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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, drawn to an integrated unit cell for a fuel cell stack in the reply filed on 07/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/31/2026.
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 6-18 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 6 recites “a first surface of the frame” in line 2, and “a second surface of the frame” in line 3. However, “a first surface of the frame” and “a second surface of the frame” are previously recited in lines 10 and 16 of claim 4 respectively. For examination purposes, “a first surface of the frame” and “a second surface of the frame” recited in claim 6 are interpreted as corresponding to the previously recited elements in claim 4. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a first surface of the frame”, and “a second surface of the frame” in claim 6 to “the first surface of the frame”, and “the second surface of the frame” respectively.
Claim 7 recites “a first side” in line 9, and “a second side” in line 11. However, “a first side” and “a second side” of separators are previously recited in claim 5. For examination purposes, “a first side” and “a second side” recited in claim 7 are interpreted as corresponding to the previously recited elements in claim 5. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a first side” and “a second side” in claim 7 to “the first side” and “the second side” respectively.
Claims 8-9 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “a coolant outlet flow region disposed in the pair of separators between the reaction region through-hole and the second coolant manifold through-holes, wherein the coolant inlet flow region is configured to allow the coolant to flow therethrough.” However, it is unclear whether “the coolant inlet flow region” in this latter limitation is intended to refer to the previously recited “a coolant outlet flow region”. It appears that “ the coolant inlet flow region” in this latter limitation is intended to recite “the coolant outlet flow region”.
Claims 9 is similarly rejected for depending upon claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “a first surface of the frame” in line 2, and “a second surface of the frame” in line 5. However, “a first surface of the frame” and “a second surface of the frame” are previously recited in lines 10 and 16 of claim 4 respectively. For examination purposes, “a first surface of the frame” and “a second surface of the frame” recited in claim 10 are interpreted as corresponding to the previously recited elements in claim 4. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a first surface of the frame”, and “a second surface of the frame” in claim 10 to “the first surface of the frame”, and “the second surface of the frame” respectively.
Claims 11-17 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 10.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " The periphery of the frame" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 18 because claim 18 does not recite “a periphery of the frame” prior to the recitation in line 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 20140234749 A1), and further in view of Shibata et al. (US 20220367894 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an integrated unit cell for a fuel cell stack ([0036, 0076-0077]; Figs. 1, 11; fuel cell 62 including a resin frame equipped membrane electrode assembly 60 sandwiched between separators 14 and 16). Tanaka teaches that the constituent elements of fuel cell 62 that are identical to those of fuel cell 12 of the first embodiment are labeled with the same reference numerals and descriptions thereof are omitted ([0077]). Accordingly, the teachings of the first embodiment concerning membrane electrode assembly 10a and the associated components identified by the same reference numerals are applicable to the second embodiment.
Tanaka further teaches the integrated unit cell comprising: an insert ([0037, 0078]; Fig. 2; a membrane electrode assembly 10a) constructed with a membrane electrode assembly ([0037]; a solid polymer electrolyte membrane 18, and an anode, second electrode 20, and a cathode, first electrode 22, sandwiching the solid polymer electrolyte membrane 18) and a pair of gas diffusion layers disposed on opposite surfaces of the membrane electrode assembly ([0040]; Figs. 2-4; gas diffusion layer 20b and 22b whereas gas diffusion layer 20b disposed on surface 18a and gas diffusion layer 22b disposed on surface 18b of the membrane 18);
a frame having a form of a sheet ([0042, 0078], Figs. 2-4, a sheet shaped resin frame member 24/64), the frame being disposed to surround a periphery of the insert in an outer boundary region of the insert and joined to any one of opposite surfaces of the periphery of the insert by a first adhesive member at an interface thereof ([0042-0043, 0080] resin frame member 24/64 with the first inner end 24a and the second inner end 24b; resin frame member 64 is joined to the cathode 22 and the anode 20 by adhesion and intermediate layer 26); Specifically, Tanaka teaches that resin frame member 24 is provided around an outer end of solid polymer electrolyte membrane 18 and joined to cathode 22 and anode 20 ([0042]), and that intermediate layer 26 is provided between resin frame member 24 and membrane electrode assembly 10a ( [0043-0045, 0063]). Tanaka further teaches that the intermediate layer 26 may comprise silicone-based rubber, resin, or hot-melt material ([0045]), and extends between the inner ends of resin frame member 24 and peripheral portions of the membrane electrode assembly 10a ([0044, 0063]). The second embodiment employs the same intermediate layer 26 between resin frame member 64 and membrane electrode assembly 10a ([0079]).Thus, intermediate layer 26, when formed of the disclosed hot-melt material, constitutes an adhesive layer disposed between the resin frame member and the membrane electrode assembly.
Tanaka further teaches a pair of separators disposed on opposite surfaces of the frame, respectively ([0036, 0076-0078], Fig. 11, a first separator 14 and a second separator 16 disposed on opposite surfaces of the frame),
Tanaka does not teach a limitation wherein the pair of separators are joined to the opposite surfaces of the frame by second adhesive members.
However, Shibata teaches a pair of separators disposed on opposite surfaces of a resin frame and joined to the opposite surfaces of the resin frame by adhesive members ([0076], [0080-0081]). Shibata further teaches the separators are attached to the resin frame by an adhesive ([0104-0105]). Specifically, Shibata teaches that the resin frame may include a frame-shaped core layer and first and second frame-shaped shell layers disposed on opposite surfaces of the core layer ([0076]). Shibata teaches that, to attach the core layer to the anode-side and cathode-side separators and to ensure sealing properties, the first and second shell layers have high adhesion to other substances and may be formed of thermoplastic or thermosetting resin, including modified epoxy resin, and may be the same kind of resin as an adhesive layer ([0080]). Shibata further teaches that disposing the shell layers on both surfaces of the core layer makes it easy to attach the resin frame and the two separators by hot pressing, wherein the first shell layer on one surface may be attached to the cathode-side separator and the second shell layer on the other surface may be attached to the anode-side separator ([0081]).
Further, Tanaka, and Shibata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanaka's resin frame member with adhesive shell layers on its opposite surfaces, as taught by Shibata, thereby joining first and second separators 14, 16 to the respective opposite surfaces of the resin frame, because Shibata teaches that providing such shell layers on both surfaces of the core layer facilitates attachment of the resin frame to the two separators by hot pressing and provides sealing properties ([0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches limitations wherein a joint portion to which any one of the opposite surfaces of the insert is joined ([0042-0044, 0063, 0077-0079]; Figs. 2-4, and 11; the inner peripheral portion of resin frame member 24/64 at which membrane electrode assembly 10a is joined to the resin frame member through intermediate layer 26) is defined by a reaction region through-hole disposed in the frame, in which the insert is disposed ([0043, 0048-005, 0068-0071, 0077-0078]; Figs. 2-4, and 11; the central opening inside resin frame member 24/64 in which membrane electrode assembly 10a is disposed),
Specifically, Tanaka teaches an opening inside the resin frame member surrounding membrane electrode assembly 10a ([0042-0043]), wherein oxygen-containing gas and fuel gas are supplied through respective gas flow fields 36, 38 to cathode 22 and anode 20 of membrane electrode assembly 10a for electrochemical reaction ([0068-0071], fuel gas arrays in Fig. 11)
Tanaka further teaches a step portion along an inner peripheral surface of the reaction region through-hole to have a level difference from a surface ([0043-0044, 0063, 0077]; Figs. 2-4; the stepped opening having first inner end 24a and second inner end 24b).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches limitations wherein a first gas diffusion layer of the pair of gas diffusion layers of the insert has a same size as the membrane electrode assembly and a second gas diffusion layer of the pair of gas diffusion layers is smaller than the membrane electrode assembly such that a periphery of the membrane electrode assembly is exposed ([0038, 0041, 0003, 0006, 0044-0045, 0063, 0077-0079]).
Specifically, Tanaka teaches that the cathode 22 has a smaller surface area than the solid polymer electrolyte membrane 18 and the anode 20 ([0038], and the surface size of the gas diffusion layer 20b is larger than the surface size of the gas diffusion layer 22b ([0041]). Tanaka further acknowledges in the Background Art that the membrane electrode assemblies having gas diffusion layers of different sizes are known in the art, wherein the surface area of one of gas diffusion layers is smaller than the surface area of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane, and the surface area of the other of the gas diffusion layers is the same as the surface area of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane ([0003, 0006]).
Tanaka further teaches the exposed periphery is joined to the joint portion by the first adhesive member ([0044-0045, 0063, 0077-0079]; intermediate layer 26 provided between resin frame member 24/64 and membrane electrode assembly 10a, including second plate portion 26b disposed at exposed outer end 18be of solid polymer electrolyte membrane 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Tanaka’s larger gas diffusion layer 20b to have the same surface size as solid electrolyte membrane 18, while maintaining gas diffusion layer 22b smaller than membrane 18, as Tanaka teaches such an arrangement as a known configuration and adjusting relative dimensions such as surface area constitutes a change in size or proportion, which is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Such a modification would have resulted in Tanaka’s gas diffusion layer 20b having same size as the membrane electrode assembly while gas diffusion layer 22b is smaller, thereby exposing a peripheral portion of the membrane, as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein a size of the periphery of the frame is greater than or equal to a size of the pair of separators ([0078]; the outer size of the resin frame member 64 is the same as the outer sizes of the first separator 14 and the second separator 16).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, as applied to claim 1 above. “Polymers- A property database” Retrieved from Knovel - Polymers - A Property Database (2nd Edition) - Thermal Expansion Coefficient is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the rejection.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein the frame comprises engineering plastic or super engineering plastic with a thermal expansion coefficient of 40 x 10-6/°C or less ([0042]).
Specifically, Tanaka teaches that the resin frame member 24 is made of PPS (polyphenylene sulfide), PPA (polyphthalamide), or another polymer material having elasticity ([0042]). Polymers-a property database is relied upon as evidence that PPA, specifically, 33% glass-fiber-reinforced PPA in the longitudinal direction has a thermal expansion coefficient of 2.4 x 10-5 /°K, which is equivalent to 2.4 x 10-5 /°C and therefore is within the claimed range.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurihara et al. (US 20210280879 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a reaction region through-hole disposed in a center of the frame, wherein the insert is disposed in the reaction region through-hole ([0043, 0048-005, 0068-0071, 0077-0078]; Figs. 2-4, and 11; the central opening inside resin frame member 24/64 in which membrane electrode assembly 10a is disposed);
a plurality of first manifold through-holes disposed on a first side of the frame, wherein the plurality of first manifold through-holes are configured to allow a first reaction gas or a second reaction gas to flow in or be discharged from ([0068-0071, 0078]; Fig. 11; oxygen-containing gas supply passage 30a, and the fuel gas discharge passage 34b disposed at one outer marginal portion of the resin frame member 64);
a plurality of second manifold through-holes disposed on a second side of the frame, wherein the plurality of second manifold through-holes are configured to allow the first reaction gas or the second reaction gas to flow in or be discharged from ([0068-0071, 0078]; Fig. 11; the fuel gas supply passage 34a, and the oxygen-containing gas discharge passage disposed at the opposite outer marginal portion of the resin frame member 64);
Tanaka teaches supply holes 46 and discharge holes 48 disposed on the first separator 14. Modified Tanaka, however, does not teach a first reaction gas inlet flow channel disposed on a first surface of the frame between any one of the first manifold through-holes and the reaction region through-hole, wherein the first reaction gas inlet flow channel is configured to allow the first reaction gas to flow therethrough; a first reaction gas outlet flow channel disposed on the first surface of the frame between the reaction region through-hole and any one of the second manifold through-holes, wherein the first reaction gas outlet flow channel is configured to allow the first reaction gas to flow therethrough; a second reaction gas inlet flow channel disposed on a second surface of the frame between another of the second manifold through-holes and the reaction region through-hole, wherein the second reaction gas inlet flow channel is configured to allow the second reaction gas to flow therethrough; and a second reaction gas outlet flow channel disposed on the second surface of the frame between the reaction region through-hole and another of the first manifold through-holes, wherein the second reaction gas outlet flow channel is configured to allow the second reaction gas to flow therethrough.
However, Kurihara teaches slit portions 39 provided in resin sheet 25 between respective reactant-gas manifold holes 31, 33, 34, 36, and he central opening 25a and MEGA 18 ([0022, 0027-0028, 0039]; Fig. 1). Specifically, Kurihara teaches that slit portions 39 extend from the vicinity of the manifold holes toward the outer periphery of MEGA 18 and provide communication between the reactant-gas manifolds and the respective inside-cell fuel-gas and oxidation-gas passages.
Kurihara further teaches that slit portions 39 are elongated through-holes formed in resin sheet 25 and extend between respective reactant-gas manifold holes 31, 33, 34, 36 and the vicinity of MEGA 18, thereby providing communication between the manifold holes and the respective fuel-gas and oxidation-gas passages ([0039]). Because slit portions 39 extend through resin sheet 25, the slit portions are present at both opposite surfaces of resin sheet 25, thereby providing the claimed reaction-gas flow channels on the first and second surfaces of the frame.
Further, modified Tanaka, and Kurihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka's resin frame member 64 to include the through-hole slit portions of Kurihara between the respective reaction-gas manifold through-holes and the reaction region, thereby providing fluid communication between the reaction-gas manifolds and the respective reaction-gas passages on opposite surfaces of the frame ([0022, 0027-0028, 0039]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein each of the pair of separators comprises: a plurality of third manifold through-holes disposed on a first side and in communication with the plurality of first manifold through-holes ([0048, 0077-0078]; Figs. 1, 11; oxygen-containing gas supply passage 30a and fuel gas discharge passage 34b wherein the potions thereof extending through separators 14, and 16 corresponding to the claimed third manifold through-holes and communicate with the corresponding portions extending through resin frame member 64)
and a plurality of fourth manifold through-holes disposed on a second side and in communication with the second manifold through-holes ([0049, 0077-0078]; Figs. 1, 11; oxygen-containing gas supply passage 30b and fuel gas discharge passage 34a wherein the potions thereof extending through separators 14, and 16 corresponding to the claimed fourth manifold through-holes and communicate with the corresponding portions extending through resin frame member 64).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches limitations wherein the pair of separators comprises a first separator joined to a first surface of the frame and a second separator joined to a second surface of the frame ([0036, 0076-0078]; Figs. 1, 11; first and second separators 14 and 16 disposed on respective opposite surfaces of the frame member 24/64).
Tanaka further teaches the first separator comprises first passage tunnels, each having a form of a tunnel through which the first reaction gas flows by being overlapped with the first reaction gas inlet flow channel and the first reaction gas outlet flow channel ([0055]; Figs. 1, 11; first separator 14 including supply holes 46 and discharge holes 48connecting fuel gas supply passage 34a and fuel gas discharge passage 34b, respectively, with fuel gas flow field 38).
Kurihara's slit portions 39, relied upon above for the claimed frame reaction-gas inlet and outlet flow channels, are positioned between the respective reactant-gas manifold holes and MEGA 18 to provide communication with the reaction-gas passages ([0039]; Fig. 1 of Kurihara). Thus, when incorporated into Tanaka's frame as discussed with respect to claim 4, the slit portions 39 are positioned to communicate with the corresponding separator supply and discharge holes.
Tanaka does not expressly teach the second separator comprises second passage tunnels, each having the form of the tunnel through which the second reaction gas flows by being overlapped with the second reaction gas inlet flow channel and the second reaction gas outlet flow channel.
However, Tanaka teaches that second separator 16 includes oxygen-containing gas flow field 36 communicating with oxygen-containing gas supply and discharge passages 30a, 30b ([0050, 0068-0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide second separator 16 with passage tunnels corresponding to supply holes 46 and discharge holes 48 of first separator 14, positioned in communication with the corresponding Kurihara slit portions 39, thereby providing fluid communication between oxygen-containing gas supply/discharge passages 30a, 30b and oxygen-containing gas flow field 36 in the same manner that holes 46, 48 provide communication on the opposite separator. Such a modification constitutes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches limitations wherein a first coolant manifold through-hole is disposed on the first side of the frame, wherein the first coolant manifold through-hole is configured to allow a coolant to flow in or be discharged ([0048, 0072, 0078]; Fig. 11; coolant supply passage 32a disposed on the right side of the resin frame member 64);
a second coolant manifold through-hole is disposed on the second side of the frame, wherein the second coolant manifold through-hole is configured to allow the coolant to flow in or be discharged ([0049, 0072, 0078]; Fig. 11; coolant discharge passage 32b disposed on the left side of the resin frame member 64);
and each of the pair of separators comprises: a third coolant manifold through-hole disposed on a first side and in communication with the first coolant manifold through-holes ([0048, 0078]; Figs. 1, 11; the portions of coolant supply passage 32a extending through first and second separators 14, and 16 and communicating with coolant supply passage 32a of the resin frame member 64);
and a fourth coolant manifold through-hole disposed on a second side and in communication with the second coolant manifold through-holes ([0049, 0078]; Figs. 1, 11; the portions of coolant discharge passage 32b extending through first and second separators 14, and 16 and communicating with coolant discharge passage 32b of the resin frame member 64).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a coolant inlet flow region disposed in the pair of separators between the first coolant manifold through-hole and the reaction region through-hole, wherein the coolant inlet flow region is configured to allow the coolant to flow therethrough; and a coolant outlet flow region disposed in the pair of separators between the reaction region through-hole and the second coolant manifold through-holes, wherein the coolant inlet flow region is configured to allow the coolant to flow therethrough ([0051, 0072]; Fig. 11; coolant inlet flow region extending from coolant supply passage 32a toward coolant flow field 40 at the reaction region, and coolant outlet flow region extending from coolant flow field 40 toward coolant discharge passage 32b).
Specifically, Tanaka teaches that coolant flow field 40 is formed between a surface 14b of the first separator 14 and a surface 16b of the second separator 16 and is connected to the coolant supply passage 32a and the coolant discharge passage 32b ([0051]). Tanaka further teaches that the coolant supplied to the coolant supply passage 32a flows into the coolant flow field 40 along the electrode surfaces and thereafter is discharged through coolant discharge passage 32b ([0072]).
Tanaka illustrates the coolant inlet and outlet flow regions on first separator 14, but does not illustrate corresponding coolant inlet and outlet on second separator 16, as required by each of the pair of separators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide second separator 16 with corresponding coolant inlet and outlet flow regions in the same manner as first separator 14, because opposing surfaces 14b and 16b of the first and second separators define the same coolant flow field 40. Providing the corresponding regions on second separator 16 would similarly provide fluid communication from coolant supply passage 32a to the reaction region and from the reaction region to coolant discharge passage 32b, thereby yielding the predictable result of coolant flow through coolant flow field 40. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein the pair of separators are disposed such that regions where the coolant inlet flow region and the coolant outlet flow region are disposed are in contact with opposite surfaces of the insert ([0036, 0051, 0072], Fig. 11; membrane electrode assembly 100a is sandwiched between first separator 14 and second separator 16, and coolant flow field 40 is formed between surface 14b of first separator 14 and surface 16b of second separator 16 for cooling the membrane electrode assembly 10a).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, and Kurihara, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (US 20210313592 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, teaches all limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Tanaka does not teach a first adhesive groove portion disposed on a first surface of the frame in a form of a groove of a closed structure surrounding the reaction region through-hole, the plurality of first manifold through-holes, and the plurality of second manifold through-holes;
a second adhesive groove portion disposed on a second surface of the frame in the form of the groove of the closed structure surrounding the reaction region through-hole, the plurality of first manifold through-holes, and the plurality of second manifold through-holes;
and the second adhesive members disposed in the first adhesive groove portion and the second adhesive groove portion.
However, Gao teaches a frame-shaped gasket 2 wherein each of two opposite sides of the frame-shaped gasket 2 is provided with at least one sealant groove 21, respectively, and adhesive 15 is applied to both sides of the frame-shaped gasket 2, with cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3 pressed against the respective opposite sides of frame-shaped gasket 2 ([0015, 0040]; Fig. 1). Specifically, Gao illustrates sealant groove 21 extending as a closed peripheral structure around the central reaction region and the inlet/outlet openings of the frame-shaped gasket 2 (Fig. 1). Gao also teaches that the adhesive inside the sealant groove bonding the cathode plate and anode plate to the respective sides of the frame-shaped gasket ([0040], claim 3). Gao further teaches that the sealant grooves 21 prevent adhesive from overflowing when the plates are pressed together and enhance adhesion ([0015, 0040]).
Further, modified Tanaka, and Gao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka, as modified by Shibata and Kurihara, to provide on the first and second surfaces of the frame respective closed adhesive groove portions surrounding the reaction region through-hole and the plurality of first and second manifold through-holes, as taught by Gao (Fig. 1; [0015], [0040]), and to dispose the second adhesive members in the respective adhesive groove portions to join and seal the frame to the respective separators, thereby obtaining the claimed arrangement while preventing adhesive overflow, and enhancing adhesion ([0015, 0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, and Gao, teaches all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Gao further teaches a limitation wherein the first adhesive groove portion and the second adhesive groove portion are disposed at locations symmetrical to each other based on a thickness direction of the frame ([0040], Figs. 1, 3). Specifically, Gao teaches frame-shaped gasket 2 having sealant grooves 21 provided at each of its two opposite surfaces, respectively, with cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3 passed against the respective opposite sides of frame-shaped gasket 2. Figs. 3-4 illustrates the grooves 21 at corresponding positions on the opposite surfaces of frame-shaped gasket 21 through the thickness direction thereof, thereby teaching the claimed symmetrical disposition. Gao further teaches that the sealant grooves 21 prevent adhesive from overflowing when the plates are pressed together and enhance adhesion ([0015, 0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Tanaka’s grooves such that the first adhesive groove portion and the second adhesive groove portion are disposed at locations symmetrical to each other based on a thickness direction of the frame as taught by Gao (Figs. 1, 3-4; [0015], [0040]), thereby obtaining the claimed arrangement while preventing adhesive overflow, and enhancing adhesion ([0015, 0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, and Gao, teaches all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Gao further teaches a limitation wherein the second adhesive members disposed in the first adhesive groove portion and the second adhesive groove portion do not contact the insert and are disposed on the frame or the pair of separators ([0038-0041], Figs. 1, 3-4, 12).
Specifically, Gao teaches that cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3 each have a reaction zone at a central region within dotted frame 24, while the peripheral regions outside dotted frame 24 constitute sealing zones ([0038]; Fig. 12). Gao further teaches that frame-shaped gasket 2 is fitted in a frame-shaped hollow space in the peripheral region and that cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3 are adhered to respective opposite sides of frame-shaped gasket 2 ([0039]).
Gao further teaches frame-shaped gasket 2 having at least one sealant groove 21 on each of its two opposite sides, respectively, with adhesive 15 applied at the respective interfaces between frame-shaped gasket 2 and cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3 ([0040]; Fig. 1). As discussed with respect to claim 10, Gao further teaches adhesive disposed inside the sealant grooves 21 in order to provide adhesion and sealing in the peripheral interface ([0038-0041], claim 3). The closed peripheral sealant groove 21 illustrated in Fig. 1 corresponds to the peripheral sealing region outside the central reaction zone identified by dotted frame 24 in Fig. 12.
Gao further teaches that a membrane electrode is sandwiched between the two bipolar plates and includes an intermediate proton exchange membrane 20 flanked by catalyst layers and gas diffusion layers 19 on its two sides ([0041]; Fig. 4). Thus, the membrane electrode corresponding to the claimed insert is disposed at the central reaction region, whereas adhesive 15 disposed in sealant grooves 21 is disposed at the peripheral interfaces outside the central reaction region ([0038-0041]; Figs. 1, 4, and 12).
Accordingly, Gao teaches that the second adhesive members disposed in the first and second adhesive groove portions do not contact the insert, because adhesive 15 disposed in sealant grooves 21 is located at the peripheral interfaces between frame-shaped gasket 2 and cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3, spatially separated from the centrally disposed membrane electrode ([0038-0041]; Figs. 1, 4, and 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the second adhesive members disposed in the first and second adhesive groove portions so as not to contact the insert as taught by Gao in order to provide adhesion and sealing at the peripheral frame to separator interfaces (Figs. 1, 3-4, 12; [0038-0040]).
Claims 13- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, and Gao, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Iritsuki (US 20150086899 A1 ).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, and Gao, teaches all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein the pair of separators comprises a first separator joined to the first surface of the frame and a second separator joined to the second surface of the frame. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Tanaka teaches a first separator 14 and a second separator 16 disposed on opposite surfaces of the frame ([0036], Fig. 11).
Modified Tanaka does not teach limitations wherein the first separator comprises a first adhesive forming portion disposed toward the frame so as to overlap the first adhesive groove portion such that adherence and sealing between the first adhesive forming portion and the first adhesive groove portion are achieved by one of the second adhesive members;
and the second separator comprises a second adhesive forming portion disposed toward the frame so as to overlap the second adhesive groove portion such that adherence and sealing between the second adhesive forming portion and the second adhesive groove portion are achieved by another one of the second adhesive members.
However, Iritsuki teaches disposing an adhesive member in a groove formed in a frame to join the frame to a separator ([0023-0028]; Fig. 1). Specifically, Iritsuki teaches groove 1G formed in frame 1 and protrusion 3R formed on separators 3 (corresponding to the first and second adhesive forming portion) at positions facing each other, wherein adhesive 10 is injected into groove 1G and the tip of protrusion 3R is immersed in adhesive 10, thereby joining frame 1 and separators 3 ([0023, 0025], Fig. 3). Iritsuki further teaches that this arrangement improves sealing between frame 1 and separators 3 ([0026-0028]).
Further, modified Tanaka, and Iritsuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Tanaka separators such that each separator comprises an adhesive forming portion disposed toward the frame so as to overlap the adhesive groove portion, as taught by Iritsuki, in order to join the frame and separators and improve sealing therebetween ([0025-0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, Gao, and Iritsuki, teaches all limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Modified Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein depths of the first reaction gas inlet flow channel and the first reaction gas outlet flow channel disposed on the first surface of the frame are deeper than a depth of the first adhesive forming portion disposed on the first separator; and depths of the second reaction gas inlet flow channel and the second reaction gas outlet flow channel disposed on the second surface of the frame are deeper than a depth of the second adhesive forming portion disposed on the second separator.
As discussed with respect to claim 4, Kurihara teaches the first and second reaction gas inlet and outlet flow channels as slit portions 39 comprising elongated through-holes extending through resin sheet 25 ([0039], Fig. 1). Thus, the reaction gas inlet and outlet flow channels extend through the thickness of the frame thereby providing fluid communication between the reaction-gas manifolds and the respective reaction-gas passages on opposite surfaces of the frame ([0022, 0027-0028, 0039]; Fig. 1).
Iritsuki teaches adhesive forming portions corresponding to protrusions 3R of separator 3, which extend toward groove 1G of frame 1 and have tips immersed in adhesive 10 within groove 1G ([0023-0025]; Fig. 1) in order to join the frame and separators and improve sealing therebetween ([0025-0028]). Accordingly, the depth of the gas inlet and outlet flow channels is greater than the depth of the adhesive forming portions corresponding to protrusion 3R.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Tanaka's unit cell such that depths of the first and second reaction gas inlet and outlet flow channels are deeper than a depth of the respective first and second adhesive forming portion, because the reaction gas inlet and outlet flow channels, as taught by Kurihara, extend through the thickness of the frame to improve the fluid communication, whereas the adhesive forming portions, as taught by Iritsuki, extend only toward the frame for engagement with the respective adhesive groove portions to improve sealing therebetween ([0039] of Kurihara; [0023-0025] of Iritsuki)
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, Gao, and Iritsuki, teaches all limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Iritsuki further teaches a limitation wherein the first adhesive forming portion and the second adhesive forming portion have widths smaller than widths of the first adhesive groove portion and the second adhesive groove portion, respectively ([0025], Fig. 1).
Specifically, Iritsuki teaches groove 1G formed in frame 1 and protrusion 3R formed on separator 3 at positions facing each other, wherein adhesive 10 is injected inro groove 1G and the tip of protrusion 3R is immersed in adhesive 10 ([0023, 0025]). Fig. 1 illustrates protrusion 3R having a width smaller than groove 1G, thereby providing space withing groove 1G for adhesive 10 around protrusion 3R to improve the sealing ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second adhesive forming portion to have widths smaller than widths of the corresponding first and second adhesive groove portion, as taught by Iritsuki, in order to improve sealing between the frame and separators ([0025-0028], Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, Gao, and Iritsuki, teaches all limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Iritsuki further teaches a limitation wherein the first adhesive forming portion of the first separator and the second adhesive forming portion of the second separator are disposed at locations that overlap each other (Fig. 1, [0023-0025]).
Specifically, Iritsuki teaches protrusion 3R formed on separators 3 facing groove 1G of frame 1 ([0023-0025], Fig. 1) and disposing an adhesive member in a groove formed in a frame to join the frame to a separator ([0023-0028]). In addition, Fig. 1 illustrates the adhesive-forming protrusions 3R of the separators disposed on opposite sides of frame 1 at corresponding, overlapping locations. Iritsuki further teaches that this arrangement improves sealing between frame 1 and separators 3, improve the productivity and reduce the cost. ([0026-0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Tanaka separators such that the first adhesive forming portion of the first separator and the second adhesive forming portion of the second separator are disposed at locations that overlap each other, as taught by Iritsuki, in order to join the frame and separators, improve sealing therebetween, improve the productivity and reduce the cost ([0025-0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka, as modified by Shibata, Kurihara, Gao, and Iritsuki, teaches all limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Modified Tanaka further teaches a limitation wherein the first adhesive forming portion of the first separator or the second adhesive forming portion of the second separator is provided with a gasket applied to an opposite surface to the surface on which the second adhesive member is disposed to form an airtight line for sealing of a coolant.
Specifically, Gao teaches sealing gaskets 7 and 8 disposed adjacent to cathode plate 1 and anode plate 3, respectively, to improve the sealing effect ([0036], Fig. 1). Thus, Gao teaches providing a gasket on a surface of the separator opposite the surface on which the adhesive member is disposed in the modified Tanaka’s separators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified Tanaka unit cell to provide a gasket on the side of the separator opposite the adhesive member of modified Tanaka, as taught by Gao, in order to improve sealing ([0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights