DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB1806344.6, filed on 4/18/2018.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
the recitation, “a positive end plate and a negative end plates”, in line 2 should be amended to recite: --a positive end plate and a negative end plate--
the recitation, “an end plate manifold formed from electrically insulating materials, such as plastic”, in line 4 is improper in patent claims pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(c) because it introduces ambiguity regarding whether the limitation is restrictive or merely narrative. The instant specification describes the end plate manifold formed from electrically insulating materials listing plastics or polymeric resin materials such as PC-ABS blends, PET, glass-filled PET, PA6, glass-filled PA6, PBT, PEI, or mixtures thereof. Examiner suggests amending the instant limitation to omit the recitation “such as plastic”
the recitation, “wherein the voids reduces”, in line 6 should be amended to recite: --wherein the voids reduce—
The recitation, “wherein the heat loss at least one”, in line 8 should be amended to recite: --wherein the heat loss at at least one--
Examiner recommends adding the word “and” between lines 4 and 5 to properly identify the three components of the asymmetrical fuel cell stack assembly which is comprised of (1) a fuel cell stack assembly, (2) an end plate manifold, and (3) at least one structural element
Examiner recommends the clause delimiter after “bottom face” and “outside the assembly” be changed to a comma as opposed to the inconsistent semicolon
Claim 2: the recitation, “wherein at least one end plate is configured to…”, should be amended to recite: --wherein at least one end plate of the positive end plate and the negative end plates is configured to…--
Claim 4: the recitation, “the negative end plate manifold has-sinusoidal-wave-shaped” should be amended to recite: --the end plate manifold comprises a negative end plate manifold having sinusoidal wave-shaped--
Claim 5: the recitation, “further comprising. the positive end plate manifold has air flow formed as straight-walls from the first side edge to the opposing side edge” should be amended to recite: --wherein the end plate manifold comprises a positive end plate manifold having straight walls from the first side edge to the opposing side edge—
Claims 7-9: the recitations, “wherein the heat loss at the negative end plate manifold is reduce at least” should be amended to recite: --wherein the end plate manifold comprises a negative end plate manifold, and wherein the heat loss at the negative end plate manifold is reduced by at least…---
Claims 10-12: the recitations, “wherein the heat loss at the positive end plate manifold is reduce at least” should be amended to recite: --wherein the end plate manifold comprises a positive end plate manifold, and wherein the heat loss at the positive end plate manifold is reduced by at least…---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-12 broadly recite generic, open-ended reductions in heat loss ("reduce at least 20%", "reduce at least 25%") without restriction to specific operating parameters, flow rates, or baseline architectures. The specification only describes two isolated finite element analysis (FEA) computer simulations reflecting specific calculated data points (negative end plate reduction of ~ 30.3% and positive end plate reduction of ~27.6%, [see paragraphs [0054]–[0065] of PgPublication]. The specification does not reasonably convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the broadly claimed genus of fuel cell assemblies consistently maintaining open-ended percentage reductions across the full spectrum of stack sizes, operating loads, and environmental conditions.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the invention across the broadly claimed ranges ("at least 20%", "at least 25%") without undue experimentation (In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Specifically:
1. Breadth of Claims vs. Working Examples: The claims encompass any fuel cell stack assembly achieving the recited percentage reductions regardless of stack operating current, reactant stoichiometry, airflow velocities, or ambient temperatures, whereas the specification provides only two narrow FEA simulation models.
2. Lack of Direction/Working Rules: The specification provides no predictive guidance, mathematical correlation, or structural rules for sizing and shaping the structural element voids or manifold ribs to achieve and sustain these percentage reductions across varying stack configurations.
3. Undue Experimentation: Given that heat loss is a complex thermodynamic variable heavily dependent on external ambient boundary conditions and internal stack operating states, a PHOSITA would be required to engage in extensive trial-and-error experimentation to design an end plate assembly satisfying the open-ended percentage limits across arbitrary fuel cell stacks.
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 1-12 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 1: The claim recites "an end plate manifold formed from electrically insulating materials", but fails to provide antecedent basis specifying whether this manifold belongs to the positive end plate, the negative end plate, or both. Consequently, the later clause "wherein the heat loss [at] at least one end plate manifold is reduced" lacks definite antecedent scope.
Furthermore, the term "from the environment outside the assembly" lacks proper antecedent basis. For example, it’s unclear whether “the environment outside the assembly” pertains to the environment outside or external to the entire asymmetrical fuel cell stack assembly or the immediate environments outside of the fuel cell stack assembly comprised by the asymmetrical fuel cell stack assembly.
Finally, the relative comparative term "reduced" lacks an objective standard or baseline of comparison in the claim (e.g., reduced relative to an end plate lacking structural voids, or relative to a solid overmolded metallic plate). Because the boundaries of what constitutes an infringing reduction in heat loss cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected for including subject matter of base claim 1.
Claim 2: The claim recites "at least one end plate is configured to engage an end plate cover" without introducing which end plate (positive or negative) engages said end plate cover.
Claims 4 and 7-9: The claims recite "the negative end plate manifold", which lacks antecedent basis because Claim 1 introduces only "an end plate manifold" generically.
Claims 5 and 10-12: The claims recite "the positive end plate manifold", which lacks antecedent basis because Claim 1 introduces only "an end plate manifold" generically.
Claims 7-12: The claims recite specific percentage reductions in heat loss (e.g., "reduce at least 20%", "reduce about 30%"). These relative numerical metrics fail to provide an objective boundary or test standard (such as operating current, reactant flow rate, or a defined comparator structure).
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) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2010/0143765 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses an asymmetrical fuel cell stack assembly (fuel cell stack 300) [par. 0028; Fig. 3] comprising:
a fuel cell stack assembly having a positive end plate and a negative end plate (first end plate 310 and second end plate 320) formed from structural elements which have different structural features (first end plate structure component 311 and second end plate structure component 321 having different configurations and through-hole layouts 315, 325) [pars. 0026-0027, 0034; Figs. 4-6];
an end plate manifold formed from electrically insulating materials, such as plastic (first and second end plate manifold components 312, 322 formed from insulating polymer material, plastics, rubber, or fiber composites) [par. 0029; Fig. 5];
at least one structural element configured with voids from a top face to a bottom face (structural components 311, 321 are configured with through-holes/voids 315, 325 extending entirely through the structural element from an outer/top face to an inner/bottom face) [pars. 0027, 0034, 0048; Figs. 4-6],
wherein the voids reduce the thermal flux transfer pathways from the environment outside the assembly, and wherein the heat loss at least one end plate manifold is reduced (i.e., the physical removal of solid structural material via through-holes inherently removes solid thermal conduction pathways to the ambient environment, fulfilling this intended functional use clause) [MPEP 2111.02].
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses a plurality of fuel cell assemblies (stacked fuel cells 330) [par. 0028; Fig. 3], wherein the structural elements are configured to apply a compressive mechanical force to at least the fuel cell assemblies between them (clamping assembly 390 exerts a clamping load across the structural components 311, 321 via elastic components 394 and connectors 393 to sequentially clamp and apply compressive mechanical force to the fuel cells 330) [pars. 0031, 0037; Fig. 6].
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.
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) 2-3, 5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US2017/0133702 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Chen discloses the fuel cell stack assembly of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one end plate is configured to engage an end plate cover. However, Takahashi, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a fuel cell stack end plate assembly comprising a manifold base 74a and a manifold cover 76a attached over and engaging the manifold base/end plate to seal internal fluid pathways, wherein the cover is formed of an electrically insulating resin/plastic material [Takahashi - pars. 0044,0050,0054; Figs. 4, 8]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the fuel cell stack of Chen by incorporating the insulating resin manifold cover taught by Takahashi in order to protect external fluid manifold pathways from mechanical damage and environmental contaminants while providing structural protection without sacrificing electrical insulation.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the fuel cell stack assembly of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein “the positive end plate manifold having air flow channels formed as straight-walls from the first side edge to the opposing side edge.”
However, Takahashi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that when designing fluid flow fields for fuel cell stack components, it is notoriously well known to utilize “linear channel grooves” (i.e., straight-walled channels) to guide fluids across the component surface. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the positive end plate manifold of the Chen to utilize the linear/straight-walled channels taught by Takahashi in order to minimize pressure drop and allow fluid/air to pass quickly across that specific end plate, thereby creating an asymmetric thermal management system (fast, straight flow on one end) to precisely balance the disparate cooling needs of the top and bottom end cells of the stack.
Regarding Claims 7-12, Chen discloses the fuel cell stack assembly of Claim 1, but does not explicitly quantify that the heat loss at the end plate manifold is reduced by 20%, 25%, 28%, or 30%. However, Takahashi, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly teaches that configuring an end plate manifold structure with voids, recessed portions 82a and ribs 83a forms insulating air spaces specifically configured to suppress heat dissipation and reduce heat loss from the end plate to the outside environment [Takahashi - pars. 0063-0066; Figs. 8-10]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the fuel cell stack of Chen by incorporating the heat-suppressing insulating voids taught by Takahashi in order to stabilize cell operating temperatures at the stack ends without adding unnecessary metallic weight. Achieving the specific percentage reductions claimed represents an inherent, result-effective optimization of the insulating void volumes and polymer material selections well within the routine design capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2010/0143765 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2015/0093670 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the fuel cell stack assembly of Claim 1 including the electrically insulating plastic end plate manifold components, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the negative end plate manifold has sinusoidal wave-shaped air flow channels from a first side edge to an opposing side edge.”
However, Kobayashi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a fuel cell stack end plate assembly comprising an insulating member 18b functioning as a manifold facing the end plate. Kobayashi explicitly teaches forming fluid channel grooves 78a directly on the surface of this insulating member to regulate heat transfer at the end cell. To manage fluid dwell time and heat extraction, Kobayashi teaches that these channel grooves “have a serpentine pattern... in a serpentine manner in the horizontal direction” (i.e., a sinusoidal-wave shape). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the end plate manifold of Chen to incorporate the serpentine/sinusoidal wave-shaped fluid flow channels taught by Kobayashi in order to increase the fluid dwell time and surface area contact across the end plate manifold, thereby enhancing heat extraction to prevent the end-cell from overheating during operation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US10998558B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Granted claim 9 of Parent recites a fuel cell stack assembly comprising a positive end plate with straight-walled airflow channels and a negative end plate with sinusoidal-wave airflow channels. Instant claim 1 is an obvious, broader variant of granted claim 9 that expands the channel geometry into generic "different structural features" and incorporates the structural element voids previously claimed in dependent claims 2 and 6 of Parent. Granted Claim 9 also recites that subject matters of instant claims 2-5 and renders obvious the subject matter of instant claim 6.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US11309552B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Granted claim 1 of Parent captures the negative end plate having sinusoidal channels, and granted claim 9 captures the positive end plate having straight-walled channels. Instant claims 1-6 claim the obvious combination of these two previously patented end plates within a single fuel cell stack assembly.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US12003004B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Granted Claims 1-7 of Parent patent recites a method of balancing heat removal using an asymmetrical fuel cell stack assembly having sinusoidal channels (negative) and straight-walled channels (positive) to achieve the exact numerical heat reduction percentages of 20%, 25%, 30%, and 28%. Instant claims 1-12 merely recite the apparatus counterpart configured to carry out the identical method and performance metrics already patented in Parent.
Constructive Guidance & Roadmap to Allowance
Independent Claim 1:
Independent Claim 1 as currently drafted is overly broad and anticipated by Chen under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
To overcome the prior art rejections, Applicant must distinguish the claims structurally. For example, amending Claim 1 to incorporate the multi-piece interlocking end plate assembly features (e.g., internal ribbed honeycombed cores within structural plates 220/320 and distinct straight-walled vs. sinusoidal airflow manifold channels of the positive and negative end plate manifolds, respectively) would overcome Chen, Takahashi, and Kobayashi.
Double Patenting:
Because distinguishing features such as straight/sinusoidal channels and percentage metrics are already patented in Parent 1 (US 10,998,558), Parent 2 (US 11,309,552), and Parent 3 (US 12,003,004), a Terminal Disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c) will be required upon presenting patentable, indistinct subject matter.
Section 112 Compliance:
Applicant must correct the antecedent basis deficiencies in Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-12, and delete informalities presented above.
If percentage heat loss reductions (Claims 7–12) are retained, they must be tied to an explicit structural baseline/comparator defined directly in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights