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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim says, “the second force transmission plate the fuel cell stack.” Appropriate correction is required. Please revise the claim to “the second force transmission plate and the fuel cell stack.”
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 1-19 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites introduces the structure "at least one clamping element,” then later says “the clamping element is made of creep-resistant material,” referring to only one. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as it is unclear whether the limitation applies to all clamping elements or just any one of them.
The examiner will interpret Claim 1 as, “…the at least one clamping element is made of creep-resistant material.”
Regarding Claim 2, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1. Additionally, 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).
The examiner will interpret Claim 2 as “…stacking direction that is within 30% of the thermal expansion coefficient…”.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1. Additionally, 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). The Specification does state that “…similar means that the thermal expansion coefficient is within 30%...,” page 7, lines 12-13.
The examiner will interpret Claim 3 as “The fuel cell assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first clamping plate and/or the second clamping plate and/or the clamping element are made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient is within 30% of the thermal expansion coefficient of the fuel cell stack in the stacking direction.”
Regarding Claim 4, the claim is rejected as indefinite by virtue of its dependence on Claim 3 and on Claim 1 via Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim is rejected as indefinite by virtue of its dependence on Claim 3 through Claim 4. Additionally, the claim states “which preferably includes a matrix of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide, or silicon carbide.” It is unclear whether ‘a matrix of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide, or silicon carbide’ is a further limitation of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d): Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 5 as “The fuel cell assembly according to claim 4, wherein the ceramic material is a ceramic matrix composite.”
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1. Additionally, 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).
The examiner will interpret Claim 6 as “…are made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient in the range from 1 x 10-6/K to 20 x 10-6/K.”
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 16, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 3 and on Claim 1 through Claim 3. Additionally, Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first force transmission plate” and “the second force transmission plate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for either limitation in the claim, as neither Claims 1 or 3 mention a first force transmission plate or a second force transmission plate. Claim 7 is when such structures are first introduced.
The examiner will interpret Claim 8 as “The fuel cell assembly according to claim 7,…”.
Regarding Claims 9-12, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1 via Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1 via Claims 7 and 12.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim states “… preferably solid oxide fuel cell.” It is unclear whether ‘solid oxide fuel cell’ is a further limitation on the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d): Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 15 as “… wherein the fuel cells include one or more of the following: solid oxide fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell, phosphoric acid fuel cell, proton-exchange membrane fuel cell and alkaline fuel cell.”
Regarding Claims 17-19, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1 via Claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prediger et al. (US-2002142204-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Prediger.
Regarding Claim 1, Prediger teaches a fuel cell assembly comprising - a fuel cell stack comprising one or more fuel cells stacked in a stacking direction (“fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells,” paragraph 21);
a first and second clamping plate for clamping the fuel cell stack between the first clamping plate and the second clamping plate in the stacking direction (“top and bottom compression plates (12), (42),” paragraph 30, 12 and 42 in Fig. 3); and
at least one clamping element for interconnecting the first and second clamping plate (“The bottom end of the tie rod (50) is affixed to the bottom connect plate (12) while the top end of the outer sleeve (46) is attached to top compression plate (42),” paragraph 30, Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the clamping element is made of a creep-resistant material (“The tie rods should, of course, be comprised of a material having high heat creep resistance,” paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 2, Prediger further teaches that the first clamping plate, the second clamping plate, and the fuel cell stack have an overall thermal expansion coefficient in the stacking direction that is within 30% of the thermal expansion coefficient, in the stacking direction, of the clamping element (“if the tie rods have a CTE substantially equal to the composite CTE of the stack,” paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Prediger further teaches the first clamping plate and/or the second clamping plate and/or the clamping element are made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient within 30% of the thermal expansion coefficient of the fuel cell stack in the stacking direction (“If the tie rods have a CTE substantially equal to the composite CTE of the stack,” paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Prediger further teaches the first clamping plate and/or the second clamping plate and/or the clamping element are made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient in the range from 1 x 10-6/K to 20 x 10-6/K (“The tie rods should, of course, be comprised of a material having high heat creep resistance, such as the various Inconel (R) or Incoloy (R) alloys. For example, Inconel (R) 601 creeps only 0.001% per hour at 40 MPa and 750 °C. At the same time, it has a relatively low CTE of 13.4*10-6 m/(m °C),” paragraph 30, where m/m °C = /K).
Regarding Claim 7, Prediger further teaches that the fuel cell assembly further comprises a first force transmission plate (“the interconnect plates (24, 14),” paragraph 29) arranged between the fuel cell stack and the first clamping plate (“bottom compression plate (12),” paragraph 28) and/or a second force transmission plate (“the interconnect plates (24, 14),” paragraph 29) arranged between the fuel cell stack and the second clamping plate (“top compression plate (42),” paragraph 30). Fig. 1 shows that interconnect plate 14 is positioned between the fuel cell stack and the bottom compression plate 12.
Regarding Claim 9, Prediger further teaches that the first clamping plate (“bottom compression plate (12),” paragraph 28) is in direct contact with the first force transmission plate (“the interconnect plates (24, 14),” paragraph 29). Fig. 1 shows the bottom compression plate in direct contact with interconnect plate 14.
Regarding Claim 10, Prediger further teaches in Fig. 1 that the first force transmission plate (interconnect plate 14) has an inner surface facing an upper surface of the fuel cell stack and the second force transmission plate (interconnect plate 24) has an inner surface facing a lower surface of the fuel cell stack, wherein the inner surface of the first force transmission plate, the inner surface of the second force transmission plate, the upper surface of the fuel cell stack and the lower surface of the fuel cell stack are essentially parallel to each other. Fig. 1 clearly shows that all of that all of the components’ surfaces are essentially parallel to one another.
Regarding Claim 11, Prediger further teaches in Fig. 1 that the first force transmission plate (interconnect plate 14) is in direct contact with the fuel cell stack and/or the second force transmission plate is in direct contact with the fuel cell stack. Fig. 1 shows that interconnect plate 14 is the layer immediately preceding the fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 14, Prediger further teaches that the first clamping plate and/or the second clamping plate are planar, convex or concave with respect to the fuel cell stack (“top and bottom compression plates (12), (42),” paragraph 30, 12 and 42 in Fig. 3, which shows both plates as planar).
Regarding Claim 15, Prediger further teaches that the fuel cells include one or more of the following: solid oxide fuel cell, molten carbonate fuel cell, phosphoric acid fuel cell, proton-exchange membrane fuel cell and alkaline fuel cell (“the invention may comprise a solid oxide fuel cell stack,” paragraph 15).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prediger, in view of Edmonston et al. (US-20190109345-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Edmonston.
Regarding Claim 4, Prediger does not specifically teach that the material of the first clamping plate and/or the material of the second clamping plate and/or the material of the at least one clamping element is a ceramic material. However, Edmonston teaches a structure (“lower block 503 and the compression assembly 600,” paragraph 53) that clamps a fuel cell stack. Edmonston teaches that the clamping structure can be made of ceramic material (“the side baffles 220 are made from a ceramic matrix composite (CMC). The CMC may include, for example, a matrix of aluminum oxide (e.g., alumina), zirconium oxide or silicon carbide” and “The lower block 503 and the compression assembly 600 may also be made of the same or similar materials,” paragraph 53). Edmonston notes the benefit of ceramic components in a fuel cell assembly is that they “can exist in a high temperature zone,” paragraph 58.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first clamping plate, second clamping plate, and/or clamping elements taught in Prediger by making them out of ceramic material as taught in Edmonston to ensure the components can exist within a high-temperature environment of a fuel cell assembly. Also, see MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Also, see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 5, Edmonston further teaches that the ceramic material is a ceramic matrix composite (“the side baffles 220 are made from a ceramic matrix composite (CMC). The CMC may include, for example, a matrix of aluminum oxide (e.g., alumina), zirconium oxide or silicon carbide” and “The lower block 503 and the compression assembly 600 may also be made of the same or similar materials,” paragraph 53). Edmonston teaches that making such components of CMC “is advantageous because it may include creep resistant fibers arranged in a direction in the matrix which resists creep,” paragraph 58.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first clamping plate, second clamping plate, and/or clamping elements taught in Prediger by making them out of ceramic material, specifically ceramic matrix composite, as taught by Edmonston. In addition to the benefit of being suitable for a high-temperature environment, making such components of CMC can help with creep resistance, per Edmonston. Also, see MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Also, see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prediger, in view of Keiji et al. (JP 2017183225 A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to simply as Keiji, and in further view of Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2011065909 A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to simply as Hiroyuki.
Regarding Claim 12, Prediger does not further teach that the fuel cell assembly further comprises a first intermediate layer and/or a second intermediate layer, wherein the first intermediate layer is arranged between the first force transmission plate and the fuel cell stack and the second intermediate layer is arranged between the second force transmission plate the fuel cell stack, wherein the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer each comprise a mica sheet. Keiji does teach a fuel cell stack where the first intermediate layer (“dummy fuel cell cell 30A,” paragraph 47) is arranged between the first force transmission plate (“The upper terminal plate 102,” paragraph 47) and the fuel cell stack (“The upper terminal plate 102 is positioned above the dummy fuel cell cell 30A,” paragraph 47, 30A, 102, and 30 in Fig. 4). Fig. 4 shows that dummy fuel cell cell 30A is positioned between the upper terminal plate 102 and the fuel cell stack. Keiji does not teach that the intermediate layer be made of mica. However, Hiroyuki teaches a fuel cell stack (“single-cell stack 31,” paragraph 39) with a layer abutting the fuel cell stack made of mica (“a mica plate or the like having the same shape as the retaining plate 32,” paragraph 38). Hiroyuki teaches that the benefit of including this layer and making it specifically out of mica is that the fuel cell stack is “electrically insulted” by it, paragraph 38.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger and include an intermediate layer between the first force transmission plate and fuel cell stack, as taught by Keiji, and make it of mica, as taught by Hiroyuki, in order to provide electrical insulation for the fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 13, Keiji further teaches that the fuel cell assembly further comprises at least one thermal expansion adjustment plate (“The canning mat 104,” paragraph 50) configured to maintain a designated clamping force on the fuel cell stack (“the upper rigid plate 103 positioned between the laminate X and the canning mat 104 has sufficient rigidity to uniformly transmit the load applied via the canning mat 104,” paragraph 49), wherein the at least one thermal expansion adjustment plate is arranged between the clamping element and the first clamping plate (“The canning mat 104 is positioned above the upper rigid plate 103,” paragraph 50). Fig. 4 shows that the canning mat 104 is positioned between the clamping element (68) and the rigid plate 103. Keiji states that the benefit of including a thermal expansion adjustment plate is that it “can prevent load loss due to material deterioration, etc., at high temperatures” and “can prevent load loss due to material degradation, etc., even in heat cycles where room temperature and SOFC operating temperature are repeatedly alternated,” paragraph 51.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger, as modified by Hiroyuki, and further modify to include a thermal expansion adjustment plate as taught by Keiji. Doing so, as Keiji discloses, can prevent load loss at extreme temperatures and temperature cycling during repeated use of the fuel cell stack.
Claims 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prediger, in view of Klein et al. (CN 108054474 A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to simply as Klein.
Regarding Claim 16, Prediger does not further teach that the fuel cell stack, the first clamping plate, the second clamping plate and the at least one clamping element are arranged inside an insulation housing for thermally insulating the fuel cell stack. Klein does teach a housing surrounding a generic fuel cell stack (“The two sets of plates 880 and 885 can be sealed at 886 and 887 to form an insulating housing 800 around the device 870,” paragraph 79, Fig. 8; “device 870, such as a fuel cell-based electric generator, paragraph 79). Klein states that one motivation for the housing is to provide “thermal insulation,” paragraph 73.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger and encase it in housing, as taught by Klein, in order to provide thermal insulation.
Regarding Claim 17, Klein further teaches that the insulation housing includes material 820, which has a density of less than 400 kg/m3 (“material 820 may be a low-density (200-250 kg/m³) mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide (and optionally a getter material for generating getter gas in degassing or leakage through the sealed portion), which may be pressed into a conventional shape-factor housing,” paragraph 78). Fig. 8 shows that material 820 fully surrounds the fuel cell stack, and Klein teaches that it can be pressed into a shape that can serve as housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger and encase it in housing made of a mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide with a density less than 400 kg/m3, as taught by Klein. See MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Also, see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 18, Klein further teaches that the insulation housing includes material 820, which has a density of less than 300 kg/m3 [“material 820 may be a low-density (200-250 kg/m³) mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide (and optionally a getter material for generating getter gas in degassing or leakage through the sealed portion), which may be pressed into a conventional shape-factor housing,” paragraph 78]. Fig. 8 shows that material 820 fully surrounds the fuel cell stack, and Klein teaches that it can be pressed into a shape that can serve as housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger and encase it in housing made of a mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide with a density less than 300 kg/m3, as taught by Klein. See MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Also, see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 19, Klein further teaches that the insulation housing includes material 820, which has a density of less than 275 kg/m3 (“material 820 may be a low-density (200-250 kg/m³) mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide (and optionally a getter material for generating getter gas in degassing or leakage through the sealed portion), which may be pressed into a conventional shape-factor housing,” paragraph 78). Fig. 8 shows that material 820 fully surrounds the fuel cell stack, and Klein teaches that it can be pressed into a shape that can serve as housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel assembly taught by Prediger and encase it in housing made of a mixture of fumigated silica, glass fiber, and silicon carbide with a density less than 275 kg/m3, as taught by Klein. See MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Also, see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights