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 .
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 1-12 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 1, the phrase "in particular " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the water channels." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that water channel is first mentioned in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0253499 of Sato et al.
As to claim 1, Sato teaches of an electrolytic device, the device comprising:
a multitude of electrolysis cells which are arranged in a stacked configuration and are connected in series with at least one channel for the feed of a reactant and/or a coolant, said channel running perpendicularly to the electrolysis cells (Sato, [0031] – [0034], [0050] – [0060] and Figs. 2-6); and
a feed conduit, wherein the channel connects to the feed conduit which feeds the reactant and/or the coolant (Sato, [0043] – [0045] and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
648
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As seen in Sato, there are cell stacks connected in parallel such that reactant/coolant channels run perpendicular to the electrolysis cells. There is also a feed conduit to feed the reactants or coolant.
As to claim 2, Sato teaches the multitude of electrolysis cells are configured to comprise at least two cell stacks which are electrically connected in series, said cell stacks being of the electrolysis cells which are arranged in a stacked configuration and are electrically connected in the stack in series (Sato, [0031] – [0034], [0046] – [0047] and [0050] – [0060] and Figs. 2-6), and
each cell stack comprises at least one channel which passes through the stack, for the feed of the reactant and/or the coolant, wherein each of the channels is connected by a respective channel connection to the feed conduit at only one side of the respective cell stack, and the channel connections of the two cell stacks (Sato, [0031] – [0034], [0046] – [0047] and [0050] – [0060] and Figs. 2-6),
said cell stacks being electrically connected in series, are arranged at the side at which the cell stacks are electrically connected to one another (Sato, [0031] – [0034], [0046] – [0047] and [0050] – [0060] and Figs. 2-6).
As to claim 3, Sato teaches the cell stacks, which are connected in series, are arranged next to one another such that the cell stacks are electrically connected to one another at a same side (Sato, [0046] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Sato teaches that the channel connections are arranged at a same side of the cells connected in series (Sato, [0044] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Sato teaches the cells stacks further comprise discharge channels and that all channels are connected at one side of the stack (Sato, [0044] and Fig. 1 and 3 and 5).
As to claim 6, Sato teaches each cell stack is clamped between two end plates which are arranged in an electrically insulated configuration with respect to the cells (Sato, [0031] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Sato teaches a water channel of each stack are fed by a common conduit (Sato, [0044], [0049] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Sato teaches each cell stack includes a channel feed and two discharge channels which are conduit connected and coupled to an end plate (Sato, [0044] – [0050] and Figs. 1 and 5).
As to claim 12, Sato teaches the electrolysis cells are polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) cells (Sato, [0014] and [0035]).
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,653,008 of Hirakata et al.
As to claim 1, Hirakata teaches of an electrolytic device, the device comprising:
a multitude of electrolysis cells which are arranged in a stacked configuration and are connected in series with at least one channel for the feed of a reactant and/or a coolant, said channel running perpendicularly to the electrolysis cells (Hirakata, col 10 line 26 thru col 11 line 24, col 12 line 37-62 and Figs. 1 and 2); and
a feed conduit, wherein the channel connects to the feed conduit which feeds the reactant and/or the coolant (Hirakata, col 14 lines 49-63 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 2, Hirakata teaches the multitude of electrolysis cells are configured to comprise at least two cell stacks which are electrically connected in series, said cell stacks being of the electrolysis cells which are arranged in a stacked configuration and are electrically connected in the stack in series (Hirakata, col 13 lines 17-62, col 14 lines 29-46 and Figs. 3 and 4), and
each cell stack comprises at least one channel which passes through the stack, for the feed of the reactant and/or the coolant, wherein each of the channels is connected by a respective channel connection to the feed conduit at only one side of the respective cell stack, and the channel connections of the two cell stacks (Hirakata, col 13 lines 17-62, col 14 lines 29-63 and Fig. 5),
said cell stacks being electrically connected in series, are arranged at the side at which the cell stacks are electrically connected to one another (Hirakata, col 13 lines 17-62, col 14 lines 29-46 and Figs. 3 and 4).
As to claim 11, Hirakata teaches that the two cell stacks which are connected in series are clamped together between two end plates such that between the stacks there is a connection plate for feeding a reactant (to a channel of each stack) (Hirakata, col 16 line 48 thru col 17 line 6 and Fig. 8).
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102019103555 of Achtert (machine translation provided).
As to claims Sato teaches to the system of claim 2.
Sato does not teach a common end plate for the two cell stacks.
Achtert teaches of fuel cell arrangements which is the same endeavor of Sato (Achtert, [0001]).
Achtert additionally teaches that the system includes two cell stacks that are connected in series and share a common end plate, such that a channel of the cell stack are fed via the common end plate which allows for a bundled configuration which allows for a reduced complexity to the system (Arhtert, [0041] – [0043] and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato as per Achtert so as to utilize the desired common end plate configuration in order to reduce the complexity of the system at hand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
