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.
Claim Interpretation
As to the use of the phrase “extent” throughout the instant claims, the phrase has been interpreted in light of the specification [0029].
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 3, 4, and 6 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.
As to claim 3, the phrase “essentially” is indefinite because it is unclear when an extend may not be deemed essentially the same.
As to claim 4, the phrase “a characteristic of the elevation, the extent of the elevation is determined by as a function…” is indefinite because the function is not so defined by the claim. Thus, it is indefinite how the phrase imparts particular structural differentiation to the characteristic and the scope of protection sought.
As to claim 4, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the contact-connection layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans et al (US 2014/0060666 A1).
As to claim 1, Evans discloses a gas diffusion layer for an electrochemical cell (Fig. 4A, having
a contact-connection unit (Fig. 4a #420) and
a metal unit disposed against or on the contact-connection unit (Fig. 4A #405/410), wherein
the metal unit, with respect to a flat base level of defined thickness (d), has a multitude of elevations essentially at right angles to the base level (each channel #415),
at least one opening is formed on at least one lateral face or top face of the multitude of elevations of the metal unit (#417), and
a respective extent of the multitude of elevations at right angles to the metal unit or at right angles to the flat base level is at least three times the thickness (d) of the metal unit (See Fig. 4A and Fig. 3B description of the height 370 to thickness 380 [0058]).
As to claim 2, Evans further discloses wherein an arrangement of the multitude of elevations and their respective extents are determined such that a metal unit together with the contact connection forms a spring component having degressive spring characteristics (since the prior art is formed of the same structure and the claim ties the specific structure to the property of having a degressive spring characteristic, the claim is deemed anticipated with respect to the property claimed. See MPEP 2112.01).
As to claim 3, Evans further discloses wherein all respective elevations have essentially the same extent (see Fig. 4a and 3c).
As to claim 4, Evans further discloses wherein an arrangement and/or extent of the elevations relating to a distance of the elevations from one another, a characteristic of the elevation, the extent of the elevation is determined as a function of a defined parameter of the gas diffusion layer, especially a cell thickness and/or contact pressure of the gas diffusion layer ([0058]).
As to claim 5, Evans further discloses wherein the multitude of elevations and the metal unit are monolithic ([0062] see Fig. 4a fin structure).
As to claim 6, Evans further discloses wherein the metal nit takes the form of a sheet or perforated plate ([0062] “perforated…”).
As to claim 9, Evans further discloses an electrochemical cell (Fig. 2) comprising a gas diffusion layer as claimed in claim 1 (See above) further comprising a bipolar plate ([0082] Fig. 5a/5b #255) and an electrode (#210) wherein the gas diffusion layer makes contact with the bipolar plate on a first side and with the electrode on an opposite second side (See Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Evans further discloses wherein the gas diffusion layer is force-fittingly, form-fittingly and/or cohesively bonded to the bipolar plate and/or the electrode. (See Fig. 2).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bednarz et al (WO 2011/069632 A1 with translation provided via EPO at espacenet).
As to claim 1, Bednarz discloses a gas diffusion layer for an electrochemical cell (Fig. 1 and 2#10), having
a contact-connection unit (Fig. 1 sheet 12/13) and
a metal unit disposed against or on the contact-connection unit (Fig. 1 #17/18), wherein
the metal unit, with respect to a flat base level of defined thickness (d), has a multitude of elevations essentially at right angles to the base level (each projection of 17/18 thickness),
at least one opening is formed on at least one lateral face or top face of the multitude of elevations of the metal unit (#s 23), and
a respective extent of the multitude of elevations at right angles to the metal unit or at right angles to the flat base level is at least three times the thickness (d) of the metal unit (See Fig. 1 relative size of the height of the projections 17 to the thickness of the metal sheet).
As to claim 2, Bednarz further discloses wherein an arrangement of the multitude of elevations and their respective extents are determined such that a metal unit together with the contact connection forms a spring component having degressive spring characteristics (since the prior art is formed of the same structure and the claim ties the specific structure to the property of having a degressive spring characteristic, the claim is deemed anticipated with respect to the property claimed. See MPEP 2112.01).
As to claim 3, Bednarz further discloses wherein all respective elevations have essentially the same extent (see Fig. 1 and 2).
As to claim 4, Bednarz further discloses wherein an arrangement and/or extent of the elevations relating to a distance of the elevations from one another, a characteristic of the elevation, the extent of the elevation is determined as a function of a defined parameter of the gas diffusion layer, especially a cell thickness and/or contact pressure of the gas diffusion layer (such a feature is necessarily present because design inherently requires some function of parameters or the like, whether specifically intended as such).
As to claim 5, Bednarz further discloses wherein the multitude of elevations and the metal unit are monolithic ([0023] “metal sheets”).
As to claim 6, Bednarz further discloses wherein the metal unit takes the form of a sheet or perforated plate ([0023] “metal sheet”).
As to claim 7, Bendarz discloses the extending have slot bridge protrusions ([0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendarz in view of Okuno et al (US 2018/0261853 A1).
As to claim 8, Bendarz fails to explicitly disclose the porosity of the gas diffusion layer.
Okuno discloses setting porosity of the gas diffusion layer for fuel batteries (Title) of 90% or less to enable gas diffusivity and 85% or less to enable proper conductivity ([0062]) which each overlap the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the porosity and used the parameters in Okuno in the apparatus of Bendarz in order to provide proper conductivity and gas flow, where the more porous the layer an increase in gas diffusivity. See MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Okuno et al (US 2018/0261853 A1).
As to claim 8, Evans fails to explicitly disclose the porosity of the gas diffusion layer.
Okuno discloses setting porosity of the gas diffusion layer for fuel batteries (Title) of 90% or less to enable gas diffusivity and 85% or less to enable proper conductivity ([0062]) which each overlap the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the porosity and used the parameters in Okuno in the apparatus of Evans in order to provide proper conductivity and gas flow, where the more porous the layer an increase in gas diffusivity. See MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights