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 4/29/2024 and 9/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, Claims 1-14, without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “the plates” in lines 3, 5-6, and 17-18 to – the plurality of plates--; “dimensioned to communicate hydrogen evolved” in line 14 to – configured to communicate the hydrogen evolved- -; “the isolating layers” in lines 16-17 to - - the plurality of isolating layers--.
Claim 4: please amend “the first one of the isolating layers” in lines 2, 4, and 6 to - -the first one of the plurality of isolating layers- -; “the gaskets” in lines 3-4 and 6 to - -the three gaskets--.
Claim 5: please amend “the second one of the isolating layers” in lines 2-6 to - -the second one of the plurality of isolating layers- -; “the gaskets” in lines 3-5 to - -the three gaskets--.
Claim 6: please amend “the second one of the isolating layers” in lines 2-3 to - -the second one of the plurality of isolating layers- -; “the gaskets” in lines 2, 7-9 and 11 to - -the three gaskets--; “the isolating layers” in lines 7 and 9 to --the first one and the second one of the plurality of isolating layers--; “each electrode layer has a portion exposed to the matrix layer through the window of the corresponding one of the two others of the gaskets” to -- in each electrode assembly each electrode layer has a portion exposed to the matrix layer through the window of the corresponding one of the two others of the three gaskets --.
Claim 7: please amend “the electrode assembly” in line 4 to --the respective electrode assembly--.
Claim 9: please amend “hydrogen” in lines 2 and 4 to – the hydrogen--.
Claim 10: please amend “the isolating layer” to –the corresponding isolating layer--.
Claim 14: please amend “the plates” in line 2 to - -the plurality of plates- -; “the isolating layers” to – the plurality of isolating layers--; “dimensioned to” to – configured to--; “hydrogen” in line 5 to --the hydrogen--.
Appropriate correction is 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 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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, it is unclear if “the two plates” in lines 18-19 refer to the two of the plates at the first location or at the second location or other two plates. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-14 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the sealant of each isolating layer” in line 2, which lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 recites the second isolating layer including a sealant. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the isolating layers” in line 1 refers to the plurality of isolating layers or the first and second isolating layers recited in claim 1, thus it is unclear if each of the plurality of isolating layers has a sealant or each of the first and second isolating layers has a sealant. Therefore, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the isolating layers”, which is unclear if it refers to the plurality of isolating layers or the first and second isolating layers, thus it is unclear if each of the plurality of isolating layers comprises polytetrafluoroethylene or each of the first and second isolating layers comprises polytetrafluoroethylene. Therefore, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the sealant of the first one of the isolating layers” in line 4, which lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 recites the second isolating layer including a sealant. Therefore, the scope of claim 4 is indefinite. Claims 5-6 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “each electrode assembly includes two electrode layers and a matrix layer between the two electrode layers”, and claim 1 recites “the detection electrode assembly includes two electrode layers and a matrix layer between the two electrode layers”. It is unclear if the two electrode layers and the matrix layer of the detection electrode assembly recited in claim 6 are, respectively, the same as or different than the two electrode layers and the matrix layer recited in claim 1. Thus, the scope of claim 6 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the sealant of each isolating layer”, which lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 recites the second isolating layer including a sealant. Furthermore, it is unclear if “each isolating layer” refers to each of the plurality of isolating layers or each of the first and second isolating layers. Therefore, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite. Claim 8 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the sealant of each isolating layer”, which lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 recites the second isolating layer including a sealant. It is unclear if “each isolating layer” refers to each of the plurality of isolating layers or each of the first and second isolating layers. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 is indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 13, 1, 15-16 and 18 of U.S.12,000,794B2.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 2 when the isolating layers in instant claim 2 refer to the first and second isolating layers (see 112b rejection for claim 2 above).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 3 when the isolating layers in instant claim 3 refer to the first and second isolating layers (see 112b rejection for claim 3 above).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 6. “the one of the gaskets of the second one of the isolation layers does not include the sealant of the second one of the isolating layers” in instant claim 6 is recited in claim 6 of U.S.12,000,794B2, and claim 7 of U.S.12,000,794B2 depends on claim 6. Note that claim 1 of U.S.12,000,794B2 already recites “wherein the detection electrode assembly includes two electrode layers and a matrix layer between the two electrode layers”.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 10 when each isolating layer in instant claim 10 refers to the first and second isolating layers (see 112b rejection for claim 10 above).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S.12,000,794B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S.12,000,794B2 discloses all limitations recited in instant claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. ( US20220381726A1) teaches determining a proportion of hydrogen in a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas. Sakai et al. (JP2008300132A) teaches a fuel cell stack comprising electrode assembly 3 sandwiched between two separators 5a and 5b. Verdin et al. (US20190020044A1) teaches an electrochemical device comprising a hydrogen sensor. Koch et al. (US20030013001A1) teaches fuel cell gasket. Chow et al. (US5284718A) teaches a membrane electrode and seal assembly. LaConti (US4025412A) teaches an electrochemical gas sensor. Wang et al. (US20030057109A1) teaches hydrogen sensing device. Balliet et al. (US20040197621A1) teaches a fuel cell power plant having a fuel concentration sensor cell for detecting hydrogen concentration. Barton et al. (US20050214603A1) teaches hydrogen concentration sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795