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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–5, in the reply filed on 07/09/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 6–12 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
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.
Claim(s) 1–5 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “the isolation device comprising a belt … configured to block fluid communication between the flow channel and at least one flow opening of a cell to be isolated from the stack” in lines 3–6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow channel”. Specifically, as claim 1 recites multiple flow channels (see “mounted in a fluid flow channel of a fuel cell comprising a stack … and a plurality of fluid flow channels in the stack” in lines 1–3), it is unclear which flow channel “the flow channel” references, particularly as claim 1 a) recites both “a fluid flow channel” (lines 1 and 2) and “a plurality of fluid flow channels” (line 3) and b) is to an isolation device not positively requiring the flow channels (see “isolation device configured to be mounted in a fluid flow channel” in lines 1 and 2).
The specification’s ¶ 014–017 appears to describe that the isolation device/belt blocks fluid communication of a given channel of the plurality of flow channels, though such appears to merely describe one embodiment (see “Preferably, in the first configuration” in ¶ 017) and, thus, is non-limiting to the number of channels the isolation device/belt must block. Thus, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require “the isolation device comprising a belt … configured to block fluid communication between at least one of the flow channels and at least one flow opening of a cell to be isolated from the stack”, consistent with ¶ 014–017 and the broader disclosure.
Claim 3 recites “an indexing member configured to provide precise positioning of the isolation device in the flow channel”. “Precise positioning” is relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term “precise” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the instant specification is devoid of a special definition for “precise,” and although figs. 4–6 depict indexing member 92 as providing “precise positioning” of the isolation device 9 in the flow channel 20 by pinning the isolation device against the stack via tongue/tab 92 (see also spec.’s ¶ 055), such is merely an embodiment and, thus, does not define “precise positioning.”
In light of figs. 4–6 and ¶ 055 alongside the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, for this Office Action claim 3 will be interpreted to require, as the indexing member achieving precise positioning, any member reasonably securing the isolation device’s positioning in the flow channel.
Additionally, claim 3’s reciting “the flow channel” is subject to the same antecedent-basis issue as in claim 1. For this Office Action claim 3 will be interpreted to require “precise positioning of the isolation device in the at least one flow channel”, as in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of guiding members configured to cooperate with an inner surface of the flow channel” (lines 2 and 3). The limitation “the flow channel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the same reason as in claim 1. For this Office Action claim 4 will be interpreted to require “a plurality of guiding members configured to cooperate with an inner surface of the at least one flow channel”, as in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the flow channel includes a section defining a plurality of corners, and … the guiding members are configured to cooperate with the corners of the flow channel” (lines 1–3). The limitation “the flow channel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the same reason as in claim 1. For this Office Action claim 5 will be interpreted to require “the at least one flow channel includes a section defining a plurality of corners, and … the guiding members are configured to cooperate with the corners of the at least one flow channel”, as in claim 1.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct at least claim 1’s deficiency and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an indexing member configured to provide precise positioning of the isolation device in the flow channel” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification—a tongue (¶ 021) or tab (¶ 055)—as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tighe (US 20050255366 A1, from 07/08/26 PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Tighe discloses (per annot. fig. 8 below) an isolation device (blocking member 304’).
The limitations defining the fuel cell reflect the isolation device’s intended use, where the device need only be capable of such use and is not imparted any differentiating structure (see MPEP 2111.02 (II)). Nonetheless, Tigue’s isolation device is configured to be mounted in a fluid flow channel of a fuel cell (see connection to fuel cell flow channels 102) comprising a stack comprising a plurality of cells aligned along a stack axis (stack 18, fig. 2) and a plurality of fluid flow channels in the stack (channels 102 below).
Tighe further discloses that the isolation device comprises tapered member 354, whose cross section is substantially rectangular (see below), where the tapered member deforms to block flow channels 102 (¶ 0046). Given the tapered member’s substantially rectangular cross section, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “belt”, absent special definition, appears to allow this rectangular, peripheral tapered member spanning the length of the channels, reasonably similar to the instant belt 90 in figs. 3 and 4.
Tighe further discloses that the isolation device is configured to block fluid communication between the flow channel and at least one flow opening of a cell to be isolated from the stack (via blocking in ¶ 0046/0047), the belt having a cross-section defined as a surface delimited by the periphery of the belt (peripheral, substantially rectangular cross section defined by tapered surface of member 354), the belt being deformable (see deformable material like rubber in ¶ 0046) between a first configuration in which the cross-section of the belt is substantially analogous to a cross-section of the at least one flow channel (note extended position in fig. 7B, where tapered member 354’s cross section appears to substantially align with and, thus, be “substantially analogous to” a given flow channel’s cross section; compare to similar instant figs. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that the belt’s cross section were not necessarily “substantially analogous” to the flow channel’s cross section in the first configuration, Tighe desires the tapered member to contact and block a progressively higher number of flow channels with increasing pressure from the blocking member (¶ 0047). The skilled artisan would recognize that configuring the (deformable) tapered member’s cross section to align with a given flow channel’s cross section when engaged/in the first configuration would necessarily yield better sealing due to the components’ uniform mating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the cross section of Tighe’s tapered member/belt to be “substantially analogous” to the flow channel’s cross section in the first configuration with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired sealing.
Further, given that the tapered member is deformable material such as rubber, such reasonably entails the ability to expand or contract the member as desired—substantially similar to the instant specification’s elastomeric or rubber belt (see spec., ¶ 0052)—which appears further corroborated by the tapered member’s progressive deformation and sealing with higher pressure from the blocking member (compare expanded/engaged state of member 354 (first configuration) in fig. 8B with disengaged/apparent shrunken state in fig. 8A). Such ability to contract would reasonably afford the ability to be deformable between the above “first configuration” and a “second configuration” in which the cross-section of the belt is smaller than the cross-section of the belt in the first configuration (i.e., because the tapered member is deformable, such ability to contract—and, thus, reasonably be able to become smaller by any degree in a length and/or width direction of the cross section—would yield a smaller cross-sectional area).
Regarding claim 2, Tighe discloses the isolation device according to claim 1, wherein the isolation device comprises a spring member configured to constrain the belt in the first configuration (biasing member 362 such as spring tensioning tapered member 354/belt against flow channels and, thus, constraining in first configuration in fig. 8B and ¶ 0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe (US 20050255366 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Gu et al. (CN 107742735 A, with mach. translation) (Gu).
Regarding claim 3, Tighe discloses the isolation device according to claim 1.
As seen in fig. 8, Tighe desires to precisely control the movement/positioning of the isolation device/belt (tapered member 354) toward and away from the flow channels, though Tighe fails to explicitly disclose an indexing member as a tab or tongue (see 112(f) interpretation above) configured to provide precise positioning of the isolation device in the at least one flow channel.
Gu teaches an analogous sealing strip 10 surrounding grooves/flow channels in a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly (figs. 1 and 2). Gu teaches ribs/tabs 11 at the edges of the sealing strip to improve sealing (¶ 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate at least one of Gu’s ribs/tabs as an “indexing member” with the reasonable expectation of improving sealing, as taught by Gu. Such would render obvious that that the “indexing member” is configured to provide precise positioning of the isolation device in the flow channel because the skilled artisan would understand that the tab would securely/precisely couple the isolation device to the channel by “locking” the isolation device’s position against the flow channel, as in Gu’s fig. 1 (and substantially similar indexing member 92 in fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe (US 20050255366 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Koboyashi et al. (US 20030087142 A1) (Koboyashi).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tighe discloses the isolation device according to claim 1.
Tighe further discloses that the at least one flow channel includes an inner surface as a section defining a plurality of corners (necessarily given hollow channel for fluid flow and given channel’s cross section appears rectangular and, thus, would include corners, as in figs. 8 and 9). Moreover, as seen in fig. 8, Tighe desires to precisely control the movement/positioning of the isolation device/belt (tapered member 354) toward and away from the flow channels, though Tighe fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of guiding members configured to cooperate with an inner surface—and, specifically, the corners—of the at least one flow channel.
Koboyashi teaches an analogous fuel-cell-sealing structure (gasket 11 of Abstract, fig. 7), where the sealing gasket includes protruding seal ribs 42 at at least two corners of flow passage 15 (fig. 7). Koboyashi teaches that the seal ribs enable producing high sealing pressure even at low clamping pressure to improve leak resistance commonly encountered when mating gaskets with the flow passages (¶ 0003, 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate seal ribs cooperating with the inside surfaces as corners of Tighe’s at least one flow channel as “guiding members” part of the sealing tapered member/isolation device with the reasonable expectation of improving conventional leak resistance, as taught by Koboyashi. Further, the seal ribs would reasonably be “guiding members” in that they further lock the sealant into/against the flow channel by appearing to mate with the corners of the channel (as seen in Koboyashi’s fig. 7).
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050069751 A1 and US 20070218340 A1 both disclose deformable members inside fuel cell flow passages, where the deformable members may expand and contract to alter fluid flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights