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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 April 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theodoropoulos et al. (US20230056393, hereinafter, Theodoropoulos).
Regarding claim 1, Theodoropoulos teaches a fuel cell stack comprising:
a set of fuel cells positioned between a pair of end plates (Theodoropoulos ¶ 25 bipolar plates stacked in series with membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs) between the bipolar plates and with all of these components being between end plates situated at opposite ends of the stack); and
a pair of insulation assemblies positioned along opposite side surfaces of the set of fuel cells and spanning a length of the set of fuel cells between the pair of end plates (Theodoropoulos Fig. 2, pair of assemblies), an insulation assembly comprising:
a cooling plate extending across the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermal-mass 2); and
an insulating layer between the cooling plate and the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermally-conductive dielectric layer 8 disposed between the thermal-mass 2 and the fuel cell stack).
Regarding claim 2, Theodoropoulos teaches a high temperature PEM fuel cell stack must be maintained between about 120 °C and 200 °C, with a preferred range being between about 155 °C and 175 °C, encompassing and overlapping the claimed temperature range of 160 °C to 200 °C (Theodoropoulos ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 4, Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate (thermal-mass) further comprising a coolant inlet (inlet 7) and coolant outlet (outlet 10) in fluid communication via an internal coolant channel (fluidic-circuit in the thermal mass 2) (Theodoropoulos ¶ 29, Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodoropoulos (US 20230056393).
Regarding claim 5, Theodoropoulos teaches that the insulating layer (dieletric layer 8) has a thermal conductivity of between 3 W/m*K and 15 W/m*K (Theodoropoulos ¶ 26) which overlaps the claimed range of between 2 and 5 W/m*K and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate and insulator, but does not teach that the cooling plate has a thickness of between 10 and 15 mm or that the insulating layer has a thickness of between 1 and 3 mm. However, the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Theodoropoulos teaches a fuel cell stack, but does not teach that the set of fuel cells has a height between 3 and 5 cm. However, the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate with a fluidic-circuit that transports a working fluid made of water and ethylene glycol (Theodoropoulos Claims 1-3). While not described as a single-phase coolant, paragraphs 48-50 of the instant disclosure recites the use of a water and ethylene glycol-based coolant and that it is a single-phase coolant at the recommended operating temperatures of above 120 °C, and the same minimum temperature is taught by Theodoropoulos Claim 4. Therefore, Theodoropoulos is expected to possess this feature as substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to behave the same, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 9, Theodoropoulos teaches a fuel cell stack comprising:
a set of fuel cells positioned between a pair of end plates (Theodoropoulos ¶ 25 bipolar plates stacked in series with membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs) between the bipolar plates and with all of these components being between end plates situated at opposite ends of the stack); and
a pair of insulation assemblies positioned along opposite side surfaces of the set of fuel cells and spanning a length of the set of fuel cells between the pair of end plates (Theodoropoulos Fig. 2, pair of assemblies), an insulation assembly comprising:
a cooling plate extending across the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermal-mass 2); and
an insulating layer between the cooling plate and the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermally-conductive dielectric layer 8 disposed between the thermal-mass 2 and the fuel cell stack).
Theodoropoulos does not teach a fuel cell stack assembly made of multiple fuel cell stacks. However, it would be obvious to add multiple fuel cell stacks adjacent to one another, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, Theodoropoulos teaches a high temperature PEM fuel cell stack must be maintained between about 120 °C and 200 °C, with a preferred range being between about 155 °C and 175 °C, encompassing and overlapping the claimed temperature range of 160 °C to 200 °C (Theodoropoulos ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 13, Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate (thermal-mass) further comprising a coolant inlet (inlet 7) and coolant outlet (outlet 10) in fluid communication via an internal coolant channel (fluidic-circuit in the thermal mass 2) (Theodoropoulos ¶ 29, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Theodoropoulos teaches that the insulating layer (dieletric layer 8) has a thermal conductivity of between 3 W/m*K and 15 W/m*K (Theodoropoulos ¶ 26) which overlaps the claimed range of between 2 and 5 W/m*K and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate and insulator, but does not teach that the cooling plate has a thickness of between 10 and 15 mm or that the insulating layer has a thickness of between 1 and 3 mm. However, the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 15, Theodoropoulos teaches a high-temperature PEM fuel cell stack (Theodoropoulos ¶ 13) comprising:
a pair of insulation assemblies positioned along opposite side surfaces of the set of PEM fuel cells and spanning a length of the set of fuel cells between the pair of end plates (Theodoropoulos Fig. 2, pair of assemblies), an insulation assembly comprising:
a cooling plate extending across the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermal-mass 2); and
an insulating layer between the cooling plate and the set of fuel cells (Theodoropoulos ¶ 27 thermally-conductive dielectric layer 8 disposed between the thermal-mass 2 and the fuel cell stack).
Theodoropoulos does not teach a high-temperature PEM fuel cell stack assembly made of multiple high-temperature PEM fuel cell stacks. However, it would be obvious to add multiple high-temperature PEM fuel cell stacks adjacent to one another, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 18, Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate (thermal-mass) further comprising a coolant inlet (inlet 7) and coolant outlet (outlet 10) in fluid communication via an internal coolant channel (fluidic-circuit in the thermal mass 2) (Theodoropoulos ¶ 29, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Theodoropoulos teaches that the insulating layer (dieletric layer 8) has a thermal conductivity of between 3 W/m*K and 15 W/m*K (Theodoropoulos ¶ 26) which overlaps the claimed range of between 2 and 5 W/m*K and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Theodoropoulos teaches a cooling plate and insulator, but does not teach that the cooling plate has a thickness of between 10 and 15 mm or that the insulating layer has a thickness of between 1 and 3 mm. However, the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, Theodoropoulos teaches a fuel cell stack, but does not teach that the set of high-temperature PEM fuel cells has a height between 3 and 5 cm. However, the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodoropoulos (US 20230056393) in view of Valencia et al. (US 20110136030, hereinafter, Valencia).
Regarding claim 7, Theodoropoulos teaches a fuel cell stack but not that the fuel cell stack comprises a pair of current collectors positioned adjacent to opposite end surfaces of the set of fuel cells, each current collector being positioned between the set of fuel cells and a respective end plate. In a related field of endeavor, Valencia teaches the plurality of cells 28 can be sandwiched between two current collector plates 32, coupled to positive and negative electrical terminals 70, and two thick insulating end-plates 34 (Valencia ¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the fuel cell stack of Theodoropoulos with the current collectors of Valencia, because it is a combination of known elements and would have had a predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodoropoulos (US 20230056393) in view of Yokoo et al. (WO 2022221510, hereinafter, Yokoo).
Regarding claim 10 and 16, Theodoropoulos teaches a high-temperature PEM fuel cell stack, but not that the high-temperature PEM fuel cell stack generates between 200 and 500 kW of power. In a related field of endeavor, Yokoo teaches a fuel cell system including two 114 kW PEM fuel cell stacks, with a total power of 228 kW (Yokoo ¶ 79) which is within the claimed range of 200 and 500 kW. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the fuel cell stack assembly of Theodoropoulos with the teaching of the fuel cell system configuration of Yokoo. One would be motivated to configure the fuel cell stacks in the fuel cell stack assembly of Theodoropoulos to provide a comparable amount of power as taught in Yokoo, and doing so would be a known technique applied to a similar device with the predictable outcome of achieving a sufficient amount of power for a semi-tractor. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodoropoulos (US 20230056393) in view of Ideler et al. (US 5695872, hereinafter, Ideler).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, Theodoropoulos teaches an insulating layer, a cooling plate, and a high-temperature PEM fuel cell stack, but not that the insulating layer is an adhesive joining the cooling plate to the set of fuel cells. In a related field of endeavor, Ideler teaches a thermally conductive, electrically insulating glued connection between a heat-producing component and a cooling element. The adhesive layer 5 is a thermally conductive layer composed of an epoxy resin with aluminum oxide powder (Ideler Description of the preferred embodiments ¶ 6), similar to the insulating layer of the instant disclosure in paragraph 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the insulating layer of Theodoropoulos with the adhesive layer 5 of Ideler to adhesively join the cooling plate to the fuel cells. One would be motivated to do so because the glued connection would provide high electric strength and high mechanical reliability (Ideler Background of the invention ¶ 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights