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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,171,719) in view of Leonida (U.S. 2005/0133364), and further in view of Konink (U.S. 2022/0123329).
Regarding claim 1, Roy teaches a plate structure (see e.g. Fig. 1, plate structure 10; Col. 4, lines 65-67) comprising two outer layers and one intermediate layer (see e.g. Fig. 1, outer plate-shaped components 12 and 14 which are laminated to each other at a central contacting region, i.e. intermediate layer; Col. 5, lines 1-3, and Col. 6, lines 65-67), wherein both outer layers are provided with a pattern of etched recesses, and partitions surrounding the recesses, the etched recesses on one outer layer being offset with respect the recesses in the other outer layer (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 1A, plate-shaped components 12, 14 comprising central portions 16, 18 having openings/fluid-flow spaces 20,22 with surrounding strands, i.e. partitions, offset from each other formed by etching; Col. 5, lines 3-7 and 45-51, and Col. 7, lines 6-13), and wherein the intermediate layer comprises etched through-holes, each said through-hole connecting one said etched recess at one said outer layer with one partially overlapping etched recess at the opposite outer layer (see e.g. Fig. 1A, reduced area openings/fluid-flow spaces through plate structure 10 formed at contacting, i.e. intermediate, region between the offset and overlapping etched fluid flow spaces 20,22; Col. 5, lines 50-54, and Col. 7, lines 6-13).
Roy does not teach the plate structure being made from a single starting plate, instead teaching it comprising two laminated plate-shaped components (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 1-3, and Col. 6, lines 65-67). Roy further teaches the plate structure being used for providing support to a membrane in an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 34-40).
Leonida teaches a plate-shaped support member for supporting membranes in electrochemical cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, plate-shaped support member 20; Abstract and Paragraph 0019, lines 1-2) formed from a single piece of material with a first pattern of recesses formed on one side and a second pattern of recesses formed on the other side (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, single piece of material 22 with first pattern 24 of recesses 26 on first side 28 and second pattern 30 of recesses 34 on second side 32; Paragraph 0019 and Paragraph 0020, lines 1-3), thereby forming flow passages at overlapping portions of the respective recesses (see e.g. Paragraph 0023), the single-piece construction ensuring that alignment of recesses remains fixed and flow passages do not become blocked as may occur with two discrete sheets and further providing a stronger structure than a two-layer sheet assembly (see e.g. Paragraph 0024, lines 3-7, and Paragraph 0025, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plate structure of Roy to be made from a single starting plate instead of two laminated layers as taught by Leonida to provide a stronger structure and ensure that alignment of recesses remains fixed and flow passages do not become blocked.
Modified Roy does not teach the through-holes being at a distance from the partitions, but does teach them serving to form continuous passages for fluid communication between the opposite recesses of the assembly at the overlapping portions thereof (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, reduced area openings/fluid-flow spaces through plate structure 10 formed at overlaps between offset fluid flow spaces 20,22; Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Col. 5, lines 50-54). Leonida further teaches that the recesses on each side extend only partially through thickness of the starting plate (see e.g. Leonida Paragraph 0023, lines 1-3).
Konink teaches a flow field plate for an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Abstract and Paragraph 0002) comprising a flat body with recesses surrounded by partitions provided at opposite surfaces, the recesses of one side crossing, i.e. overlapping, the recesses of the other side (see e.g. Figs. 1-3 and Paragraph 0010), wherein through-holes are formed at overlapping points of the opposite recesses at a distance from the partitions extending from the first surface to the second surface to allow flow in the perpendicular direction of the flow field plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-3 and Paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through-holes of modified Roy to be provided at a distance from the partitions surrounding the recesses as taught by Konink as an alternate suitable through-hole configuration for providing fluid communication from recesses at one side of a plate to overlapping recesses at the opposite side. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Roy teaches the etched recesses at the outer layers being of equal size, shape and spacing, separated by the partitions of even thickness (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, identical diamond-shaped openings 20,22 with strands, i.e. partitions, of uniform widths; Col. 5, lines 5-7, and Col. 6, lines 20-23), wherein the partitions join each other at junctions between four adjacent said etched recesses (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, strands of openings 20,22 shown joining at junctions between four openings).
Regarding claim 3, modified Roy teaches the junctions of the partitions of one said outer layer being aligned with centers of the etched recesses of the opposite outer layer (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, junctions of openings 20 shown aligned with centerline of offset openings 22).
Regarding claim 4, modified Roy teaches each etched recess at one said outer layer partly overlapping four adjacent etched recesses of the opposite outer layer (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, each opening 20 of top plate-shaped component shown partly overlapping four openings 22 of bottom plate-shaped component), and the through-holes being formed where one said etched recess of one said outer layer overlaps one said etched recess of the opposite outer layer (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, reduced area openings/fluid-flow spaces through plate structure 10 formed at overlaps between offset fluid flow spaces 20,22; Col. 5, lines 50-54).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roy teaches the etched recesses including polygonal etched recesses (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, diamond-shaped openings 20, 22; Col. 5, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, Roy as modified by Konink teaches the etched through-holes having a diameter of at least 10 microns (see e.g. Konink Paragraph 0017, lines 11-12, the through holes having a size in the plane direction, i.e. diameter, of 10 to 240 micron).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Roy teaches the largest width of the etched recesses being 1 mm to 6.1 mm (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 27-29), overlapping the claimed ranges of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claims 8 and 18-19, modified Roy teaches the plate structure having a thickness of 60 µm to 3 mm (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 51-53 and 59-60, plate structure comprising two plate-shaped components each having thicknesses of 0.003 cm to 0.15 cm, resulting in a double thickness of 0.006 cm to 0.3 cm, equal to 60 µm to 3 mm), overlapping the claimed ranges of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Roy teaches the structure being made of a metal plate (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 10, modified Roy teaches the plate structure having planar outer surfaces (see e.g. Roy Col. 5, lines 1-3, plate structure comprising laminar plate-shaped components, thereby forming planar outer surfaces).
Regarding claim 20, modified Roy teaches the structure being made of corrosion resistant steel, titanium or niobium (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 47-50).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Leonida and Konink, as applied to claims 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (U.S. 2020/0203736).
Regarding claim 14, modified Roy teaches all the elements of the plate structure of claim 5 as stated above. Modified Roy does not explicitly teach the etched recesses comprising hexagonal recesses, instead only exemplifying diamond-shaped recesses (see e.g. Roy Fig. 1A, diamond-shaped openings 20, 22; Col. 5, lines 5-7). Roy does however teach that the recesses may be any shape, preferably regular polygonal shapes (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 17-21).
Hsu teaches a porous electrode structure (see e.g. Abstract) comprising two porous layers each witch holes that are partially overlapped and communicated with each other (see e.g. Figs. 3A-3C, first porous layer 310 including first holes 310h mutually staggered with second holes 320h of second porous layer 320; Paragraph 0037), wherein the holes may have polygonal shapes such as rhombuses, i.e. diamonds, and hexagons, particularly regular polygonal shapes such as regular hexagons (see e.g. Paragraph 0046, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recesses of modified Roy to have the shape of regular hexagons as taught by Hsu as an alternate suitable regular polygonal shape for use in a porous electrode structure with layers having partially overlapping recesses. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 16, modified Roy teaches all the elements of the plate structure of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Roy does not explicitly teach the largest width of the etched recesses being at most 100 microns. Roy does however teach that any shape recesses may be used, the size of which being governed by considerations such as lateral and axial fluid pressure drop and minimum strength to adequately support internal cell components (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 17-27).
Hsu teaches a porous electrode structure (see e.g. Abstract) comprising two porous layers each with holes that are partially overlapped and communicated with each other (see e.g. Figs. 3A-3C, first porous layer 310 including first holes 310h mutually staggered with second holes 320h of second porous layer 320; Paragraph 0037), wherein the holes may have a diameter, i.e. width, of 100µm to 1.0 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 3-5), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recesses of modified Roy to have widths of 100 µm to 1.0 mm as taught by Hsu as suitable dimensions for recesses of a porous electrode structure with layers having partially overlapping and communicating recesses. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Leonida and Konink, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Niemzig (DE 102005002174 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 17, modified Roy teaches all the elements of the plate structure of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Roy does not explicitly teach the largest width of the etched recesses being at least 10 microns. Roy does however teach that any shape recesses may be used, the size of which being governed by considerations such as lateral and axial fluid pressure drop and minimum strength to adequately support internal cell components (see e.g. Roy Col. 6, lines 17-27).
Niemzig teaches a fluid distribution layer for an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001-0002) comprising channels with dimensions adapted for the intended use, fluid to be transported, overall dimensions, manufacturing process and/or required degree of uniformity (see e.g. Paragraph 0027 and Paragraph 0029, lines 1-2), wherein the channels may have widths of 0.01 to 0.1 mm, equal to 10 microns to 100 microns (see e.g. Paragraph 0029, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recesses of modified Roy to have widths of 10 microns to 100 microns as taught by Niemzig as suitable dimensions for channels in a fluid distribution layer for an electrochemical cell which may be adapted for the intended use, fluid to be transported, overall dimensions, manufacturing process and/or required degree of uniformity. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 over Leonida, or under 35 USC 103 over Roy in view of Leonida, particularly regarding the through-holes being at a distance from the partitions, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roy, Leonida and Konink.
On pages 5-7, Applicant argues that Leonida fails to disclose a structure with an intermediate layer. This is not considered persuasive. Leonida teaches that the opposite recesses may generally extend only partway through the thickness of the plate, with an example of the opposite recesses meeting at an internal region partway through the plate (see e.g. Leonida Paragraph 0019, lines 2-4, Paragraph 0020, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0023, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0029, lines 7-9). As the claimed "layers" are made from a single starting plate, this internal interface region meets the requirements of the claimed "intermediate layer" in the claim as previously written, as there were no further physical specifications other than it comprising the through-holes, which the central interface region of the plate of Leonida does (see e.g. Leonida Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0010 and Paragraph 0023, lines 7-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Van can be reached at (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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795