DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 1/19/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (US Publication 2019/0214654).
Regarding claim 1, the Nishida et al. reference discloses a bipolar plate (P4, claim 1) for a fuel cell stack (Fig. 1), the plate extending in a vertical plane when the fuel cell stack is in a position of use, in the vertical plane, the bipolar plate comprising a first transverse edge, a second transverse edge opposite the first transverse edge, an upper longitudinal edge, a lower longitudinal edge, a central region arranged between the first transverse, second transverse, upper longitudinal, and lower longitudinal edges. The plate comprises a first opening configured to receive a heat transfer fluid (Fig. 2, 36a), a second opening configured to collect the heat transfer fluid from the first opening (38b), a third opening configured to receive an inlet of a gaseous oxidant (34a middle), a fourth opening configured to collect the oxidant from the third opening (34b lower corner), a fifth opening configured to receive an inlet of a gaseous fuel (38a middle), a sixth opening configured to collect the fuel from the fifth opening (38b lower corner). At least one distribution chamber, wherein the first, third and sixth openings are arranged in the first transverse edge and are arranged axially in relation to one another, the second, fourth and fifth openings are arranged in the second transverse edge and are arranged axially in relation to one another, and, in the vertical plane when the fuel cell stack is in the position of use, wherein the sixth opening is arranged below the first and third openings, wherein the fourth opening is arranged below the second and fifth openings, and, wherein the second opening is arranged above the fourth and fifth openings.
Regarding claim 2, the Nishida reference discloses wherein, in the vertical position of use of the bipolar plate, the third opening is arranged above the first and sixth openings (34a, middle).
Regarding claim 3, the Nishida reference discloses that the distribution chamber is arranged on the first transverse edge, on a surface of the plate, the distribution chamber extending in particular at least facing the third, first and sixth openings.
Regarding claim 4, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the distribution chamber comprising protruding patterns, in particular bumps that are configured to promote the uniformity of distribution of a fluid (P74)
Regarding claim 5, the Nishida reference discloses further comprising flow channels arranged in the central region (fig. 3 for example).
Regarding claim 6, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the flow channels are arranged on a surface of the plate.
Regarding claim 7, the Nishida reference discloses the flow channels are in the form of a corrugation of said surface (P27).
Regarding claim 8, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the flow channels extend in the longitudinal axis of the plate.
Regarding claim 9, the Nishida reference discloses wherein each opening comprises a hole that passes through the entire thickness of the plate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the Nishida reference discloses a cell for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack, said cell comprising two of the bipolar plates as claimed in Claim 1 and a membrane electrode assembly, wherein the bipolar plates are arranged so as to cooperate together and the membrane electrode assembly is disposed between the plates.
Regarding claim 12 the Nishida reference discloses a proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack, comprising at least one of the cells of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the Nishida reference discloses further comprising an inlet manifold for a heat transfer fluid that is configured to connect to a heat transfer fluid intake to allow the heat transfer fluid to flow through the first opening, an inlet manifold for an oxidant that is configured to connect to an oxidant intake to allow the oxidant to flow through the third opening, and an inlet manifold for a fuel that is configured to connect to a fuel intake to allow the fuel to flow through the fifth opening. (Fig. 1)
In alternative, the limitations can also be interpreted as set forth below.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (US Publication 2019/0214654).
Regarding claim 1, the Nishida et al. reference discloses a bipolar plate (P4, claim 1) for a fuel cell stack (Fig. 1), the plate extending in a vertical plane when the fuel cell stack is in a position of use, in the vertical plane, the bipolar plate comprising a first transverse edge, a second transverse edge opposite the first transverse edge, an upper longitudinal edge, a lower longitudinal edge, a central region arranged between the first transverse, second transverse, upper longitudinal, and lower longitudinal edges. The plate comprises a first opening connected to (Fig. 2, 36a) a second opening (38b), a third opening (34a middle) connected to a fourth opening (34b lower corner), a fifth opening (38a middle) connected to a sixth opening (38b lower corner). At least one distribution chamber, wherein the first, third and sixth openings are arranged in the first transverse edge and are arranged axially in relation to one another, the second, fourth and fifth openings are arranged in the second transverse edge and are arranged axially in relation to one another, and, in the vertical plane when the fuel cell stack is in the position of use, wherein the sixth opening is arranged below the first and third openings, wherein the fourth opening is arranged below the second and fifth openings, and, wherein the second opening is arranged above the fourth and fifth openings.
It is noted that claim limitation have “intended use” language such as “configured to receive a heat transfer fluid,” “configured to collect the heat transfer fluid,” “configured to receive an inlet of a gaseous oxidant,” “opening configured to collect the oxidant,” “configured to receive an inlet of a gaseous fuel,” “configured to collect the fuel” and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, the Nishida reference discloses wherein, in the vertical position of use of the bipolar plate, the third opening is arranged above the first and sixth openings (34a, middle).
Regarding claim 3, the Nishida reference discloses that the distribution chamber is arranged on the first transverse edge, on a surface of the plate, the distribution chamber extending in particular at least facing the third, first and sixth openings.
Regarding claim 4, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the distribution chamber comprising protruding patterns, in particular bumps (P74).
It is noted that claim limitation have “intended use” language such as “configured to promote the uniformity of distribution of a fluid” and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, the Nishida reference discloses further comprising flow channels arranged in the central region (fig. 3 for example).
Regarding claim 6, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the flow channels are arranged on a surface of the plate.
Regarding claim 7, the Nishida reference discloses the flow channels are in the form of a corrugation of said surface (P27).
Regarding claim 8, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the flow channels extend in the longitudinal axis of the plate.
Regarding claim 9, the Nishida reference discloses wherein each opening comprises a hole that passes through the entire thickness of the plate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the arrangement of the second opening, in relation to the fourth and fifth openings.
It is noted that claim limitation have “intended use” language such as “configured to allow for natural evacuation of gas bubbles” and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 11, the Nishida reference discloses a cell for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack, said cell comprising two of the bipolar plates as claimed in Claim 1 and a membrane electrode assembly, wherein the bipolar plates are arranged so as to cooperate together and the membrane electrode assembly is disposed between the plates.
Regarding claim 12 the Nishida reference discloses a proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack, comprising at least one of the cells of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the Nishida reference discloses further comprising an inlet manifold for a heat transfer fluid that is configured to connect to a heat transfer fluid intake to allow the heat transfer fluid to flow through the first opening, an inlet manifold for an oxidant that is configured to connect to an oxidant intake to allow the oxidant to flow through the third opening, and an inlet manifold for a fuel that is configured to connect to a fuel intake to allow the fuel to flow through the fifth opening. (Fig. 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishida et al. (US Publication 2019/0214654).
Regarding claim 10, the Nishida reference discloses wherein the arrangement of the second opening, in relation to the fourth and fifth openings, but is silent in disclosing the is configured to allow for natural evacuation of gas bubbles. However, the limitation, “for evacuation of gas bubbles” is inherent. However, it is the position of the Examiner that such properties are inherent, given that both Nishida reference and the present application utilize the same structure. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP2112.01 I
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights