [0037]-[0038], [0051]);
a compression member (68) (i.e., connector member) (paragraph [0037]-[0039], [0049]-[0050]) in contact with the compression plate, wherein the compression member is configured to transfer a force to the compression plate (i.e., tightening load) (paragraph [0049]);
a locking nut fastened (78) (i.e., bolt) to the second plate (paragraph [0050]), wherein the locking nut secures the position of the compression member and compression plate relative to the second endplate (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Morimoto teaches the second plate has an opening (80) (i.e., screw holes) configured to receive the compression member (as shown in figure 3) (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Morimoto teaches the opening in the second plate is threaded (i.e., screw holes) and the locking nut is fastened to the second plate by screwing the locking nut into the opening (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Morimoto teaches the locking nut is configured to be screwed into the opening so it contacts the compression member (paragraph [0039], [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Morimoto teaches the compression system comprises a plurality of compression members (76) (i.e., pressing members) (paragraph [0038]) arranged evenly over the compression plate (see figure 2-3).
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0143251), as applied to claims 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Itou et al. (U.S. Patent 6,361,895).
Regarding claim 14, Morimoto teaches the electrochemical cell-stack assembly as described above in claim 9 and 13, including the compression member.
Morimoto does not teach the particulars of the compression member comprising a stack of Belleville-washers and a compression cap.
Itou, also directed to an electrochemical cell-stack assembly with a compression system (39) (i.e., fastening tool) (C6:L1-30), teaches a compression system having a compression member (43) (i.e., push control member) (C6:L1-21). Further, Itou teaches the compression member comprises a stack of Belleville-washers (i.e., dish spring bolt) and a cap (i.e., dish spring) (C6:L1-25). Itou teaches the compression member transmit uniform force to the upper and lower ends of the fuel cell stack (C7:L5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morimoto compression member to include Belleville-washers and a cap, as suggested by Itou, in order to transmit uniform force to the upper and lower ends of the fuel cell stack.
Regarding claim 15, Morimoto, as modified by Itou, teaches the compression plate includes an alignment rod (i.e., folding plate) on which the stack of Belleville-washers are placed (see figures 3-4) (C6:L9-21).
Regarding claim 16, Morimoto, as modified by Itou, teaches the compression cap is conical shaped (i.e., dish spring) (as shown in figure 3-4) (C6:L9-21). Morimoto teaches the locking nut has a corresponding conical-shape cavity of the compression member (see figure 3) which when modified by Itou with the Belleville-wash and cap, would necessarily mate flush with the compression cap when fastened or screwed.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0273452). Barton teaches a compression system for a fuel cell stack (paragraph [0004], [0006]) (see figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights