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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 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 Tomana et al (US 20190074524 A1).
As to claim 1, Tomana teaches a fuel cell stack with metal separators that include an oxygen-containing gas supply passage extending through the first metal separator in a separator thickness direction, a passage bead formed around the oxygen-containing gas supply passage, a plurality of tunnels protruding from the side wall of the passage bead and expanded in the separator thickness direction (see Abstract). The fuel cell separator is stacked on a membrane electrode assembly, and a compression load is applied to the separators in a stacking direction (see par 8) The separators include a fluid flow field configured to allow fluid of an oxygen-containing gas, a fuel gas or a coolant to flow along an electrode surface (See Par 8). The A plurality of tunnels protrude from the side wall of the bead seal and are expanded in the separator thickness direction (see Par 8). Tomana also discloses the fluid passages in the metal separators are surrounded by bead seals (see par 6). These bead seals also are configured to seal a space between the membrane electrode assembly and the gas flow field as well as a space between the membrane electrode assembly and the feed regions and protrude in the stacking direction (see annotated Fig 5 below). These bead seals are known in the art to be compressible when a fastening load is applied to the stack, and this compression would lower the height of the bead seals as said bead seals protrude in the thickness direction which is also the compression direction (see Par 8 and Figs. 4 and 6). The height of the feed ridge being lower than the height of the bead seals after compression would be inherent otherwise the feed ridges could be crushed or damaged by the compression of the fastening load in the stacking direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the event that Tomana does not teach the bead seals in the staking direction are compressed and the height of the bead seals in the stacking direction being lower after compression than their height before compression, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select bead seals that compress upon compression in the stacking direction to resulting the height of the bead seal being lower after compression than before compression which would prevent the oxygen-containing gas from leaking into unintended spaces and/or out of the fuel cell stack.
As to claim 2, Tomana teaches separators made of a metal plate that can be a steel plate, a stainless-steel plate, an aluminum plate, a plate steel plate or a metal plate having an anti-corrosive surface by surface treatment (see Par 30). These materials are the same metal materials disclosed by the applicant to comprise the separator plates (see Par 26 in the instant application). As such, the disclosed metals are not sufficiently compressible or expandable such that the height of the ridge would change due to compression as claimed. Therefore, the metal separators taught by Tomana would have the same properties and would meet the claims of the instant application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomana et al (US 20190074524 A1).
As to claim 3, Tomana is applied to claim 3 for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Tomana does not teach a feed ridge that does not contact the membrane electrode assembly after the fastening load is applied in the stacking direction to the stack body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a fuel cell stack, as taught by Tomana, to have a feed ridge height and fastening load to form a sufficient seal while simultaneously preventing the feed ridges from contacting the membrane electrode assembly to avoid interfering with or damaging the feed ridges.
As to claim 4, Tomana is applied to claim 4 for the same reasons as claim 3 above. Tomana does not teach a fuel stack wherein the feed ridge contacts the membrane electrode assembly when a load greater than the fastening load is applied to the stack body in the stacking direction. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there exists a load greater than the fastening load that, when applied to the stack body in the stacking direction, would cause a sufficient compression that the feed ridges would contact the membrane electrode assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from this examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1910. The examiner can be normally reached M-W 10:00am – 10:00pm, T 10:00am – 2:00pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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 more information about filing 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.
WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
