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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 5-6 and 8 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 5 recites “a power of the first stack is greater than a power of the second stack, and a ratio of the power of the first stack to the power of the second stack is greater than 12:7”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation a power of the first stack is greater than a power of the second stack, and the claim also recites a ratio of the power of the first stack to the power of the second stack is greater than 12:7, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “a cathode channel of the second stack comprises a first sub-channel at a middle of the cathode channel and at least two second sub-channels on both sides of the cathode channel”. It is unclear how a cathode channel comprises both a first and second sub-channel but also two second sub-channels are on both sides of the cathode channel. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is interpreting that a cathode channel comprises a first and at least two second sub-channel, wherein the at least second sub-channel are on both sides of the first sub-channel.
Claim 8 recites to achieve “a dynamic water”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer, the examiner is unclear what is meant by “dynamic water”. It is suggested to amend the claim as “dynamic equilibrium of water” to promote clarity.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan et al. (US 2008/0096083) in view of CN 111477915A in view of CN 113903950.
Regarding claim 1, Kuan discloses a dual-stack air-cooled fuel cell comprising a first and second stack (2), an air inlet channel (21), a fan assembly (3), and an air outlet channel (22). Kuan discloses the first stack is arranged at an air inlet of the air inlet channel, and the second stack is arranged at an air outlet of the air outlet channel, the fan assembly is located between the first and second stack, the air inlet channel is connected with the first stack and a first side of the fan assembly, and the air outlet channel is connected with a second side of the fan assembly and the second stack, the fan assembly is configured to generate a suction effect at the first side and a blowing effect at the second side, such that an air flow is driven to pass through the first stack and the second stack in turn (Fig. 4, [0005] [0012-0018]).
Kuan fails to explicitly disclose a spoiler with the specific placement as claimed.
CN ‘915 discloses a fuel cell system comprising a spoiler (300) between a fan assembly (200) and an air channel (410). CN ‘915 discloses that the purpose of a spoiler is to strengthen the flow direction at each different region of the pack and distribute homogeneity of air current.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuan’s fuel cell assembly to include a spoiler between the second side of the fan assembly and the air outlet channel, since CN ‘915 discloses that it is known in the fuel cell assembly art to add a spoiler to strengthen the air flow direction. This thereby will strengthen the cooling of the claimed stack.
Although Kuan discloses a fan assembly, Kuan is silent of a temperature control device as presently claimed.
CN ‘950 discloses fuel cell system comprising a temperature control device comprising a temperature sensor and a control unit and a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is arranged on a surface of fuel cell stack and is configured to monitor a surface temperature of the fuel cell stack, and the control unit is configured to receive a temperature information from the temperature sensor and feed back a control signal to the fan assembly based on the temperature information so as to control a rotation direction of the fan assembly (Fig. 2, Abstract, all paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuan’s fuel cell assembly to include a temperature control device as claimed, as suggested by CN ‘950, in order to improve the overall power generation output efficiency of the system (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Kuan discloses the shape as claimed (all Figs).
Regarding claim 3, Kuan in view of CN ‘915 discloses the spoiler and function as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, in light of Kuan in view of CN ‘915’s spoiler placement, Kuan in view of CN ‘915 discloses the distance relationship between the first and second stack as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Kuan fails to explicitly disclose that a power of the first stack is greater than a power of the second stack, and a ratio of the power of the first stack to the power of the second stack is greater than 12:7. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize each power of the stacks, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed dimension is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the power of each stack as claimed on what the end use of the fuel cell assembly was used for.
Regarding claim 6, Kuan discloses a fuel cell stack which would necessarily comprise of cathode channels. However, Kuan is silent on the physical structure of the cathode channels wherein a first subchannel at a middle of the cathode channel and at least two second sub-channels on both sides of the cathode channel. The examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the dimension relationship, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the overall structure of the channel can impact the overall fuel cell properties. It is known in the art that cathode channel is part of the flow field that directs oxygen or air to the positive electrode of cathode and thereby contributes airflow rate. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants' invention to modify the dimensions of the cathode channel such as the middle of the cathode channel has a larger channel than any other channels, since the dimension of the channel is a known results effective variable in the fuel arts to get optimize flow field.
Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the difference between the first sub-channel and the second sub-channel to be 0.00000001 in dimensional size (width size) does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed dimension relationship. Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
Regarding claim 7, please see CN ‘915 Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 8-9, CN ‘950 discloses that the controller is being configured so that when the environment temperature is within a preset range, controlling each fan to rotate forwards so as to enable air to flow from the center to the periphery, wherein the preset range is a temperature range between a preset low-temperature threshold and a preset high-temperature threshold, and when the ambient temperature is lower than the low-temperature threshold value, controlling each fan to rotate reversely so as to enable air to flow from the periphery to the center (Claim 2), wherein the temperature sensor is used for monitoring the ambient temperature of the distributed air-cooled fuel cell system (all Figs). Given that Kuan in view of CN ‘950 discloses the claimed structure as claimed, Kuan in view of CN ‘950 would be capable of producing the specific functions and parameters as claimed. Although CN ‘950 discloses that the operation is based on ambient temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the control unit temperature and when it is operable as claimed within the limits known in the art based on the desired end use of the fuel cell and to prevent from overheating and obtaining safe fuel cell operation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan et al. (US 2008/0096083) in view of CN 111477915A in view of CN 113903950, and further in view of (CN 112786914A or CN 110783596A).
Regarding claim 6, Kuan discloses a fuel cell stack as claimed, however, fails to disclose the structure of a cathode channel as presently claimed.
CN ‘914 discloses a cathode channel with the structure as claimed (All Figs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuan’s fuel cell stack to incorporate a cathode channel with the structure as claimed, since CN ‘914 discloses that this would reduce contact resistance.
Alternatively, CN ‘596 discloses a cathode channel with the structure as claimed (All Figs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuan’s fuel cell stack to incorporate a cathode channel with the structure as claimed, since CN ‘596 discloses that this would improve the performance of the fuel cell (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights