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 .
Applicant’s response to the Election/Restriction requirement was received on 3/19/25.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15, 17-19 in the reply filed on3/19/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Please note that when applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable produce/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/22 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted o 5/24/22 has been considered.
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 2 is 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.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation "the area" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the channel plates” in line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fitts et al. (PCT/US02/19875).
Regarding claim 1, the Fitts et al. reference discloses a bipolar separator (90) for an electrochemical reactor, the bipolar separator being formed by the superimposition of two distribution plates (84 on the opposing side of cooling plate) and two cooling plates (80), the two cooling plates being arranged between the two distribution plates, each distribution plate having an outer face and an inner face, the outer face of each distribution plate being provided with distribution channels (86) for the flow of a reactive fluid, the cooling plates defining internal conduits (92) for the circulation of a cooling fluid.
Regarding claim 2, the Fitts et al. wherein the inner face of one or each of the cooling plates opposite the distribution channels of the outer face is substantially flat (the surface of 84 touching 80).
Regarding claim 3, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein the inner face of one or each of the distribution plates is substantially planar (the surface of 84 touching 80).
Regarding claim 4, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein the internal conduits (90) are delimited between the two cooling plates (80).
Regarding claim 5, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein the cooling plate has a first face facing the adjacent distribution plate and a second face facing the other cooling plate (Fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 8, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein one or each of the cooling plates has, on its second face, cooling channels defining said internal conduits (92).
Regarding claim 9, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein the first face of one or each of the cooling plates opposite the cooling channels is substantially flat (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein each of the cooling plates has, on its second face, cooling channels, each cooling channel of one of the cooling plates being located opposite a cooling channel of the other cooling plate and forming with the cooling channel of the other cooling plate an internal conduit (Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the Fitts et al. reference discloses wherein one or each of the distribution plates and the cooling plates is made of a graphite-based material, preferably flexible graphite or carbon (multi-walled graphite and carbonaceous conductive fillers).
Regarding claim 15, the Fitts et al. reference discloses an electrochemical reactor such as a fuel cell or electrolyser, comprising a stack including alternating bipolar separators according to claim 1 and membrane electrode assemblies (Fig.10).
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Condescu et al. (WO02/23645).
Regarding claim 1, the Condescu et al. reference discloses a bipolar separator (Abstract) for an electrochemical reactor, the bipolar separator being formed by the superimposition of two distribution plates (11 and 11’) and two cooling plates (12, 12’), the two cooling plates being arranged between the two distribution plates, each distribution plate having an outer face and an inner face, the outer face of each distribution plate being provided with distribution channels (20) for the flow of a reactive fluid, the cooling plates defining internal conduits (15) for the circulation of a cooling fluid (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, the Condescu et al. wherein the inner face of one or each of the cooling plates opposite the distribution channels of the outer face is substantially flat (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein the inner face of one or each of the distribution plates is substantially planar (the surface of 11 touching 12).
Regarding claim 4, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein the internal conduits (15) are delimited between the two cooling plates (11, 11’).
Regarding claim 5, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein the cooling plate has a first face facing the adjacent distribution plate and a second face facing the other cooling plate (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein one or each of the cooling plates has, on its second face, cooling channels defining said internal conduits (92).
Regarding claim 9, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein the first face of one or each of the cooling plates opposite the cooling channels is substantially flat (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, the Condescu et al. reference discloses wherein each of the cooling plates has, on its second face, cooling channels, each cooling channel of one of the cooling plates being located opposite a cooling channel of the other cooling plate and forming with the cooling channel of the other cooling plate an internal conduit (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, the Condescu et al. reference comprising distribution ports provided through the bipolar separator for the passage of reactive fluid(s), each distribution port being associated with the distribution channels of one of the distribution plates with which said distribution port is in fluid communication, the distribution channels of one or each of the distribution plates being in fluid communication with one or each of the distribution ports via connection ports formed through the distribution plate and opening into connection conduits defined between the distribution plate and the adjacent cooling plate and opening into the distribution ports (28, 28’, 28”; Fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 15, the Fitts et al. reference discloses an electrochemical reactor such as a fuel cell or electrolyser, comprising a stack including alternating bipolar separators according to claim 1 and membrane electrode assemblies (Abstract; Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ganski et al. (US Publication 2003/0194597).
Regarding claim 1, the Ganski et al. reference discloses a bipolar separator (Abstract) for an electrochemical reactor, the bipolar separator being formed by the superimposition of two distribution plates (Fig. 9, (7b on top and 7a on the bottom) and two cooling plates (7a and 7b within component 1), the two cooling plates being arranged between the two distribution plates, each distribution plate having an outer face and an inner face, the outer face of each distribution plate being provided with distribution channels (17) for the flow of a reactive fluid, the cooling plates defining internal conduits (49) for the circulation of a cooling fluid.
Regarding claim 5, the Ganski et al. reference discloses that the cooling plate has a first face facing the adjacent distribution plate and a second face facing the other cooling plate.
Regarding claim 6, the Ganski et al. reference discloses wherein one or each of the cooling plates (7a in component 1) has on its first face at least one sealing groove (51a) for receiving a seal interposed between this cooling plate and the adjacent distribution plate.
Regarding claim 7, the Ganski et al. reference discloses wherein the inner face of the flow field (49) of the distribution plate facing the cooling plate is free of a sealing groove.
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 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.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fitts et al. (PCT/US02/19875).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the Fitts et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Fitts et al. reference discloses, “typically, the shape and dimension of the component depend upon the structure of the electrochemical cell as well as the contemplated end use of the electrochemical cell….Typical thickness is about 0.01 cm to about 0.25 cm, depending on the amount of heat to be carried. The thickness is usually much smaller than the length and width of the core. The final shape and geometry of the core will be dictated by requirements of electrochemical cell design.” For at least the range that encapsulate the wherein one or each of the distribution plates and the cooling plates has a thickness of between 0.4 and 0.6 mm, in particular a thickness of 0.5 mm. For the range outside of the claimed range, it would have been indeed obvious to one of skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, 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. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitts et al. (PCT/US02/19875) in view of DE 20302430
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the Fitts et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Fitts et al. reference discloses the cooling channel comprise a depth but does not specify the channels to comprise a depth of between 0.2-0.35 mm. However, the DE 20302430 discloses the cooling channels of structures comprise a height of 0.3mm to cause turbulence of the flowing coolant which makes the heat exchange between the coolant and the component that requires cooling very effective. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when considering a height (Applicant’s claimed depth) of the cooling channels disclosed by the Fitts et al. reference to provide a cooling channel comprising 0.3 mm height (Applicant’s claimed depth) in order to provide efficient cooling for the system.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condescu et al. (WO02/23645) in view of DE 20302430.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the Condescu et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Condescu et al. reference discloses the cooling channel comprise a depth but does not specify the channels to comprise a depth of between 0.2-0.35 mm. However, the DE 20302430 discloses the cooling channels of structures comprise a height of 0.3mm to cause turbulence of the flowing coolant which makes the heat exchange between the coolant and the component that requires cooling very effective. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when considering a height (Applicant’s claimed depth) of the cooling channels disclosed by the Condescu et al. reference to provide a cooling channel comprising 0.3 mm height (Applicant’s claimed depth) in order to provide efficient cooling for the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752