DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner notes that the non-patent literature documents Incoming ISR (P.210.IN), the English translation of the Incoming ISR (REF.OTHER) and Incoming Written Opinion (P.237.IN) have been provided but are not listed in the IDS and therefore have not been considered. The examiner further notes that an English translation of the Incoming Written Opinion has not been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 7-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rock US20090004522A1 in view of Fly US20140072899A1 and Wuillemin US20170069924A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rock discloses a bipolar plate assembly for forming an electrolysis or fuel cell stack (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, fuel cell stack 2), the examiner notes that it is well known in the art that a fuel cell stack operated in reverse is an electrolysis stack, comprising:
a metallic separating device adapted to create a fluid-tight seal between an anode side and a cathode side, and provided with fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels on both the anode and cathode sides, respectively (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, bipolar plate 8, openings 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56),
two metallic flow distributor units arranged adjacent to the separating device on the anode and cathode sides, each flow distributor unit being designed to distribute a fluid supplied to it via the separating device between the fluid supply channels and the fluid discharge channels (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, channels 18, 20, 22, 24),
a gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, gas-permeable diffusion media 34, 36, 38, 40), the examiner notes that the gas diffusion layer is attached to one of the flow distributor units and it would be understood by the skilled artisan that it is attached from the outside as the product-by-process means of attaching is not inside the fuel cell (i.e., the equipment used to carry out the manufacture is outside and the attaching is from the outside),
and frame elements which are connected in a fluid-tight manner to the separating device and which each surround one of the flow distributor units circumferentially in a fluid-tight manner, the frame elements having through-openings which are designed to supply a fluid to the fluid supply channels and through-openings which are designed to discharge a fluid discharged via the fluid discharge channels (Rock, [0022], [0025], Fig. 1, gaskets 28 and 30, openings 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56). Rock however is not directed toward the material of the frame elements nor the gas diffusion layer.
In a bipolar plate assembly forming a fuel cell stack Fly teaches a separating device adapted to create a fluid-tight seal between the anode side and the cathode side, and provided with fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels on both the anode and cathode sides, respectively (Fly, [0041], Fig. 5, bipolar plate 110),
two flow distributor units arranged adjacent to the separating device on the anode and cathode sides, each flow distributor unit being designed to distribute a fluid supplied to it via the separating device between the fluid supply channels and the fluid discharge channels (Fly, [0045-0046], “…portions of the bipolar plate 110 adjacent first gas diffusion media 160A, 160B also define active areas. Each of the active areas are typically flow fields for distributing gaseous reactants such as hydrogen gas and air over the electrode layers…”, Fig. 5, unlabeled active areas, bipolar plate 110)
and a gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units (Fly, [0046], Fig. 5, gas diffusion media 160A and 160B), the examiner notes that the limitation attached from the outside is extremely broad and is satisfied by the teaching of Fly wherein the combination of the flow distribution units and gas diffusion media form unitized assemblies (Fly, [0046]).
Fly further teaches wherein metallic frame elements which are connected in a fluid-tight manner to the separating device and which each surround one of the flow distributor units circumferentially in a fluid-tight manner (Fly, [0011], Fig. 5, metal coated on at least one side insulating subgaskets 10A, 10B), the metal coating providing much higher bending stiffness under both dry and wet conditions for the insulating subgaskets (Fly, [0054]) and avoiding negative effects of such degradation or deformation on the operation of electrical output of fuel cells incorporating the coated subgaskets, while not sacrificing manufacturing costs or production output (Fly, [0050]) in order to limit degradation and/or deformation of the metallic frame elements during prolonged operation of a fuel cell assembly or a fuel cell stack (Fly, [0030]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame elements of Rock with the teaching of Fly wherein the frame elements are metallic frame elements thereby limiting degradation and/or deformation of the metallic frame elements during prolonged operation of a fuel cell assembly or a fuel cell stack.
Modified Rock also teaches wherein the separating device has two separating plates which are firmly connected to one another, in particular welded to one another (Rock, [0023]) and wherein clamping plates may be used to join together the various layers of the fuel cell stack (Rock, [0022]) and wherein it is well known in the art to use conventional bonding technology to join together the various layers of the fuel cell stack, such as brazing, welding, diffusion bonding or adhesive bonding, as it is satisfactory in its gas distribution function (Rock, [0004]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the manner of joining the various layers of the fuel cell stack wherein the separating device, the flow distributor units and the frame elements are soldered or welded together thereby reducing the number of components in the assembly of the fuel cell stack.
Modified Rock however is not directed toward the material composition of the gas diffusion layer nor the product-by-process method of attaching the gas diffusion plate from the outside to one of the flow distributor plates.
In a bipolar plate assembly Wuillemin teaches for forming an electrolysis or fuel cell stack (Wuillemin, [0029]), comprising
a metallic separating device adapted to create a fluid-tight seal between the anode side and the cathode side, and provided with fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels on both the anode and cathode sides, respectively (Wuillemin, [0104], Fig. 4, layer 1, openings 16-19)
two metallic flow distributor units arranged adjacent to the separating device on the anode and cathode sides, each flow distributor unit being designed to distribute a fluid supplied to it via the separating device between the fluid supply channels and the fluid discharge channels (Wuillemin, [0104], Fig. 4, layers 2-3, layer 4, channels 13, channels 20), the flow distributor units are made of layers having in the form of expanded metals (Wuillemin, [0114], Fig. 4C, structure 2d)
a metallic gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units (Wuillemin, [0104], [0149], Fig. 8A, layer 54 and 55, layers 2-3, layer 4), in order to the fuel cell is more reliable and efficient, the examiner notes that the contact between the metallic gas diffusion layer and the flow distributor units as taught by Wuillemin are on the outside of each element, satisfying the claim limitation. Wuillemin further teaches the elements through which gas is distributed and comprised of metal may be manufacture such that they are joined together by any suitable bonding technique such as welding, brazing or reactive bonding, or any combination thereof, for electrical contacting and/or sealing (Wuillemin, [0099]) and while Wuillemin does not explicitly teach the product-by-process attaching of the gas diffusion layer to the flow distributor units by soldering or welding, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the metallic gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units by welding thereby providing electrical contacting and/or sealing.
Rock, Fly and Wuillemin are considered in the same field of endeavor as they are concerned with a bipolar plate assembly to form an electrolysis or fuel cell stack (Rock, [0022]; Fly, [0010]; Wuillemin, [0017-0020]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas diffusion layer of modified Rock with the teaching of Wuillemin wherein a metallic gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units by welding thereby improving the reliability and efficiency of the fuel cell.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, modified Rock also teaches wherein the separating device and the frame elements each have a rectangular outer circumference, each having circumferences which are congruent (Rock, Fig. 1, bipolar plate 8, gaskets 28 and 30).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, modified Rock additionally teaches wherein all through-openings of one frame element are positioned in alignment with the through-openings of the other frame element, and wherein the separating device is provided with through-holes positioned in alignment with the through-openings of the frame elements and connecting them with the fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels of the separating device (Rock, [0024], Fig. 1, bipolar plate 8, gaskets 28 and 30, openings 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56)
Regarding claim 7, modified Rock further teaches wherein the separating device has two separating plates which are firmly connected to one another (Rock, [0023]), the examiner notes that there are no metes and bounds provided to distinguish firmly connected over the art that been applied.
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Rock also teaches wherein the channels of the bipolar plate are configured to distribute fuel and oxidant over the faces of the anode/cathode (Rock, [0022]) and while modified Rock does not explicitly teach wherein the flow distributor units are made of layers having recurring passages and wherein the size of the passages of at least one flow distributor unit increases in the direction of the separating device, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the flow distributor units are made of layers having recurring passages and wherein the size of the passages of at least one flow distributor unit increases in the direction of the separating device thereby facilitating distribution of fuel and oxidant over the faces of the anode/cathode.
Regarding claim 10, modified Rock additionally teaches wherein the separating device and/or at least one of the flow distributor units and/or the frame elements are made of a corrosion-resistant metal or are provided with a corrosion-resistant metal coating (Fly, [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rock also teaches use of the bipolar plate assembly according to claim 1 to form an electrolysis or fuel cell stack (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, fuel cell stack 2), the examiner notes that it is well known in the art that a fuel cell stack operated in reverse is an electrolysis stack. The examiner further notes this is an intended use claim and the bipolar plate assembly as taught by modified Rock in claim 1 has a substantially similar structure to that of the claimed invention and is capable of forming an electrolysis or fuel cell stack and satisfies the claim limitation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 14, modified Rock additionally teaches Electrolysis or fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of bipolar plate assemblies according to claim 1 (Rock, [0022], Fig. 1, fuel cell stack 2), the examiner notes that it is well known in the art that a fuel cell stack operated in reverse is an electrolysis stack.
Regarding claim 19, modified Rock further teaches wherein the flow distributor units are made of layers having in the form of expanded metals (Wuillemin, [0114], Fig. 4C, structure 2d).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rock US20090004522A1 in view of Fly US20140072899A1 and Wuillemin US20170069924A1, as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view of Gasda US20190372132A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 16-17, modified Rock further teaches wherein the anode-side fluid supply channels and the anode-side fluid discharge channels are arranged opposite one another, in that wherein the cathode-side fluid supply channels and the cathode-side fluid discharge channels are arranged opposite one another (Rock, [0024-0025], Figs. 1-2, bipolar plate 8, plates 100 and 200, openings 46, 48, 50 and 52) and wherein the channels of the bipolar plate assembly run parallel or in parallel and perpendicular configurations (Rock, [0024], Fig. 2, anode plate 100, cathode plate 200). Modifies Rock however does not teach in that wherein the anode-side fluid supply channels and the cathode-side fluid supply channels are arranged offset by 90° with respect to one another.
In a bipolar plate assembly Gasda teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a metal separating plate adapted to create a fluid-tight seal between the anode side and the cathode side, and provided with fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels on both the anode and cathode sides, respectively (Gasda, [0033-0035], Figs. 3A-3D, interconnect 400, anode 314, cathode 316, fuel inlet 402, fuel outlet 404, unlabeled remaining uncovered portions for the front and back sides of the stack allow the air to flow through the stack). Gasda further teaches it is well known in the art wherein the channels of the bipolar plate/metal separator can arranged in a co-flow or cross-flow configuration (Gasda, [0075]) and in that wherein the anode-side fluid supply channels and the cathode-side fluid supply channels are arranged offset by 90° with respect to one another (Gasda, [0035]) in order to optimize fuel side flow and air side flow independently for further performance improvement (Gasda, [0076]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode-side fluid supply channels and the cathode-side fluid supply channels of modified Rock with the teaching of Gasda in that wherein the anode-side fluid supply channels and the cathode-side fluid supply channels are arranged offset by 90° with respect to one another thereby optimizing fuel side flow and air side flow independently for further performance improvement.
Regarding claim 5, modified Rock also teaches wherein the fluid supply channels and the fluid discharge channels are provided in the form of grooves formed on the anode-side and cathode-side surfaces of the separating device and extending inwardly from the through holes (Rock, [0028], [0030], Figs. 3-4, anode flow field 102, cathode flow field 202, inlet 50, outlet 52, inlet 46, outlet 48).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rock US20090004522A1 in view of Fly US20140072899A1 and Wuillemin US20170069924A1, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rock US20020119358A1 (hereafter referred to as Rock-358).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rock teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not teach wherein the separating device consists of a single separating plate.
In a bipolar plate assembly Rock-358 teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a metal separating plate adapted to create a fluid-tight seal between the anode side and the cathode side, and provided with fluid supply channels and fluid discharge channels on both the anode and cathode sides, respectively (Rock-358, [0027], Fig. 1, bipolar plate 12, anode 8a, cathode 10c, flow field 20) and further teaches wherein the bipolar assembly comprises single and double plate separators (Rock-358, [0027], Fig. 1, uncooled bipolar plate 12, cooled bipolar plates 14 and 16) in order to result in a higher performance than conventional bipolar plate assemblies (Rock-358, [0010]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bipolar plate assembly of Rock with the teaching of Rock-258 wherein the separating device consists of a single separating plate thereby resulting in a higher performance than conventional bipolar plate assemblies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the modification of the gaskets disclosed by Rock with the teaching of a metallic coating would render Rock’s design inoperable for its intended purpose and constitutes a teaching away. This is not persuasive. As set forth above, Fly teaches a metal coating on at least one side of the insulating subgasket (Fly, [0011], Fig. 5, metal coated on at least one side insulating subgaskets 10A, 10B), which the skilled artisan would understand the subgasket is still insulating and Fly further teaches in [0011] the coating can comprise one or more material such as metals, steels, alloys, ceramics, oxides, nitrides, carbides, carbon, diamond like carbon, acrylics, polymers, polymer composites, and hard coatings, which would satisfy the claim limitation while still providing insulating, even if the entire subgasket were coated in metal. This does not constitute a teaching because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. See MPEP § 2145.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 requires a metallic frame element, which is understood to be a component made entirely of metal and the Examiner is improperly equating a coated polymer with a solid metallic component. This is not persuasive as a metallic frame element made entirely of metal (homogenous) is not commensurate in scope with the claim as such feature is not claimed. Additionally, applicant has not provided support in the form of evidence for this argument. The Courts have held that arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. The Courts have held that "An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." See MPEP § 2145.
Applicant also argues the examiner appears to have overlooked or failed to properly address the limitation that the separating device (2), the flow distributor units (3), and the frame elements (4) are soldered or welded together, that Wuillemin does not teach welding structural metallic frames around a flow distributor to form a single, prefabricated bipolar plate unit and none of the references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the core concept of the invention: creating a one-piece, all-metal bipolar plate assembly by welding these three specific types of components together, but rather would result in a stack of separate parts, not the claimed integrated, monolithic structure as recited in claim 1. This is not persuasive as these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. As set forth above Wuillemin further teaches the elements through which gas is distributed and comprised of metal may be manufacture such that they are joined together by any suitable bonding technique such as welding, brazing or reactive bonding, or any combination thereof, for electrical contacting and/or sealing (Wuillemin, [0099]) and while Wuillemin does not explicitly teach the product-by-process attaching of the gas diffusion layer to the flow distributor units by soldering or welding, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the metallic gas diffusion layer attached from the outside to one of the flow distributor units by welding thereby providing electrical contacting and/or sealing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diez US20050191538A1 (discloses a metal bipolar fuel cell structure with welded together components).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723