Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 17/831,737 filed on June 3, 202. The application is a 111(a) with priority to Korean application KR10-2022-0023241 filed February 22, 2022.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §102 rejections based on Poirot-Crouvezier and on Ricketts are maintained.
The §102 rejections based on Miller are withdrawn. In their place, new §103 grounds are presented based on Miller in view of Poirot-Crouvezier.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 at lines 8-9 recites:
“... contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed at least any one of the plurality of first channels the second separator”
The claim wording is ungrammatical because it does not include preposition words that are needed to describe the relative positioning of the contact patterns, the first channels, and the second separator. Since the application’s other claims contain similar recitations that include appropriate prepositions, we believe Applicant’s intention is best reflected by interpreting claim 19 as though it included the same prepositions that other claims include. For the purpose of this Office Action, the passage in question is interpreted as though it reads:
“... contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed on at least any one of the plurality of first channels contacting the second separator”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0279131 A1 to Poirot-Crouvezier (hereinafter “Poirot-Crouvezier”).
Regarding claim 1, Poirot-Crouvezier teaches an electrochemical device (para [0007], “an electrochemical cell”) comprising a first separator and a second separator (para [0007], “a bipolar plate of an electrochemical cell, including a first conductive sheet and a second conductive sheet”);
the first separator comprising a first channel and a first land disposed in a first direction (figures 2-6, first separator 10 comprises a plurality of first channels Ca1, Ca2, Ca3 etc, and a plurality of first lands Na1, Na2, Na3 etc disposed between adjacent channels; para [0042]-[0043]);
the second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction (figures 2-6, second separator 20 comprises a plurality of second channels Cc1, Cc2, Cc3 etc, and a plurality of second lands Nc1, Nc2, Nc3 etc disposed between adjacent channels), the second separator being stacked on the first separator (second separator 20 is stacked on first separator 10 as shown in figures 2-6); and
contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel contacting the second separator (para [0058]-[0070], figures 2-6, “reinforcement portions” Ra1, Ra2, Ra3 etc are formed on the first channels so as to place the first channels in contact with lands of the second separator)
wherein the contact patterns, protruding from a bottom surface of the first channel, are in contact with a rear surface of the second land that faces the first separator (figure 2, contact pattern Ra1 protrudes from a bottom surface of first channel Ca1 to contact the rear surface of second land Nc2, said rear surface being the surface of second separator 20 that faces first separator 10).
Regarding claim 3, Poirot-Crouvezier teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein the contact patterns are integrated with the first separator (figure 2, the contact pattern Ra1 is a protrusion integrally formed in separator 10).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0263950 A1 to Ricketts et al (hereinafter “Ricketts”).
Regarding claims 14-18, Ricketts teaches an electrochemical device (para [0004], “fuel cell”) comprising:
a first separator comprising a first channel and a first land disposed in a first direction (figure 7, first separator 706 has channels where oxidant flows (“OX”) and lands where the separator 706 contacts the MEA beneath it; see Examiner’s annotation of Ricketts figure 10, below);
a second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction, the second separator being stacked on the first separator (figure 10, second separator 708 stacked on first separator 706), has channels where fuel gas flows (“Gas”) and lands where the second separator contacts the MEA above it; see Examiner’s annotation of Ricketts figure 10, below); and
contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel contacting the second separator (see inset of Examiner’s annotation),
wherein the contact patterns, protruding from a bottom surface of the first channel, are in contact with a rear surface of the second land facing the first separator (as seen in Examiner’s annotation below, contact patterns protrude from the first channel, and they contact the rear surface of the second land at the land contact portion), and wherein each of the contact patterns comprises:
a contact portion spaced apart from the first separator and in contact with the second separator (“Contact portion” in Examiner’s annotation); and
a connection portion connecting the contact portion and the first separator (“Connection portion” in Examiner’s annotation),
wherein the connection portion is in contact with the second separator (“Connection portion” of the first separator contacts “land connection portion” of the second separator; see Examiner’s annotation);
wherein the connection portion is in surface contact with the second separator (the surface of the “connection portion” of the first separator contacts the surface of the “land connection portion” of the second separator; see Examiner’s annotation);
wherein the second land comprises: a land contact portion spaced apart from the second separator (“land contact portion” indicated in Examiner’s annotation); and
a land connection portion connecting the land contact portion and the second separator (“land connection portion” as indicated in Examiner’s annotation);
wherein a boundary edge between the contact portion and the connection portion has a first radius (see “boundary edge 1” in Examiner’s annotation of Ricketts figure 10), a boundary edge between the land contact portion and the land connection portion has a second radius smaller than the first radius (the boundary labeled as “boundary edge 2” in Examiner’s annotation has a smaller radius of curvature than “boundary edge 1”), a boundary edge between the connection portion and the first separator has a third radius, and a boundary edge between the land connection portion and the second separator has a fourth radius larger than the third radius (as seen in in Examiner’s annotation of Reicketts figure 10, the radius of “boundary edge 4” is larger than the radius of “boundary edge 3”).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ricketts figure 10, with Examiner’s annotation
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, 3-5, 9-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0015505 A1 to Miller et al (hereinafter “Miller”) in view of Poirot-Crouvezier.
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches an electrochemical device (para [0007]-[0010], “a fuel cell”) comprising a first separator and a second separator (figure 2, para [0022], a bipolar plate assembly 24 comprises a pair of separating plates 26, 28);
the first separator comprising a first channel and a first land disposed in a first direction (para [0022], figure 2, separator 26 comprises a plurality of first channels 36 and first lands 38 disposed between the channels);
the second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction ((para [0022], figure 3, second separator 28 comprises a plurality of second channels 36, and lands in between them; figure 1 and para [0024], the second channels and lands are disposed in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the first channels and lands), the second separator being stacked on the first separator ((figure 1-3, first separator 26 and second separator 28 are stacked on one another); and
contact patterns (para [0023], “a plurality of protuberances 40”) provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel so as to be in contact with the second separator (figure 2, 4, 6-7, the protuberances 40 are disposed on the first channels 36; para [0025]-[0026], the protuberances 40 of the first separator are in contact with the back surface of the second separator).
wherein the contact patterns, protruding from a bottom surface of the first channel, are in contact with a rear surface of the second separator that faces the first separator (figure 2, 4, 6-7, the protuberances 40 protrude from a bottom surface of the first channels 36; para [0025]-[0026], the protuberances 40 of the first separator are in contact with the back surfaces of the lands of the second separator).
Miller teaches that the function of the contact patterns is to provide a mechanical interlocking effect that prevents components of the electrochemical cell stack from shifting laterally (para [0005]-[0006], [0025]-[0027]). While Miller’s figures illustrate the flow channels as being linear in shape, Miller also discloses that the flow channels may also be undulated or serpentine in shape (para [0022]).
However, Miller does not teach that the point of contact, where the contact patterns of the first separator make contact to the rear surface of the second separator, is on the second land.
Poirot-Crouvezier, similarly directed to an electrochemical device comprising a first separator and a second separator (para [0007], “a bipolar plate of an electrochemical cell, including a first conductive sheet and a second conductive sheet”), teaches a first separator comprising a first channel and a first land disposed in a first direction (figures 2-6, first separator 10 comprises a plurality of first channels Ca1, Ca2, Ca3 etc with undulated shapes, and a plurality of first lands Na1, Na2, Na3 etc disposed between adjacent channels; para [0042]-[0043]);
the second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction (figures 2-6, second separator 20 comprises a plurality of second channels Cc1, Cc2, Cc3 etc, and a plurality of second lands Nc1, Nc2, Nc3 etc disposed between adjacent channels), the second separator being stacked on the first separator (second separator 20 is stacked on first separator 10 as shown in figures 2-6); and
contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel contacting the second separator (para [0058]-[0070], figures 2-6, “reinforcement portions” Ra1, Ra2, Ra3 etc are formed on the first channels so as to place the first channels in contact with lands of the second separator)
wherein the contact patterns, protruding from a bottom surface of the first channel, are in contact with a rear surface of the second land that faces the first separator (figure 2, contact pattern Ra1 protrudes from a bottom surface of first channel Ca1 to contact the rear surface of second land Nc2, said rear surface being the surface of second separator 20 that faces first separator 10).
Like Miller, Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that the first and second separators have the function of mechanically clamping the electrochemical stack components in place (para [0006]). Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that their arrangement of contact patterns, whereby the patterns protrude from the first channels to contact to the rear surfaces of the second lands, results in a separator assembly which is mechanically reinforced and which better performs its function of mechanically clamping stack components into place (para [0054]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by arranging the contact patterns in such a way that contact patterns protruding from the first channels make contact to the rear surfaces of the second lands, as taught in Poirot-Crouvezier, because Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier are both directed to structuring the first and second separators with contact patterns in a way that improves the transmission of mechanical forces therethrough for the purpose of securing the electrochemical stack components in position, and Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that their arrangement (in which the contact patterns make contact at the lands) reinforces the separators and results in improved transmission of mechanical forces therethrough (para [0054]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 1 obvious and Miller teaches wherein the contact patterns are integrated with the first separator (figure 2 and 4, the contact patterns 40 are protuberances integrally formed in separator 30).
Regarding claim 4, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 1 obvious, and Miller teaches wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (para [0024], “the flow channels 36 formed on the first surface 30 of the plate 26 are substantially perpendicular to the flow channels 36 formed on the first surface 30 of the plate 28”).
Regarding claim 5, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 1 obvious, and Miller teaches wherein the contact patterns have a continuous straight shape in the second direction (figure 4, each contact pattern has a continuous straight shape in both the first and second direction, see examiner’s annotation of Miller figure 4 below; figure 3, cross section along the second direction shows that the contact patterns 40 have a continuous straight shape in the second direction).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st direction)][AltContent: textbox (2nd direction)]Figure 4 of Miller, with Examiner’s annotation indicating 1st and 2nd directions
Regarding claim 9, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 1 obvious.
In one embodiment of Miller, the contact patterns have a base length in the first direction of L = 1.930 mm (figure 4, para [0023]), and a contact width of the contact patterns in contact with the second separator in the first direction of F = 1.150 mm (figure 4, para [0023]). Reading instant claim 9 in view of instant figure 8 and Miller’s figure 4, it is apparent that the quantity d’ as defined and claimed in claim 9 is equivalent to the quantity (L – F)/2 in the embodiment of Miller’s figure 4. The value corresponding to d’ in Miller’s device is therefore 0.390 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 mm ≤ d' ≤ 2 mm.
In another embodiment of Miller, the contact patterns have a base length in the first direction of L’’ = 3.330 mm (figure 7, para [0034]), and a contact width of the contact patterns in contact with the second separator in the first direction of F’’ = 2.550 mm (figure 7, para [0034]). Reading instant claim 9 in view of instant figure 8 and Miller’s figure 7, it is apparent that the quantity d’ as defined and claimed in claim 9 is equivalent to the quantity (L’’ – F’’)/2 in the embodiment of Miller’s figure 7. The value corresponding to d’ in Miller’s device is therefore 0.390 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 mm ≤ d' ≤ 2 mm.
Regarding claim 10, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 9 obvious. Miller does not explicitly state that the interval between the contact patterns is 1.5 mm or more. However, the interval at which contact patterns are spaced in the second direction is illustrated as being equal or greater than the length of a contact pattern (figure 3, 4), and the length of a contact pattern is greater than 1.5 mm (para [0023], the length is 1.93 mm).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure Miller’s separator in such a way that the interval between contact patterns is at least 1.5 mm, based on Miller’s teaching that the contact patterns are greater than 1.5 mm in length, and Miller’s drawing showing that the spacing between contact patterns is apparently greater than the length of a contact pattern, i.e. greater than 1.5 mm. Furthermore note that where the only difference between the claim and the prior art is the device dimensions, the claim does not patentably distinguish from the art unless the claimed device performs differently than the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, ... is not such an invention as will sustain a patent" (In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)).
PNG
media_image5.png
982
234
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Contact width “d”)][AltContent: textbox (Land width “i")]Regarding claim 11, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 9 obvious, and Miller teaches wherein d, the contact width of the contact patterns that are in contact with the second separator in the first direction, and i, a width of the second land in the first direction, satisfy the relationship d < i (figure 3 is a cross section of the separators in the first direction. Note that the contact width of a contact pattern 40 to the upper surface 32 of the second separator is shorter than the length of a land; see Examiner’s annotation of Miller figure 3, below).
Excerpt of Miller figure 3, with Examiner’s annotation
Regarding claim 12, Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier render the electrochemical device of claim 1 obvious. In the embodiment of figure 6, Miller illustrates the contact patterns as being about as tall as they are long (figure 6), and Miller states that their length is 0.930 mm (para [0030]). Miller suggests that the dimensions of the contact patterns may be varied in order to optimize the force-deflection response of the first and second separator (para [0030]-[0031], “the protuberances 40′ abut the bottom of the flow channels of the second surface of the plate perpendicular thereto, thereby exerting a force on the second surface of the second plate and deflecting the unbonded portion of the second plate ... The geometry of the protuberances 40′ may be designed to result in an increasing force-deflection response when the plates 26′, 28′ are under compression”).
Miller does not explicitly state that the thickness of the contact pattern is in the range 0.4 mm to 1.5 mm, and therefore Miller does not explicitly anticipate a design in which the value of (h – g), where h = g + the thickness of the contact patterns, is in the range 0.4 mm to 1.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable thickness for the contact patterns, based on Miller’s disclosure that the contact pattern dimensions may be altered (para [0030]-[0031]). Where the only difference between the claim and the prior art is the device dimensions, the claim does not patentably distinguish from the art unless the claimed device performs differently than the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, ... is not such an invention as will sustain a patent" (In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered thicknesses in the range of 0.4 mm – 1.5 mm, in light of Miller’s disclosure of a contact pattern that is 0.930 mm long (para [0030]) and that is drawn to be roughly as thick as it is long (figure 6).
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches an electrochemical device (para [0007]-[0010], “a fuel cell”) comprising a first separator and a second separator (figure 2, para [0022], a bipolar plate assembly 24 comprises a pair of separating plates 26, 28);
the first separator comprising a plurality of first channels and a plurality of first lands disposed in a first direction (para [0022], figure 2, separator 26 comprises a plurality of first channels 36 and first lands 38 disposed between the channels);
the second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction (para [0022], figure 3, second separator 28 comprises a plurality of second channels 36, and lands in between them; figure 1 and para [0024], the second channels and lands are disposed in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the first channels and lands), the second separator being stacked on the first separator (figure 1-3, first separator 26 and second separator 28 are stacked on one another), wherein the plurality of first channels and the plurality of first lands are alternately disposed in the second direction (figure 2-4); and
contact patterns (para [0023], “a plurality of protuberances 40”) provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel so as to be in contact with the second separator (figure 2, 4, 6-7, the protuberances 40 are disposed on the first channels 36; para [0025]-[0026], the protuberances 40 of the first separator are in contact with the back surface of the second separator);
Miller teaches that the function of the contact patterns is to provide a mechanical interlocking effect that prevents components of the electrochemical cell stack from shifting laterally (para [0005]-[0006], [0025]-[0027]). While Miller’s figures illustrate the flow channels as being linear in shape, Miller also discloses that the flow channels may also be undulated or serpentine in shape (para [0022]).
However, Miller does not teach that the point of contact, where the contact patterns of the first separator make contact to the rear surface of the second separator, is on the second land.
Poirot-Crouvezier, similarly directed to an electrochemical device comprising a first separator and a second separator (para [0007], “a bipolar plate of an electrochemical cell, including a first conductive sheet and a second conductive sheet”), teaches a first separator comprising a first channel and a first land disposed in a first direction (figures 2-6, first separator 10 comprises a plurality of first channels Ca1, Ca2, Ca3 etc with undulated shapes, and a plurality of first lands Na1, Na2, Na3 etc disposed between adjacent channels; para [0042]-[0043]);
the second separator comprising a second channel and a second land disposed in a second direction intersecting the first direction (figures 2-6, second separator 20 comprises a plurality of second channels Cc1, Cc2, Cc3 etc, and a plurality of second lands Nc1, Nc2, Nc3 etc disposed between adjacent channels), the second separator being stacked on the first separator (second separator 20 is stacked on first separator 10 as shown in figures 2-6); and
contact patterns provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel contacting the second separator (para [0058]-[0070], figures 2-6, “reinforcement portions” Ra1, Ra2, Ra3 etc are formed on the first channels so as to place the first channels in contact with lands of the second separator)
wherein the contact patterns, protruding from a bottom surface of the first channel, are in contact with a rear surface of the second land that faces the first separator (figure 2, contact pattern Ra1 protrudes from a bottom surface of first channel Ca1 to contact the rear surface of second land Nc2, said rear surface being the surface of second separator 20 that faces first separator 10).
Like Miller, Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that the first and second separators have the function of mechanically clamping the electrochemical stack components in place (para [0006]). Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that their arrangement of contact patterns, whereby the patterns protrude from the first channels to contact to the rear surfaces of the second lands, results in a separator assembly which is mechanically reinforced and which better performs its function of mechanically clamping stack components into place (para [0054]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by arranging the contact patterns in such a way that contact patterns protruding from the first channels make contact to the rear surfaces of the second lands, as taught in Poirot-Crouvezier, because Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier are both directed to structuring the first and second separators with contact patterns in a way that improves the transmission of mechanical forces therethrough for the purpose of securing the electrochemical stack components in position, and Poirot-Crouvezier teaches that their arrangement (in which the contact patterns make contact at the lands) reinforces the separators and results in improved transmission of mechanical forces therethrough (para [0054]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Miller in view of Poirot-Crouvezier renders the device of claim 19 obvious, and Miller further teaches wherein a first one of the contact patterns provided on any one of the plurality of first channels is spaced apart, in the first direction, from a second one of the contact patterns provided on another one of the plurality of first channels (figure 4, a first protuberance 40 on one channel is spaced, in the longitudinal direction of the first channels, from another protuberance on another of the plurality of first channels).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 6,709,781 B2 to Suzuki et al (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 6, Miller in view of Poirot-Crouvezier renders the device of claim 1 obvious, but Miller is silent with respect to the thickness of the first separator.
Suzuki is directed to a bipolar separator for use in a fuel cell (col 1 ln 6-12; figure 1-3 separator 1), made of press-formed sheet steel (col 2 ln 12-62, col 6 ln 11-13, col 10 ln 1-26), and comprising alternating lands and channels (seen in cross section in figure 3b). Suzuki discusses the tendency of the sheet steel separator to rupture when press molded to form the corrugated separator, and discloses a relationship between separator thickness, feature sizes, and feature curvatures that the designer can follow in order to prevent such failures (figure 7, col 6 ln 45 - col 7 ln 23). Suzuki discloses, as an example, that suitable dimensions for press-molded features are a metal separator thickness of 0.2 mm, a channel pitch of 1.55 mm, a channel depth of 0.55 mm, and a radius of curvature of 0.3 mm at each corner (col 10 ln 1-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Miller’s separator with a suitable thickness, selected based on Suzuki’s teachings, for the purpose of preventing the separator from rupturing during its press-forming (Suzuki, col 6 ln 45 - col 7 ln 23); and to select a thickness of 0.2 mm based on Suzuki’s teaching that this is an exemplary value (col 10 ln 18-22), thereby arriving at a structure for which the separator thickness falls within the claimed range of 0.08 to 0.6 mm.
Regarding claim 8, Miller in view of Poirot-Crouvezier renders the device of claim 1 obvious. Miller teaches that the contact patterns are formed in the bottoms of the first channels by press-forming of a sheet steel blank (para [0023], “protuberances 40 are formed in a bottom of the flow channels 36 of the plates 26 during a stamping process of the sheet metal forming the plates 26”; para [0003] “made of a conductive material, such as stainless steel”). It is apparent from Miller’s drawing that the contact patterns are formed with a curved bevel, such that the length “c” of the contact between a contact pattern and the second separator in the second direction is smaller than the width “a” of the first channel in the second direction (labeled “W” in Miller; see Examiner’s annotation of Miller figure 2, below). However, Miller is silent as to whether or not the width of the bevel, c’ = (a-c)/2, falls within the claimed range of from 0.2 mm
PNG
media_image7.png
1032
330
media_image7.png
Greyscale
to 2 mm.
Excerpt of Miller figure 2, with Examiner’s annotation
Suzuki is directed to a bipolar separator for use in a fuel cell (col 1 ln 6-12; figure 1-3 separator 1), made of press-formed sheet steel (col 2 ln 12-62, col 6 ln 11-13, col 10 ln 1-26), and comprising alternating lands and channels (seen in cross section in figure 3b). Suzuki teaches that, when sheet steel is press molded to form the corrugated separator, the metal separator tends to rupture at points of sharp curvature, and that such failure can be prevented by designing the corners with a curved shoulder at the corner having a suitably large radius of curvature to reduce the bending strain applied to the metal (figure 7, col 6 ln 45 - col 7 ln 23). Suzuki provides a mathematical relationship that can be used to determine the curvature needed for a given feature size (col 7 ln 7-23), and discloses, as an example, that suitable dimensions for press-molded features are a metal separator thickness of 0.2 mm, a channel pitch of 1.55 mm, a channel depth of 0.55 mm, and a radius of curvature of 0.3 mm at each corner (col 10 ln 1-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the curved bevel of Miller’s contact pattern with a suitably large radius of curvature, selected based on Suzuki’s teachings, for the purpose of mitigating bending stress at the corners of embossed features and preventing the separator from rupturing during its press-forming (Suzuki, col 6 ln 45 - col 7 ln 23); to select a radius of 0.3 mm based on Suzuki’s teaching that this is an exemplary value (col 10 ln 18-22); and to thereby arrive at a structure for which the contact length of the contact pattern to the second separator in the second direction is less than the first channel width in the second direction by a margin of 0.3 mm on either side, i.e. a structure in which c’ = 0.3 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 mm ≤ c' ≤ 2 mm.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Poirot-Crouvezier as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 6,884,536 B1 to Hatoh et al (hereinafter “Hatoh”).
Regarding claim 7, Miller in view of Poirot-Crouvezier renders the device of claim 1 obvious. Miller is silent with respect to the width of the first channel.
Hatoh is directed to a bipolar separator for a fuel cell, having a first set of channels and lands on one side for providing reactant gas and electrical contact to the anode side of a MEA, and a second set of channels and lands and the other side for providing oxidant gas and electrical contact to the cathode side of an MEA. Hatoh teaches that the widths of channels is from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, and that this range is suitable because it is narrow enough to provide a suitably dense land coverage for electrical contact to the electrodes, yet wide enough to provide suitably low gas pressure drop in the gas flowing through the channels (col 8 ln 31-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a channel width of from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm in the first separator of Miller’s fuel cell, based on Hatoh’s teaching that this channel width range in a fuel cell separator strikes an appropriate balance of low electrical contact resistance and low gas pressure drop (Hatoh col 8 ln 31-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends the features of claim 2 into each of the independent claims and argues that this makes the claims allowable. Claim 2 was previously rejected on anticipation grounds based on the prior art disclosure of Poirot-Crouvezier. Applicant traverses that rejection, arguing the feature of Poirot-Crouvezier that Examiner identified as a contact pattern (feature Ra1 as shown in figure 2 of the Poirot-Crouvezier) is not a contact pattern because “it is not a separate pattern formed on the channel, but rather a portion in which the bottom surface of the channel comes into contact with the land due
PNG
media_image9.png
368
690
media_image9.png
Greyscale
to a change in the channel’s path” (Remarks pg 7).
Figure 2 of Poirot-Crouvezier
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no particular definition of the phrase “contact pattern” provided in the specification, and as such, the phrase “contact pattern” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation based on the plain meanings of the works (MPEP 2111). Our understanding of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “contact pattern” is, that it must be a feature that makes contact, and it must be laid out in a pattern. Claim 1 further requires that the contact patterns must be provided on the first separator and disposed on the first channel so as to be in contact with the second separator. The further limitations previously found in claim 2 and now found in claim 1 require the contact pattern of the first separator to contact the second separator at the rear surface of its lands.
Poirot-Crouvezier’s feature Ra1 reads on claimed “contact pattern” because it meets all of these requirements. It is provided on first separator 10 and disposed on the first channel Ca1, as seen in figure 2 of the reference (reproduced above). It protrudes from the channel Ca1 to make contact with the rear surface of the second land Nc2 as was required by claim 2. It is a feature that makes contact, and a plurality of such features are provided on the first separator in a patterned layout (as seen e.g. in Poirot-Crouvezier figure 6). Therefore the claim language is met by the prior art’s disclosure.
Amended claim 1 is therefore still anticipated by Poirot-Crouvezier. Amended claim 1 differs from the disclosure of Miller because Miller’s contact patterns contact the rear surfaces of the channels of the second separator, rather than of the lands of the second separator; as such, the 102 rejections based on Miller are withdrawn. However, new §103 grounds are presented in this action based on the combination of Miller with Poirot-Crouvezier.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights