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 .
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims, filed 22 July 2026, have been entered in the above identified application
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn in the application
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 July 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 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "the corresponding depth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what "the corresponding depth of the more than one cathode channels" is in relation to, whether that is the channel depth of the more than one cathode channels of claim 1 or a separate structure altogether. Furthermore, it is unclear how the depth of the one or more cathode channels can be “corresponding” to the depth of the one or more anode channels, as no relationship between the two has been explicitly claimed.
The term “closely nested together” in claim 9 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “the more than one anode channels and the more than one cathode channels are closely nested together” renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the geometry of the bipolar plate is compacted” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the geometry of the bipolar plate is compacted” means that the geometry of the bipolar plate has been compacted by pressure, or if the geometry of the bipolar plate is in a compact state, as in being small and tightly formed. Furthermore, it is unclear what a structure that is “compacted” would be in comparison to a structure that is not compacted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lösche-Ter Horst (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0131636).
Lösche-Ter Horst teaches a fuel cell (title) comprising a membrane electrode assembly with a gas diffusion layer adjacent a side of the membrane electrode assembly ([0002] and [0028]), and a bipolar plate adjacent the gas diffusion layer ([0052], and fig. 2, ref. #19, #20). The bipolar plate comprising more than one anode channels (fig. 3, ref #22) through which a fuel is configured to flow ([0052]), and more than one cathode channels (fig. 3, ref #21), through which an oxidant is configured to flow ([0052]). A depth of the more than one anode channels and more than one cathode channels change relative to a structural plane of the more than one anode channels or more than one cathode channels (fig. 2, see below) along a length of the fuel cell ([0055] and fig. 2, ref. #21, #22).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the depth is associated with the more than one anode channels, and the depth changes (decreases) in a direction which is the same direction as the flow of the fuel ([0010] and fig. 2 ref. #22, the flow direction being from left to right of the figure, as ref. #26 represents the inlet side of the fuel cell).
Regarding claim 3, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the depth is associated with the more than one anode channels, and the depth changes (increases) opposite a direction of the flow of the fuel ([0010] and fig. 2 ref. #22, the flow direction being from left to right of the figure, as ref. #26 represents the inlet side of the fuel cell).
Regarding claim 4, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the depth is associated with the more than one cathode channels, and the depth changes (increases) in a direction which is the same direction as the flow of the oxidant ([0010] and fig. 2 ref. #21, the flow direction being from left to right of the figure, as ref. #26 represents the inlet side of the fuel cell).
Regarding claim 5, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the depth is associated with the more than one cathode channels, and the depth changes (decreases) opposite a direction of the flow of the fuel ([0010], and fig. 2 ref. #21, the flow direction being from left to right of the figure, as ref. #26 represents the inlet side of the fuel cell).
Regarding claim 6, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the depth of the more than one anode channels or the more than one cathode channels is inclined towards a structural plane of the bipolar plate (fig. 2, ref. #21, #22, which are inclined towards the structural plane seen in fig. 2 above. For ref. #21, it is inclined towards the structural plane from the left to right of fig. 2, and for ref. #21, it is inclined towards the structural plane from the right to left of fig. 2).
Claim 8 is 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 Lösche-Ter Horst (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0131636)..
Regarding claim 8, Lösche-Ter Horst teaches the sum of the depth of the more than one anode channels and the corresponding depth of the more than one cathode channels is constant across the fuel cell (fig. 2 ref. #21 and #22, as well as [0055], the cathode plate is formed in exactly the opposite way as the anode player, resulting in the sum of the channel depths remaining constant).
In the alternative, Lösche-Ter Horst does not explicitly teach the sum of the depth of the more than one anode channels and the corresponding depth of the more than one cathode channels is constant across the fuel cell.
Lösche-Ter Horst does teach increasing the depth of the cathode gas channel across the fuel cell (fig. 2 ref. #21) while simultaneously decreasing the depth of the anode gas channel across the fuel cell (fig. 2 ref. #22, and [0055]). Lösche-Ter Horst further teaches that there should be uniform pressure conditions, humidification, and flow rate of the reactants ([0012]), which in turn allows for the performance and lifespan of the fuel-cell to be increased ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the sum of the depth of the more than one anode channels and the corresponding depth of the more than one cathode channels constant across the fuel cell in order to have uniform pressure conditions, humidification, and flow rate of the reactants, as taught by Lösche-Ter Horst. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these corresponding sizes for the performance and lifespan of the fuel-cell to be increased.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lösche-Ter Horst (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0131636) in view of Mardilovich (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0219418).
Lösche-Ter Horst is relied upon as described above.
Lösche-Ter Horst does not explicitly teach the depth of the more than one anode channels or more than one cathode channels is inclined by using one or more spacers.
Mardilovich teaches a fuel cell assembly with flow passageways having a region of graduated cross-sectional area (abstract). Mardilovich further teaches this gradual change in cross-sectional area is implemented with a spacer ([0023], and fig. 1 ref. #160). The use of a spacer allows for simple modification of a standard fuel cell, without the need for specially designed passageways. The spacers are also amenable to surface texture modification, which can increase the probability of the reactant gas stream interacting with the electrode material ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use spacers to incline the depth of the channels of Lösche-Ter Horst, as taught by Mardilovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use spacers to reduce the need for specially designed passageways and increased probability of the reactant gas stream interacting with the electrode material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lösche-Ter Horst (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0131636) in view of Goebel (US Patent No. 6,974,648).
Lösche-Ter Horst is relied upon as described above.
Lösche-Ter Horst does not explicitly teach the more than one anode channels and the more than one cathode channels are closely nested together so that the geometry of the bipolar plate is compacted.
Goebel teaches a fuel cell with a nested bipolar plate (title). The nested bipolar plate has more than one anode channels (fig. 5, ref. #266) and more than one cathode channels (fig. 5, ref. #268) closely nested together so that the geometry of the bipolar plate is compacted (page 8 column 5 lines 40-50). The nested configuration allows for decreased distance between the membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs) over standard fuel cells (page 8 column 5 lines 5-10, the coolant flow path doesn’t affect the distance between the MEAs), in turn resulting in smaller fuel cells that can be used in a wider array of applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a nested configuration of the channels of Lösche-Ter Horst, as taught by Goebel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this configuration for the smaller sized fuel cell with increased usability.
Pertinent Art Not Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (Korean Patent No. 101287286, for prior art discussion see English translation for KR-101287286-B1) teaches a fuel cell with a plurality of inclined fuel flow paths (abstract). Lee further teaches the passage decreases by 55% to 77% from the fuel outlet to the fuel inlet (page 10 paragraph 2 to page 11 paragraph 1, the width of the outlet increases to 130% to 180% larger than the inlet, which is the inverse of the percentages it decreases by in the opposite direction as stated above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 09/02/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights