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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/546,691 filed on 08/16/2023. Claims 41-60 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. GB2102404.7 filed on 02/19/2021 and PCT/GB2022/050451 filed on 02/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 08/16/2023, 04/19/2024, 11/11/2025, 02/23/2026 and 04/28/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 41-55, drawn to an electrochemical cell stack, filed 05/11/2026, is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction requirement on the ground that claims 56-60 have been amended to depend from claim 41 and that rejoinder and examination of claims 56-60 is therefore requested.
Applicant’s traverse is persuasive only with respect to claim 56. Claim 56 has been amended to depend from claim 41 and is now drawn to an electrochemical cell stack within the same statutory category as the elected invention. Accordingly, claim 56 is no longer withdrawn from consideration and will be examined with elected claims 41-55.
Applicant’s traverse is not persuasive with respect to claims 57-60. Claims 57-60 remain drawn to a method of assembling an electrochemical cell stack, which is distinct from the elected electrochemical cell stack of Group I. The amendment of claims 57-60 to depend from claim 41 does not, by itself, establish that the method claims are part of the same elected invention or remove the burden of separately examining the nonelected method invention.
In conclusion the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 41-60 are currently pending in this application. Group I claims 41-55 have been elected. Group II claim 56 will be examined with elected claims 41-56. Group III claims 57-60 have been withdrawn from consideration for being non-elected claims. Claims 41-56 are under full consideration.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
Drawings
Figures 1-7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 42 and 49-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 is objected to because it recites “both in both lateral directions” this grammatically improper.
Claims 49–51 are objected to because the phrase “the or each beam” is informal and unclear in form. For example, “the or each beam” may be amended to “the at least one electrically insulating beam” or “each electrically insulating beam,” as appropriate
Claim 51 is further objected to because it recites ““one or more cut-away section” however should recite “one or more cut-away sections”.
Claim 52 is further objected to because it recites “The cell stack claim 41” however should recite “The cell stack of claim 41.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 42-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 42, claim 42 recites that “the tangents of contact” between each beam and the respective cell units are “co-operative” to resist movement in specified directions. However, it is unclear what is meant by “tangents of contact,” how such tangents are determined, and what structural arrangement is required for the tangents to be “co-operative.” Further, the claim recites “both in both lateral directions,” which renders the scope of the claimed directions unclear. Additionally, the alternative limitations recited in clauses a) and b) do not clearly define whether the movement-resisting function is performed by the beams collectively or by each beam individually. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Regarding Claims 42-55, claim 42-55 recite the limitation "the cell stack" within the preamble, however only “an electrochemical stack” was properly introduced in independent claim 41. The preamble should be clear that it is pointing back to the entire “electrochemical cell stack” of claim 41. Thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 43, claim 43 recites the limitation "engages edges" however “an edge” was never properly introduced. Thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 51, claim 51 recites the limitation "that area" however “an area” was never properly introduced. Thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 41-44, 46-49, 51 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et al. (US-20200127316-A1).
Regarding Claim 41, Naito discloses an electrochemical cell stack (see e.g. "fuel cell stack 10" in paragraph [0019] and part number 10 in FIG. 1) comprising:
a plurality of stacked cell units, each defining an external perimeter (see e.g. "plurality of power generation cells 12" in paragraph [0021] and part number 12 in FIG. 1);
a housing surrounding the stack to define or enclose a volume around the external perimeters (see e.g. "case 22" in paragraph [0021] and part number 22 in FIG. 1);
two opposed electrically insulating boards located between the housing and the plurality of stacked cell units, each being against one of two opposing sides of the plurality of stacked cell units (see e.g. "insulating resin layer 68" in paragraph [0042] and part number 68 in FIGs. 1 and 3B); and
at least one electrically insulating beam that extends across multiple cell units within the stack, and engages against the external perimeters of those respective multiple cell units (see e.g. "main body 66" in paragraph [0042] and part number 66 in FIG. 1; main body 66 is electrically insulated via direct contact through the two opposed electrically insulating boards),
wherein:
the electrically insulating beam also engages against either or both the housing and one of the electrically insulating boards (see e.g. part number 66 in FIG. 1; the electrically insulating beam engages both the housing and one of the electrically insulating boards);
the electrically insulating beam extends generally in a stacking direction of the stacked cell units (see e.g. part number 66 in FIG. 1); and
the electrically insulating beam is located between the external perimeters of the cell units and the housing (see e.g. part number 66 in FIGs. 1 and 3B).
Regarding Claim 42, Naito discloses the call stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection below).
Naito further discloses that the cell stack comprises at least two electrically insulating beams each extending across a multiple of the cell units, and each engaging against the external perimeters of at least two of those respective multiple of cell units (see e.g. "main body 66" in paragraph [0042] and part numbers 66 in FIG. 1),
wherein the beams define a line that extends between the two beams, which line defines a lateral line across the respective cell units (see e.g. annotated figure below), and wherein:
b) the tangents of contact of each beam with the respective ones of the multiple cell units being co-operative for each beam to resist movement of the respective one of the multiple cell units both in at least one lateral direction along that defined lateral line of the cell unit and in at least one longitudinal direction that lies both generally perpendicular to that lateral line and generally planar to the external perimeter (see e.g. “extensions 60” inserted into “recess 74” of coupling bar 26 in paragraphs [0044]-[0045] and [0056]-[0058] and part numbers 60 and 74 in FIGS. 3A-3B and "In the structure, lateral displacement among the plurality of power generation cells 12 inside the case 22 is prevented." in paragraph [0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Naito, figure 1, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 43, Naito discloses the call stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection below).
Naito further discloses that each board that engages edges of the cell units has a cell engaging face that provides that engagement (see e.g. recess 74 " in paragraph [0050] and part number 74 in FIG. 3B), the beam closest to that cell engaging face of one of the boards having a cell engaging surface that extends distal of that board's cell engaging face (see e.g. "protruding ends of the pair of extensions 72" in paragraph [0050] and part numbers 72a and 72b in FIG. 3B). Regarding Claim 44, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 43 (see e.g. claim 43 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that there are two beams (see e.g. part number 66 in FIG. 1) and each has a cell engaging surface that extends distal of its closest board's cell engaging face (see e.g. "protruding ends of the pair of extensions 72" in paragraph [0050] and part numbers 72a and 72b in FIG. 3B), the two beams providing a constriction across the width of the cell units between the two beams compared to the width between the two boards (see e.g. part numbers 68, 72a, and 72b in FIG. 3B; the protruding ends of extensions 72a and 72b extend inward relative to the insulating resin layer 68 to define a narrowed receiving region/recess 74 for the extensions 60 of the power generation cells 12).
Regarding Claim 46, Naito discloses the call stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection below).
Naito further discloses that two or more boards are provided between each opposing side of the plurality of stacked cell units and the housing (see e.g. part numbers 68 in FIG. 1; two resin layers are between each opposing side of the stacked cells and the housing).
Regarding Claim 47, Naito discloses the call stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection below).
Naito further discloses that the electrically insulating boards are located to just two of the sides of the stacked cell units (see e.g. part numbers 68 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 48, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that more than one electrically insulating board is located one above the other, in a common plane, against each of two respective opposing sides of the stacked cell units (see e.g. part numbers 68 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 49, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that each beam is formed of two or more parts (see e.g. "proximal part 70" and "extensions 72" in paragraph [0065] and part numbers 70 and 72 in FIG. 3B).
Regarding Claim 51, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that each beam has one or more cut-away section to increase fluid flow in that area (see e.g. "internal storage space 24 a " in paragraph [0021] and part number 24a in FIG. 3B).
Regarding Claim 54, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that the at least one beam sits in concavities or recesses formed in the external perimeters of the cell units (see e.g. FIG. 4C).
Regarding Claim 55, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that the housing comprises a skirt around the cell units (see e.g. " the storage body 24 and the pair of end plates 20 a, 20 b," in paragraph [0022] and part numbers 24, 20a and 20b in FIG. 1) and the skirt is formed of at least two parts (see e.g. " the storage body 24 and the pair of end plates 20 a, 20 b," in paragraph [0022]), joined together at their seams (see e.g. "the pair of end plates 20 a, 20 b are fixed to both end surfaces of the storage body 24 using suitable fixing means" in paragraph [0022] and part numbers 24, 20a and 20b in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 56, Naito discloses the electrochemical cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito further discloses that the housing initially comprises at least two separate parts (see e.g. "storage body 24" in paragraph [0021] and "end plates 20 a, 20 b" in paragraph [0020] and part numbers 20a, 20b and 24 in FIG. 1);
the at least one electrically insulating beam is assembled between one initially separate part of the housing and the stacked cell units (see e.g. part number 66 in FIG. 1; the electrically inserted beam is assembled in the storage body first), the electrically insulating beam extending across a multiple of the cell units (see e.g. part number 66 in FIGs. 1 and 3A), and abutting the external perimeters of at least two of the multiple of cell units so as to exert a force that resists movement of the multiple of cell units further towards the beam (see e.g. FIGs. 3A and 4C); and
the first and second initially separate parts of the housing clamp or engage the at least one beam against the external perimeters of those at least two of the multiple of cell units upon closing two parts of the housing together (see e.g. "At the time of assembling the fuel cell stack 10, the pair of end plates 20 a, 20 b are fixed to both end surfaces of the storage body 24 using suitable fixing means " and "the case 22 covers the plurality of power generation cells 12 in a manner that the power generation cells 12 are not exposed to the outside." in paragraph [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US-20200127316-A1) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Takabatake et al. (US-20170365872-A1).
Regarding Claim 45, Naito discloses the cells stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection below).
Naito does not disclose that each electrically insulating board is also in engagement with the inner wall of the housing.
Takabatake, however, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cell stack housings, discloses an electrical insulating board that is in engagement with the inner wall of the housing (see e.g. " intervening layers 30" and the intervening layers 30 are made of silicone rubber" in paragraph [0043] and part number 30 in FIG. 1 of Takabatake).
Takabatake also teaches that this layer provides a function of suppressing vibration generated in the cell stacked body under application of an external force to the fuel cell (see e.g. paragraph [0043] of Takabatake). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify each electrically insulating board of Naito et al. such that each electrically insulating board is also in engagement with the inner wall of the housing as taught by Takabatake et al. in order to suppress vibration generated in the cell stacked body under application of an external force to the fuel cell as suggested by Takabatake.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US-20200127316-A1) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Linfa et al. (CN 111463466 A).
Regarding Claim 50, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito does not disclose that a length of the or each beam is adjustable.
Linfa however, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cell stack assemblies, discloses a fuel cell stack (see e.g. " fuel cell
assembly structure" in paragraph [6] of Linfa) that comprises a beam (see e.g. "adjustable end plate (3)" in paragraph [11] and part number 3 in FIG. 1 of Linfa) in which the length of the beam is adjustable (see e.g. paragraph [8] of Linfa).
Linfa also teaches that the adjustable beam can continually be adjust overtime as the fuel cell runs ensure leak prevention during the lifetime of the fuel cell stacks (see e.g. paragraph [12] of Linfa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the beams of Naito et al. such that they are adjustable as taught by Linfa et al. in order to continually prevent leakage from the fuel cell stack as suggested by Linfa.
Claims 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US-20200127316-A1) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Edmonston et al. (US-20160226093-A1).
Regarding Claim 52, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito does not disclose that the at least one beam defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, blocking or reducing fluid flow around the outside of the beam between the external perimeter of the cell units and the housing, and to direct the flow of fluid through or towards a central stream through the stacked cell units.
Edmonston, however, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cell stack assemblies, discloses a beam (see e.g. " baffles 220" in paragraph [0002] and part number 220 in FIG. 2 of Edmonston) which defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, blocking or reducing fluid flow around the outside of the beam between the external perimeter of the cell units and the housing, and to direct the flow of fluid through or towards a central stream through the stacked cell units (see e.g. "The baffles 220 serve to direct the cathode feed into the cathode flow paths and to fill the space between adjacent stacks so that the cathode feed passes through each of the stacks 14, rather than bypassing around the longitudinal sides of the stacks 14." in paragraph [0002] of Edmonston).
Edmonston also teaches that this internal manifold type system can direct air and/or fuel into and/or around the fuel cell stack column to improve temperature change characteristics of the fuel cell stack column (see e.g. paragraph [0082] of Edmonston). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell stack of Naito et al. such that at least one beam defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, blocking or reducing fluid flow around the outside of the beam between the external perimeter of the cell units and the housing, and to direct the flow of fluid through or towards a central stream through the stacked cell units as taught by Edmonston et al. in order to improve the temperature change characteristics of the fuel stack column as suggested by Edmonston.
Regarding Claim 53, Naito discloses the cell stack of claim 41 (see e.g. claim 41 rejection above).
Naito does not disclose that the at least one beam defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, whereby there is a concentration of airflow through a central stream through the stacked cell units and a lesser airflow to the sides of the central stream, adjacent the sides of the cell units.
Edmonston, however, discloses a beam (see e.g. " baffles 220" in paragraph [0002] and part number 220 in FIG. 2 of Edmonston) which defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, whereby there is a concentration of airflow through a central stream through the stacked cell units and a lesser airflow to the sides of the central stream, adjacent the sides of the cell units (see e.g. "The baffles 220 serve to direct the cathode feed into the cathode flow paths and to fill the space between adjacent stacks so that the cathode feed passes through each of the stacks 14, rather than bypassing around the longitudinal sides of the stacks 14." in paragraph [0002] of Edmonston).
Edmonston also teaches that this internal manifold type system can direct air and/or fuel into and/or around the fuel cell stack column to improve temperature change characteristics of the fuel cell stack column (see e.g. paragraph [0082] of Edmonston). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell stack of Naito et al. such that at least one beam defines a barrier for fluid flow entering or exiting the stacked cell units, whereby there is a concentration of airflow through a central stream through the stacked cell units and a lesser airflow to the sides of the central stream, adjacent the sides of the cell units as taught by Edmonston et al. in order to improve the temperature change characteristics of the fuel stack column as suggested by Edmonston.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights