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 Interpretation
The language in claim 18 “second reaction surface of the second separator” is interpreted as the second reaction surface of the total two reaction surfaces, one being on a side of each one of the two separators.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20170018786 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210135253 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Heo teaches a separator for a fuel cell comprising:
a reaction surface formed on a first side of the separator (reaction surface 122, [0031]);
a cooling surface formed on a second side of the separator (cooling surface 124, [0031]);
a reaction region formed in a central region of the separator (the reaction surface is portion in which a fuel cell reaction occurs, [0010]); and
a plurality of manifolds formed around the reaction region (manifold portions 110, [0030]),
wherein one of the plurality of manifolds is a reaction gas inlet manifold formed on a first side of the reaction region (hydrogen manifolds 112, [0030]), and through which a reaction gas (hydrogen gas, a reactant gas, [0030]) is introduced; and
a plurality of reaction gas inlet holes formed between the reaction gas inlet manifold and the reaction region (plurality of gas apertures 126 arranged between the hydrogen manifold and reaction surface, [0032] and [0038]) such that the reaction gas flowing from the reaction gas inlet manifold through the cooling surface passes through the reaction surface and then flows into the reaction region (the hydrogen or air introduced from cooling surfaces of the separator moves to the reaction surfaces through gas apertures, [0010]).
Heo does not teach an inlet flow field plate disposed on the reaction surface configured to prevent deformation of the separator while forming a flow field through which the reaction gas flows between the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes and the reaction region.
However, Yoo teaches a unit cell for a fuel cell wherein the separator comprises an inlet flow field plate that is integral with the reaction surface (forming part 320 and mounting part 330, [0064], see figure 2) configured to prevent deformation of the separator while forming a flow field through which the reaction gas flows (paragraph [0064], last sentence) between the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes and the reaction region (the flow path must be located in a distance between the inlet holes or apertures and the reaction surface or region, [0064] and [0065]). Yoo teaches that this structure enables the formation of a stable flow path while preventing the separator from being deformed ([0064]).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It appears that the present invention introduces a separate part, the inlet flow field plate, to serve as the mounting part and forming part of the prior art separator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the separator of Heo by using the inlet flow field plate disposed on the reaction surface to prevent deformation of the separator while securing the flow path, as taught by Yoo.
Regarding Claim 10, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of manifolds formed on the second side of the reaction region is a reaction gas discharge manifold through which the reaction gas in discharged (plurality of separator discharge manifold through holes 310b, see [0048] and [0052]-[0055] of Yoo);
wherein a plurality of reaction gas discharge holes are formed between the reaction gas discharge manifold and the reaction region (see [0055] of Yoo, which clearly describes outlet flow parts and, more critically, paragraph [0057] of Yoo, which states that the structures of the inlet flow path may be applied to the area corresponding to the outlet flow path), and
wherein an outlet flow field plate is positioned on the reaction surface (forming part 320 and mounting part 330, [0064], see figure 2, corresponding to 310b discharge manifold), preventing deformation and forming a flow field ([0064] and [0055], respectively, of Yoo).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It appears that the present invention introduces a separate part, the inlet flow field plate, to serve as the mounting part and forming part of the prior art separator.
It is deemed that the reaction gas discharged from the reaction region through the reaction surface passes through the cooling surface and then is discharged to the reaction gas discharge manifold is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed separator. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, since the gas discharge structure mirrors the gas inflow structure, the gas outflow holes should enable the reacted gas to pass through the cooling surface before being discharged to the discharge manifold. The inflow through holes are also connected to the cooling surface. Additionally, paragraphs [0009] and [0010] of Heo teach that the apertures give access to the other side.
Regarding Claim 12, Heo modified by Yoo teaches a unit cell for a fuel cell, comprising:
a membrane electrode assembly (insert 100 comprising a Membrane-Electrode Assembly, see Claim 1 of Yoo),
a sub-gasket surrounding and supporting the membrane electrode assembly along an edge of the membrane electrode assembly (elastomer frame 200, see Figure 1 of Yoo, and [0035] of Yoo),
a first separator having (top separator of Figure 1 of Yoo, which is separator 300a, or one of the pair of separators from Claim 1 of Yoo):
a first reaction surface facing the membrane electrode assembly on a first side of the first separator (bottom surface of separator 300a, see Figure 1 of Yoo, and [0035] also defines the side of the reactant surface being where the insert is located),
a first cooling surface on the second side of the first separator (top side of separator 300a of Yoo, and [0010] and [0011] of Heo and Figure 2 of Heo teach the opposite side of a separator’s reaction surface is the cooling surface),
a first reaction region facing the membrane electrode assembly in a central region of the first separator (the region is the portion of the bottom side of separator 300a of Figure 1 of Yoo which overlaps in range with the insert comprising the MEA), and
a plurality of first manifolds formed on both sides of the first reaction rection (separator inflow manifold through hole 310a and separator discharge manifold through hole 310b, see Figure 1 of Yoo, and [0052]-[0054] of Yoo), and
a second separator (separator 300b, the bottom separator of figure 1 of Yoo):
a second reaction surface facing the first side of the first separator (the top side of separator 300b, which faces the bottom side of separator 300a) with the membrane electrode assembly positioned in between (the insert comprising the MEA is positioned between the two reaction surfaces, see [0035] and Figure 1 of Yoo) and facing the membrane electrode assembly on a first side of the second separator (see Figure 1 of Yoo),
a second cooling surface formed on a second side of the second separator (bottom side of separator 300b in Figure 1 of Yoo, and [0010] and [0011] of Heo and Figure 2 of Heo teach the opposite side of a separator’s reaction surface is the cooling surface),
a second reaction region facing the membrane electrode assembly formed in a central region of the second separator (the region is the portion of the top side of separator 300b of Figure 1 of Yoo which overlaps in range with the insert comprising the MEA), and
a plurality of second manifolds communicating with the plurality of first manifolds formed on both sides of the second reaction region (see Figure 1 of Yoo, the separator 300b has the same structure of 300a, and the plurality of second manifolds communicating with the plurality of first manifolds formed on both sides of the second reaction region are clearly depicted in Figure 1, and [0052]-[0054] of Yoo),
wherein one of the plurality of first manifolds formed on a first side of the first reaction region in the first separator is a first reaction gas inlet manifold through which a first reaction gas in introduced (one of the manifolds 310a introduces a reactant gas, whether it be oxygen or hydrogen gas depends on which side of the MEA it corresponds to, see [0005] of Yoo and [0030] of Heo),
a plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes formed between the first reaction gas inlet manifold and the first reaction region (plurality of gas apertures 126 arranged between the hydrogen manifold and reaction surface, [0032] and [0038] of Heo) such that the first reaction gas flowing from the first reaction gas inlet manifold through the first cooling surface passes through the first reaction surface and then flows into the first reaction region (the hydrogen introduced from cooling surfaces of the separator moves to the reaction surfaces through gas apertures, [0010]), and
a first inlet flow field plate (forming part 320 and mounting part 330, Yoo paragraph [0064], see figure 2 of Yoo) positioned on the first reaction surface and configured to prevent deformation (Yoo paragraph [0064], last sentence) of the first separator while forming a flow field through which the first reaction gas flows between the plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes and the first reaction region (the flow path must be located in a distance between the inlet holes or apertures and the reaction surface or region, Yoo paragraphs [0064] and [0065]).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It appears that the present invention introduces a separate part, the inlet flow field plate, to serve as the mounting part and forming part of the prior art separator.
Regarding Claim 19, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the unit cell of claim 12, wherein one of the second manifolds formed on one side/end of the second reaction region in the second separator is a second reaction gas inlet manifold through which a second reaction gas is introduced (the second manifold 310a of separator 300b of Yoo Figure 1 introduces a second reactant gas, whether it be oxygen or hydrogen gas depends on which side of the MEA it corresponds to, see [0005] of Yoo and [0030] of Heo), and a plurality of second reaction gas inlet holes are formed between the second reaction gas inlet manifold and the second reaction region (plurality of gas apertures 226 arranged between the air manifold and reaction surface, [0032] and [0049] of Heo) such that the second reaction gas flowing from the second reaction gas inlet manifold through the second cooling surface passes through the second reaction surface and then flows into the second reaction region (the air introduced from cooling surfaces of the separator moves to the reaction surfaces through gas apertures, [0010], see Heo figure 2B), and a second inlet flow field plate (forming part 320 and mounting part 330, Yoo paragraph [0064], see figure 2 of Yoo) is positioned on the second reaction surface to prevent deformation (Yoo paragraph [0064], last sentence) of the second separator while forming a flow field through which the second reaction gas flows between the plurality of second reaction gas inlet holes and the second reaction region (the flow path must be located in a distance between the inlet holes or apertures and the reaction surface or region, Yoo paragraphs [0064] and [0065]).
Claims 2-9, 11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20170018786 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210135253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (KR 101846633 B1; the inventor's Korean name, 허성일, has been translated to English for readability, and the machine translated description is used for the rejection).
Regarding Claim 2, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes is formed in a line at a predetermined distance apart from each other along a width direction of the separator (figure 2 of Heo clearly depicts the plurality of gas apertures arranged in a line at a predetermined distance apart from each other along a width direction; [0032]) and a gasket line is formed on the reaction surface around the plurality of manifolds to form an airtight line along an edge of the manifold (Heo paragraphs [0033]-[0040] describe the gasket; Heo figure 2 depicts the gasket 130 formed on reaction surface around the plurality of manifolds).
Heo modified by Yoo does not teach wherein the gasket line is not formed between adjacent reaction gas inlet holes of the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes.
However, Huh teaches a fuel cell stack having a gasket structure capable of suppressing burr generation ([0001])—reducing defective rate and improving fuel cell performance by improving flow uniformity ([0027] and [0028])—wherein the plurality of gas inlets are formed at regular intervals in a width direction (see figure 2 and [0022]), and wherein the gasket line is not formed between adjacent gas inlets of the plurality of gas inlets (see figure 2 and 3, the separator clearly lacks gasket lines between the gas inlets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the gasket line of Heo modified by Yoo to be specifically not formed between adjacent reaction gas inlet holes of the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes to suppress burr generation and improve fuel cell performance as taught by Huh.
Regarding Claim 3, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 2, wherein the inlet flow field plate is divided into a support supported on the reaction surface (forming part 320, see [0060] and [0061] of Yoo) and a plurality of protrusions protruding from the support (mounting part 330, see [0060] and [0061] of Yoo), and a flow field through which the reaction gas flows is formed between adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions (flow path part 220 between protrusions 230, see figures 3 and 4 of Yoo).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It appears that the present invention introduces a separate part, the inlet flow field plate, to serve as the mounting part and forming part of the prior art separator.
Regarding Claim 4, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions of the inlet flow field plate has a line shape (see figures 2 and 3 of Yoo).
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 3, wherein a height of each of the plurality of the protrusions corresponds to a height of the gasket line (see [0043] of Huh).
Additionally, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 6, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is positioned at a space between a space between each of the adjacent reaction gas inlet holes (see figure 3B of Yoo).
Regarding Claim 7, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 2, wherein an inlet forming part (first gasket line 10a, [0034] and [0039] of Huh) protrudes in a direction of the reaction surface between the reaction gas inlet manifold and the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes (see figure 2 of Huh).
Regarding Claim 8, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 7, wherein the inlet forming part extends from a point in contact with the reaction gas inlet manifold to a point in contact with the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes (see first gasket line 10a and figure 2 of Huh).
Regarding Claim 9, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the separator of claim 7, wherein the gasket line is not formed between the reaction gas inlet manifold and the plurality of reaction holes (Yoo does not teach the gasket line formed between the separator inflow manifold through-hole 310a and the plurality of flow path holes 321).
Regarding Claim 11, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the separator of claim 10.
Heo modified by Yoo does not teach wherein an outlet forming part protrudes in a direction of the reaction surface between the reaction gas discharge manifold and the plurality of reaction gas discharge holes.
However, Huh teaches an outlet forming part protrudes in a direction of the reaction surface between the reaction gas discharge manifold and the plurality of reaction gas discharge holes (mirror structure of first gasket line 10a, [0034] and [0039] of Huh, and figure 2 of Huh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the separator of Heo modified by Yoo to have an outlet forming part to improve fuel cell performance as taught by Huh.
Regarding Claim 13, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the unit cell of claim 12, wherein the plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes formed in the first separator are formed in a line at a predetermined distance apart along a width direction of the first separator (figure 2A of Heo clearly depicts the plurality of gas apertures 126 arranged in a line at a predetermined distance apart from each other along a width direction; [0032]), perpendicular to a direction in which the first reaction gas flows (see figure 2A Heo, hydrogen flows perpendicularly, toward the reaction surface), and a first reaction surface gasket line is formed around the plurality of manifolds to form an airtight line along an edge of the manifold (Heo paragraphs [0033]-[0040] describe the gasket; Heo figure 2A depicts the gasket 130 formed on reaction surface around the plurality of manifolds).
Heo modified by Yoo does not teach the first reaction surface gasket line is not formed between the adjacent first reaction gas inlet holes.
However, Huh teaches a fuel cell stack having a gasket structure capable of suppressing burr generation ([0001])—reducing defective rate and improving fuel cell performance by improving flow uniformity ([0027] and [0028])—wherein the plurality of gas inlets are formed at regular intervals in a width direction (see figure 2 and [0022]), and wherein the gasket line is not formed between adjacent gas inlets of the plurality of gas inlets (see figure 2 and 3, the separator clearly lacks gasket lines between the gas inlets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the gasket line of the unit cell of Heo modified by Yoo to be specifically not formed between adjacent reaction gas inlet holes of the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes to suppress burr generation and improve fuel cell performance as taught by Huh.
Regarding Claim 14, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the unit cell of claim 13, wherein the first inlet flow field plate is divided into a support supported on the first reaction surface (forming part 320, see [0060] and [0061] of Yoo) and a plurality of protrusions protruding from the support (mounting part 330, see [0060] and [0061] of Yoo), and a flow field through which the first reaction gas flows is formed between the adjacent protrusions (flow path part 220 between protrusions 230, see figures 3 and 4 of Yoo).
Regarding Claim 15, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the unit cell of claim 13, wherein a first inlet forming part protrudes in a first reaction surface direction between the first reaction gas inlet manifold and a plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes (see Heo Figure 2A, airtight lines 134).
Regarding Claim 16, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the unit cell of claim 15, wherein the first inlet forming part extends from a point in contact with the first reaction gas inlet manifold to a point in contact with the plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes (see Heo Figure 2A, which clearly depicts the airtight line 134 extending from a point in contact with the gas manifold and the aperture).
Regarding Claim 17, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the unit cell of claim 15, wherein the first reaction surface gasket line is not formed between the first reaction gas inlet manifold and the plurality of first reaction gas inlet holes (see Huh, Figures 2 and 3, where the separator reaction surface clearly lacks gasket lines between the gas inlets).
Regarding Claim 18, Heo modified by Yoo and Huh teaches the unit cell of claim 15, wherein a second reaction surface gasket line forming an airtight line along an edge of a second manifold (the structure of the first separator is the same as the second; therefore, the second reaction surface on the second separator should also have the gasket line forming an airtight line along the edge of its manifold) communicating with the first reaction gas manifold of the first separator is formed on the second reaction surface of the second separator (see figure 1 of Yoo, which clearly depicts this relationship, the two reaction surfaces face each other and the gas manifolds of each reaction surface communicate through the elastomer frame).
As to the limitation “an uneven part corresponding to a bent shape of at least one end of the first inlet forming part formed on the first separator is formed in the second reaction surface gasket line,” the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The unavoidable space being filled in with the gasket line does not appear to produce any unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the gasket line which would fill in the auxiliary space as an engineering design choice.
Regarding Claim 20, Heo modified by Yoo teaches the unit cell of claim 19, wherein the plurality of second reaction gas inlet holes formed in the second separator is formed in a line at a predetermined distance apart along a width direction of the second separator (Figure 2B of Heo clearly depicts the plurality of gas apertures 226 arranged in a line at a predetermined distance apart from each other along a width direction; [0032]) perpendicular to a direction in which the second reaction gas flows (see figure 2B of Heo, where the air flows perpendicularly, toward the reaction surface), and a second reaction surface gasket line is formed around the plurality of second reaction gas inlet manifolds to form an airtight line along an edge of the second reaction gas inlet manifold (Heo paragraphs [0033]-[0040] describe the gasket; Heo figure 2B depicts the gasket 230 formed on reaction surface around the plurality of manifolds).
Heo modified by Yoo does not teach that the second reaction surface gasket line is not formed between the adjacent second reaction gas inlet holes.
However, Huh teaches a fuel cell stack having a gasket structure capable of suppressing burr generation ([0001])—reducing defective rate and improving fuel cell performance by improving flow uniformity ([0027] and [0028])—wherein the gasket line is not formed between adjacent gas inlets of the plurality of gas inlets (see figure 2 and 3, the separator clearly lacks gasket lines between the gas inlets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the gasket line of the second reaction surface of Heo modified by Yoo to be specifically not formed between adjacent second reaction gas inlet holes of the plurality of reaction gas inlet holes to suppress burr generation and improve fuel cell performance as taught by Huh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights