DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-20 are presented for examination, wherein claim 1 is currently amended plus claims 13-20 are withdrawn. Claims 2 is cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 15, 2026.
The traversal is on the ground that the then-applied art does not teach special technical feature of newly amended claim 1.
This is not found persuasive because Chatain (FR 2865853) teaches the limitations of newly amended claim 1, see e.g. infra, which is the special technical feature between the Groups. The below discussion of Chatain is incorporated herein by reference.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding independent claim 1, from which the other claims depend, the originally filed limitation “a first means penetrating each of the first and second stiffening plates and fastening the column to the first and second stiffening plates” is interpreted to not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) since the newly added limitation “the first means include, at each of the stiffening plates, a room for a column head, configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room by lateral movement of the column” provides sufficient structure and/or acts for performing said limitation.
Still regarding claim 1, the limitation “a second adjustment means for adjusting a tension applied to the column” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) since it does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts. The structure of said limitation is interpreted in light of the specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0029, 32, 37-39, 43-55, 75, 104-115, and 126-144 plus e.g. Figures 5A-5B.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected to because the article “a” in “configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room” (should be “the,” or equivalent. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
Claim 12 is objected to because the clamping system should indicate the strain gauge is “further” required. Appropriate correction is respectfully 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 5-8 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 5, from which claims 6-8 depend, it is not clear whether the limitation “a room for a column head, configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room by lateral movement of the column” is (1) in addition to the newly added limitation of claim 1, in which case it should further indicate the room is “further” required; or (2) the same as the newly added limitation of claim 1, in which case it should indicate the articles “a” as “the,” or equivalent.”
For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as provided infra.
Regarding claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, it is not clear whether the limitation “a room for a column head, configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room by lateral movement of the column” is (1) in addition to the newly added limitation of claim 1, in which case it should further indicate the room is “further” required; or (2) the same as the newly added limitation of claim 1, in which case it should indicate the articles “a” as “the,” or equivalent.”
For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as provided infra.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatain (FR 2865853, published 2005).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Chatain teaches a fuel cell (e.g. item 1) and a clamping means for keeping a stack (e.g. item 6) of plurality of stacked basic cells (e.g. items 3, also “cells”) pressed against each other in a longitudinal direction (L), to ensure closure of chambers and sealing various fluid circuits of said fuel cell,
wherein fuel, e.g. gaseous hydrogen, and oxidizer, e.g. gaseous oxygen or air, are supplied by conventional means; resulting water removed therefrom by conventional means; and, electricity is collected by conventional means,
wherein said clamping means including:
(i) two support plates (e.g. items 7) on each side of said stack in said longitudinal direction,
a first support plate illustrated at a left-hand side (also, “LHS”) of said stack; and,
a second support plate illustrated at a right-hand side (also, “RHS”) of said stack
wherein each of said two support plates (e.g. items 7) includes 3 notches (e.g. items 11) along each side of said plates—for a total of e.g. 12 notches per support plate, said notches extending through said plates in said longitudinal direction and further extending in a lateral direction, perpendicular to said longitudinal direction, such that said notch extends all the way to its respective edge; plus,
(ii) a longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) connects each of said two support plates by being inserted in a respective notch of each of said two support plates—for a total of e.g. 12 longitudinal traction devices,
wherein each of said longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) includes a first part (e.g. item 13) and a second part (e.g. item 15),
said first part (e.g. item 13) composed of a rod (e.g. item 17) that longitudinally extends in a space between said support plates and penetrates through said first support plate (illustrated on said LHS of said stack); a housing (e.g. item 19) at a proximal end of said rod; and, a rider (e.g. item 21) at a distal end of said rod with a width wider than a width of said notch;
said second part (e.g. item 15) composed of a rod (e.g. item 23) that longitudinally extends in said space between said support plates and penetrates through said second support plate (illustrated on said RHS of said stack); a threading at a proximal end of said rod that is attached to an assembly containing a helical compression spring (e.g. item 31), a washer (e.g. item 25), and a nut (e.g. item 27) screwed onto said threading; and, a rider (e.g. item 21) at a distal end of said rod with a width wider than a width of said notch
(2:8-13, 3:1-16 plus e.g. Figure),
said taught clamping means corresponding with the claimed “clamping system;” and,
said taught fuel cell corresponding with the claimed “module,”
reading on “clamping system;” alternatively, the preamble limitation “for a module” is interpreted as merely intended use, see e.g. MPEP § 2111.02, said clamping means/fuel cell comprising:
(1) said stack (e.g. item 6) of said plurality of stacked basic cells (e.g. items 3, also “cells”) pressed against each other in said longitudinal direction (L), to ensure closure of chambers and sealing various fluid circuits of said fuel cell, wherein fuel, e.g. gaseous hydrogen, and oxidizer, e.g. gaseous oxygen or air, are supplied by conventional means; resulting water removed therefrom by conventional means; and, electricity is collected by conventional means (e.g. supra), said taught conventional means are understood to be interconnectors arranged between adjacent cells, reading on “a stack of electrochemical cells and interconnectors in a longitudinal direction;” alternatively, the limitation “a stack of electrochemical cells and interconnectors in a longitudinal direction” is interpreted to be outside the scope of the claimed “clamping system,” as claimed;
(2) said two support plates (e.g. items 7) on each side of said stack in said longitudinal direction,
said first support plate illustrated at said LHS of said stack; and,
said second support plate illustrated at said RHS of said stack
(e.g. supra),
wherein the functional limitation “stiffening” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2114; alternatively, Chatain teaches a substantially identical plates, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness said “stiffening” limitation, see e.g. Id, at 2112.01.
reading on “a first stiffening plate and a second stiffening plate on either side of the stack,”
wherein said clamping means is for keeping said stack (e.g. item 6) of plurality of stacked basic cells (e.g. items 3, also “cells”) pressed against each other in said longitudinal direction (L), to ensure closure of chambers and sealing various fluid circuits of said fuel cell (e.g. supra), reading on “the clamping system is configured to exert a compressive force on the stack in the longitudinal direction,”
wherein each of said two support plates (e.g. items 7) includes 3 notches (e.g. items 11) along each side of said plates—for a total of e.g. 12 notches per support plate, said notches extending through said plates in said longitudinal direction and further extending in said lateral direction, perpendicular to said longitudinal direction, such that said notch extends all the way to its respective edge (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “each first and second stiffening plates includes n holes orthogonal to the stiffening plates and distributed along edges of the stiffening plates, n being an integer at least equal to 2,”
wherein said longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) connects each of said two support plates by being inserted in said respective notch of each of said two support plates—for said total of e.g. 12 longitudinal traction devices (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I),
said taught longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) corresponding with the claimed “clamping device,”
reading on “the clamping system includes n clamping devices,”
wherein each of said longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) includes said first part (e.g. item 13) and said second part (e.g. item 15),
said first part (e.g. item 13) composed of said rod (e.g. item 17) that longitudinally extends in said space between said support plates and penetrates through said first support plate (illustrated on said LHS of said stack); said housing (e.g. item 19) at said proximal end of said rod; and, said rider (e.g. item 21) at said distal end of said rod with said width wider than said width of said notch;
said second part (e.g. item 15) composed of said rod (e.g. item 23) that longitudinally extends in said space between said support plates and penetrates through said second support plate (illustrated on said RHS of said stack); said threading at said proximal end of said rod that is attached to said assembly containing said helical compression spring (e.g. item 31), said washer (e.g. item 25), and said nut (e.g. item 27) screwed onto said threading; and, said rider (e.g. item 21) at a distal end of said rod with said width wider than said width of said notch
(e.g. supra),
said taught rod (e.g. item 17) of said first part (e.g. item 13) and said taught rod (e.g. 23) of said second part (e.g. item 15) corresponding with the claimed “column;”
reading on “each clamping device including a column configured to mechanically connect the first and the second stiffening plates,” “each column extending into a space between the first and second stiffening plates,”
said taught portion of said notches (e.g. items 3) further extending in said lateral direction, perpendicular to said longitudinal direction, such that said notch extends all the way to its respective edge reading on the claimed “first means” and newly added “room,” as claimed;
said taught rider (e.g. item 21) and a portion of said taught rod (e.g. item 17) of said first part (e.g. item 13) partially penetrating said support plate; plus, said taught rider (e.g. item 21) and a portion of said taught rod (e.g. item 23) of said second part (e.g. item 15) partially penetrating said support plate corresponding with the claimed newly added “column head,” as claimed;
said taught notches (e.g. items 11) corresponding with the claimed “room,” as claimed; and,
said nut (e.g. item 27) screwed onto said threading of said second part (e.g. item 15) corresponding with the claimed “second adjustment means,”
noting a nut has threading on an inside surface, reading on “each clamping device also includes a first means penetrating each of the first and second stiffening plates and fastening the column to the first and second stiffening plates,” and the newly added limitation “the first means include, at each of the stiffening plates, a room for a column head, configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room by lateral movement of the column; and, “each clamping device also includes … a second adjustment means for adjusting a tension applied to the column,” see also Id, at e.g. ¶¶ 0029, 32, 37-38, and 75 plus e.g. dependent claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatain (FR 2865853, published 2005), as provided supra, in view of Jilani et al (WO 2019242932, with citations to US 2021/0265649).
Regarding claim 12, Chatain teaches the clamping means/fuel cell of claim 1, wherein said longitudinal traction device (e.g. items 9) connects each of said two support plates by being inserted in said respective notch of each of said two support plates—for said total of e.g. 12 longitudinal traction devices, as provided e.g. supra, but does not expressly teach “at least one clamping device includes a strain gauge configured to provide the tension applied to the column.”
However, Jilani teaches a fuel cell stack that may have at least one sensor, such as a strain gauge, which is designed to detect a tensile force exerted by at least one tensioning element and/or spring force exerted by at least one torsion spring, wherein said sensor may detect a tensile force exerted by a specific elastic tensioning element and/or spring force exerted by a specific torsion spring, wherein said sensor, in particular a strain gauge, may be arranged on each elastic tensioning element,
said sensor allowing measurement of a change in length of said elastic tensioning element, which allows conclusions to be drawn that the elastic tensioning element needs to be retensioned or one or more torsion springs are no longer sufficiently tensioned to compensate for the loss of tensile stress (e.g. ¶¶ 0050-51).
As a result, it would have been obvious to incorporate the strain gauge of Jiliani on each of the longitudinal traction device of Chatain, since Jiliani teaches said strain gauge applied on a tensioning element allows measurement of a tensioning device to determine whether adjustments need to be made, noting a strain gauge will provide at least some tension to said longitudinal traction device in order to measure tension thereof, reading on the limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, from which claims 4-8 depend, none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed clamping system according to claim 1, with each of the claimed components, relationships, and properties, and further the newly added limitation in conjunction with the limitation of claim 3, such that the first means “penetrating each of the first and second stiffening plates and fastening the column to the first and second stiffening plates,” “include, at each of the stiffening plates, a room for a column head, configured to enable mounting of a column head in the room by lateral movement of the column,” and “include at least one first tapped element configured to be screwed into a hole of one of the stiffening plates.” For illustrative purposes, see e.g. Figures 3-5B.
Regarding claim 9, from which claims 10-11 depend, none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed clamping system according to claim 1, with each of the claimed components, relationships, and properties in conjunction with the limitation of claim 9. For illustrative purposes, see e.g. Figures 11-12B.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brechter (US 2023/0045498);
Jilani et al (US 2021/0273253);
Planque et al (US 2019/0131634);
Mattejat et al (US 2004/0043275);
Richards (US 5547777);
Schmitten et al (US 4849308); and,
Tsutsumi et al (US 4642274).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights