DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 08/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 remain pending.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, with respect to Abd Elhamid et al. (US 2008/0050643) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. See Response to Arguments.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Instant claim is dependent on a canceled claim.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the permeability" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant’s attention is directed to claim 1 where permeability is referenced back to the respective gas diffusion element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abd Elhamid et al. (US 2008/0050643).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Abd Elhamid discloses a fuel cell comprising:
an electrode membrane assembly;
gas diffusion media 22/221; and
bipolar plate 28/281 (Fig. 1).
The gas diffusion media 22 includes electrically conductive lands 26 (structural element facing the bipolar plate) may be secured to the gas diffusion media layer 22 by physical vapor deposition or electrocoating using an appropriate mask, or by screen-printing (Fig. 1; para 0016); the electrically conductive lands 26 are physically or chemically bonded to the gas diffusion media layer 22, and are not merely two components pressed together (para 0019).
Abd Elhamid further discloses a plurality of electrically conductive lands (Fig. 1) and spaced apart (relative positioning) which permit the permeability of the respective gas diffusion element to be established by the multiple structural elements and their relative positioning to each other as a function of a main flow direction of gas in gas flow ducts of the respective bipolar plate (Figs. 2-4). Figure 1 to Abd Elhamid is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Abd Elhamid discloses the electrically conductive lands are configured as a rib or strip (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 4, Abd Elhamid discloses the electrically conductive lands may be made from any electrically conductive material including Ag, Au, Pd, Pt, Rh and/or Ir (para 0018), which are not permeable to gas and/or water.
Regarding claim 7, instant claim is regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the gas diffusion media layer is deposited by physical vapor deposition or electrocoating using an appropriate mask, or by screen-printing which still results in the claimed structural element.
Regarding claim 8, Abd Elhamid discloses fuel cell stacks are known to include a plurality of bipolar plates which are used to collect and distribute electrons in the operation of fuel cell stack (para 0002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abd Elhamid et al. (US 2008/0050643) in view of Sousa et al. (US 2019/0245231).
Regarding claim 9, Abd Elhamid does not teach an electrical propulsion drive with a propeller and/or gas turbine in a fuel cell.
Sousa, directed to a fuel cell, teaches fuel cells can be used to generate electricity for a variety of applications including automobiles and airplanes (para 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a fuel cell which are an environmentally benign alternative to internal combustion engines (para 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-18 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Abd Elhamid does not recite at least one structural element and wherein the permeability of the gas diffusion element is established by multiple structure elements.
In response, the at least one structural element is the electrically conductive lands 26 (structural element facing the bipolar plate). With respect to the permeability of the gas diffusion element is established by multiple structure elements, the express claim limitation “wherein the permeability of the respective gas diffusion element is established by multiple structural elements and their relative positioning to each other as a function of a main flow direction of gas in gas flow ducts of the respective bipolar plate” is inherently met for the following reasons. Abd Elhamid discloses a plurality of electrically conductive lands, and the lands are spaced apart (i.e., have a relative positioning) which will result in a given permeability. Abd Elhamid does not correlate permeability with the relative positioning of the multiple structural elements but doesn’t have to given the structure taught by Abd Elhamid. In other words, the claimed functional language does not provide further structural limitations not taught by Abd Elhamid; the given structure of Abd Elhamid provides for a permeability to be established. Hence, why the limitations of claim 6 were indicated as allowable subject matter. For these reasons, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights