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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on August 31, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleckner et al. (US 2004/0086768 A1), hereinafter “Fleckner.”
Regarding claim 1, Fleckner discloses a separator arrangement for an electrochemical cell comprising:
a separator element, in this case the proton exchange membrane (PEM) (¶ [0050], Fig. 8, ref. no. 92); and
a diffusion layer arranged adjacent to the separator element, in this case the gas diffusion layer (GDL) (¶ [0050], Figs. 6 & 7, ref. no. 85);
the separator element comprising a plurality of elongated nanostructures, in this case the nanotubes (¶ [0050], Figs. 6-8, ref. no. 94), where at least some of the elongated nanostructures being arranged to connect the separator element to the diffusion layer by extending into the diffusion layer (see Fig. 8, ref. nos. 92 & 94).
Regarding claim 2, Fleckner further discloses that the separator element is planar (see Figs. 4 & 8, ref. no. 92).
Regarding claim 3, Fleckner further discloses that the plurality of elongated nanostructures comprises carbon nanostructures, in this case carbon nanotubes (¶ [0081]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Fleckner discloses the carbon nanotubes (¶ [0081]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Fleckner further discloses that at least some of the elongated nanostructures are oriented in parallel to each other and extend along a direction perpendicular to the plane of extension of the separator element (see Fig. 8, ref. nos. 92 & 94).
Regarding claim 8, Fleckner discloses that the separator element further comprises:
a flow field arrangement arranged on a surface of the separator element facing the diffusion layer, in this case the interdigitalized channels (¶ [0045], Fig. 4, ref. no. 82);
the flow field arrangement comprising a plurality of flow channels separated by a plurality of channel supports, in this case each FFP includes a plurality of channels separated by the unmachined or unetched portions (see ¶ [0045], Fig. 4, ref. no. 82);
wherein the flow channels are arranged to promote an even distribution of gas, in this case the arrangement promotes efficient gas delivery (see ¶ [0017] & [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Fleckner further discloses that:
the plurality of elongated nanostructures is connected to a surface of the channel supports, in this case the GDLs are located at the interior surface of each FFP in which the channels are formed (¶ [0045], Fig. 4, ref. nos. 70, 74, 82, 84, & 86); and
the surface faces the diffusion layer (see Fig. 4, ref. nos. 70, 74, 84, & 86).
Regarding claim 11, Fleckner further discloses that the diffusion layer comprises a porous carbon material, in this case the porous GDL may be fabricated from carbon paper or carbon fibermat (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Fleckner further discloses that the porous carbon material comprises a plurality of carbon fibers extending generally parallel to the plane of extension of the separator element and perpendicular to the plurality of elongated nanostructures, in this case the carbon fibermat would comprise carbon fibers that would generally extend parallel to the PEM and parallel to the nanotubes (see ¶ [0049]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fleckner.
Regarding claim 7, Fleckner does not specify the length of the elongated nanostructures. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the nanotubes appropriately in order to have provided the necessary gas conduit from the flow field interfaces to the catalyst sites (see ¶ [0050]), thereby facilitating device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the elongated nanostructures to be 10 μm to 20 μm in order to have facilitated device operation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fleckner as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 2012/0282539 A1), hereinafter “Oda.”
Regarding claim 10, Fleckner does not disclose the protective coating. However, Oda teaches a separator comprising a protective coating, in this case a PEM comprising two protective layers (¶ [0030], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 26, 32, & 33), which would be capable of protecting against corrosion. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such a protective coating would have provided reliable protection to the separator (see ¶ [0010]), thereby facilitating improved device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a protective coating on the separator element in order to have facilitated improved device operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights