CTFR 17/923,407 CTFR 94422 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 30 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-31 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1, 3, 11-12, and 14 have been amended, claims 23-29 are withdrawn, and claims 30-31 are new. Support for the amendments are found at page 3 (regarding substrate material), page 5 regarding dopants, page 6 regarding hydrogen flux, and pages 3 and 4 regarding hydrogen permeation. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced as a result of these amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites wherein the substrate comprises a metal and/or a metal alloy. However, this limitation is recited in the base claim (i.e. instant claim 1), and therefore claim 8 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Claims 9-11 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Vyas et al. (US 2004/0081881) . Claim 1: Vyas teaches a fuel cell and electrical contact elements for fuel cells, related to a sheet metal for a bipolar plate in a fuel cell, etc. (paragraph 0002). A fuel cell stack includes an plurality of membrane-electrode-assemblies stacked together in electrical series separated from one another by an impermeable, electrically conductive contact element known as a bipolar plate (paragraph 0004) and a PEM fuel cell environment employs H 2 and O 2 (paragraph 0005), wherein the bipolar plates form a closure impermeable to gas and liquids for a respective cell (paragraph 0009). Bipolar plates are subject to corrosion in the environment of the fuel cell and so are provided with a corrosion-resistant layer (paragraphs 0010-0011). The sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of aluminum, chrome-plated aluminum, copper, stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, and iron containing compounds etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e. a substrate comprising metal and/or a metal alloy). The bipolar plate or sheet metal product has on at least one side a conductive and corrosion-resistant protective coating of a metal oxide having a treatment which ensures the conductivity (paragraph 0033), such as an oxide of tin that can be made conductive through the use of dopants (i.e. a doped tin oxide) (paragraph 0041). The dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of aluminum, chromium, silver, antimony, molybdenum, etc. (i.e. the doped tin oxide comprises one or more dopants wherein the one or more dopants comprise one or more transition metals) (paragraph 0043). Claim 3: Vyas teaches the dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of molybdenum, chromium, etc. (paragraph 0043). Claim 4: Vyas teaches the dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of molybdenum, etc. (paragraph 0043). Claims 6-7: Vyas teaches that dopants may be one or more of molybdenum, chromium, silver, etc. (i.e. one or more transition metals) and/or fluorine, chlorine, bromine, etc. (i.e. one or more anions; i.e. comprise fluorine). Claim 8: Vyas teaches that the sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of aluminum, chrome-plated aluminum, copper, stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, and iron containing compounds etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e. a substrate comprising metal and/or a metal alloy). Claim 9: Vyas teaches that the sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, and iron containing compounds, etc. (paragraph 0045). Claim 12: Vyas teaches a fuel cell and electrical contact elements for fuel cells, related to a sheet metal for a bipolar plate in a fuel cell, etc. (paragraph 0002). A fuel cell stack (i.e. a system) includes an plurality of membrane-electrode-assemblies stacked together in electrical series separated from one another by an impermeable, electrically conductive contact element known as a bipolar plate (paragraph 0004) and a PEM fuel cell environment employs H 2 and O 2 (paragraph 0005), wherein the bipolar plates form a closure impermeable to gas and liquids for a respective cell (paragraph 0009). Bipolar plates contain a plurality of grooves of channels for distributing fuel and oxidant gases (i.e. a hollow substrate and a fuel positioned within the hollow substrate) (paragraph 0066) and are subject to corrosion in the environment of the fuel cell and so are provided with a corrosion-resistant layer (paragraphs 0010-0011). The sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of aluminum, chrome-plated aluminum, copper, stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, and iron containing compounds etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e. a substrate comprising metal and/or a metal alloy). The bipolar plate or sheet metal product has on at least one side a conductive and corrosion-resistant protective coating of a metal oxide having a treatment which ensures the conductivity (paragraph 0033), such as an oxide of tin that can be made conductive through the use of dopants (i.e. a doped tin oxide) (paragraph 0041). The dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of aluminum, chromium, silver, antimony, molybdenum, etc. (i.e. the doped tin oxide comprises one or more dopants wherein the one or more dopants comprise one or more transition metals) (paragraph 0043). Claim 14: Vyas teaches the dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of molybdenum, chromium, etc. (paragraph 0043). Claim 15: Vyas teaches the dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of molybdenum, etc. (paragraph 0043). Claims 17-18: Vyas teaches that the sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of aluminum, chrome-plated aluminum, copper, stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, and iron containing compounds etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e. a substrate comprising metal and/or a metal alloy; i.e. wherein the metal alloy comprises a steel) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chatterjee et al. (US 2011/0094577) . Claim 1: Chatterjee teaches an article comprising a substrate and a conductive metal oxide film adjacent to a surface of the substrate (i.e. a coating disposed on at least a portion of the substrate) (paragraph 0033). The substrate comprises a material selected from metal, etc., such as stainless steel or aluminum (paragraph 0049). The conductive metal oxide film may be fluorine doped tin oxide, cadmium doped tin oxide, titanium doped tin oxide, niobium doped tin oxide, tantalum doped tin oxide, vanadium doped tin oxide, zinc doped tin oxide, manganese doped tin oxide, copper doped tin oxide, cobalt doped tin oxide, nickel doped tin oxide, etc. or combinations thereof (paragraph 0036). The teaching of specific doped tin oxides and combinations thereof is considered to comprise one or more dopants, and most of these disclosed dopants are transition metals. Claims 3-4: Chatterjee teaches that the conductive metal oxide film may be fluorine doped tin oxide, cadmium doped tin oxide, titanium doped tin oxide, niobium doped tin oxide, tantalum doped tin oxide, vanadium doped tin oxide, zinc doped tin oxide, manganese doped tin oxide, copper doped tin oxide, cobalt doped tin oxide, nickel doped tin oxide, etc. or combinations thereof (i.e. the one or more transition metals comprise niobium, cobalt, zinc, copper, nickel, manganese, titanium, vanadium, etc.; i.e. the one or more transition metals comprise niobium, etc.) (paragraph 0036). Claims 6-7: Chatterjee teaches that the conductive metal oxide film may be chlorine doped tin oxide, fluorine and chlorine doped tin oxide, fluorine doped tin oxide, etc. (i.e. the one or more dopants comprise one or more anions; i.e. the one or more anions comprise fluorine) (paragraph 0036) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12, 14-15, 17-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. (US 3,496,011, previously cited) in view of Vyas et al. (US 2004/0081881) . Claim 1: Crosby teaches a coating for a thermally emissive surface such as a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, l. 23-48). Usually a substrate metal such as copper, aluminum, or a metal alloy is used (i.e. a substrate comprising a metal and/or a metal alloy) (Col. 2, l. 63-69). A composite coating is applied (i.e. a coating disposed on at least a portion of the substrate) including a layer of a mixture of tin oxide and aluminum oxide (Col. 2, l. 19-35), and the coating may be applied where required for protection of the metal substrate to prevent oxidation (i.e. the coating provides corrosion resistance) (Col. 2, l. 63-69). However, Crosby does not teach the tin oxide as being doped. In a field of endeavor related to tin oxide films, Vyas teaches a fuel cell and electrical contact elements for fuel cells, related to a sheet metal for a bipolar plate in a fuel cell, etc. (paragraph 0002). A fuel cell stack (i.e. a system) includes an plurality of membrane-electrode-assemblies stacked together in electrical series separated from one another by an impermeable, electrically conductive contact element known as a bipolar plate (paragraph 0004) and a PEM fuel cell environment employs H 2 and O 2 (paragraph 0005), wherein the bipolar plates form a closure impermeable to gas and liquids for a respective cell (paragraph 0009). Bipolar plates contain a plurality of grooves of channels for distributing fuel and oxidant gases (i.e. a hollow substrate and a fuel positioned within the hollow substrate) (paragraph 0066) and are subject to corrosion in the environment of the fuel cell and so are provided with a corrosion-resistant layer (paragraphs 0010-0011). Vyas further teaches that the element preferably includes a plurality of grooves for distributing coolant fluid along the second surface (i.e. a coating for a thermally emissive surface, since it requires cooling). Vyas teaches that metal oxides normally count as electrically insulating (paragraph 0034). The sheet metal used for the formation of the sheet metal product or the bipolar plate preferably comprises one of aluminum, chrome-plated aluminum, copper, stainless steel, chrome-plated stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, and iron containing compounds etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e. a substrate comprising metal and/or a metal alloy). The bipolar plate or sheet metal product has on at least one side a conductive and corrosion-resistant protective coating of a metal oxide having a treatment which ensures the conductivity (paragraph 0033), such as an oxide of tin that can be made conductive through the use of dopants (i.e. a doped tin oxide) (paragraph 0041). The dopant which ensures the conductivity can be at least one of aluminum, chromium, silver, antimony, molybdenum, etc. (i.e. the doped tin oxide comprises one or more dopants wherein the one or more dopants comprise one or more transition metals) (paragraph 0043). As Crosby and Vyas both teach an article requiring cooling having a metal substrate with a coating of tin oxide for corrosion/oxidation resistance, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composite coating of the nuclear reactor taught by Crosby to include a dopant that increases the electrical conductivity, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 3-4, 6-9, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are outlined above regarding the teachings of Vyas alone. Claim 22: Crosby teaches the coated substrate can be for space vehicles employing auxiliary power systems such as a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, l. 28-48). Although Crosby does not explicitly state the specific type of nuclear fuel, common types of nuclear fuel include at least uranium, which would be immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. (US 3,496,011, previously cited) in view of Vyas et al. (US 2004/0081881) as applied to claim s 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Hanneman et al. (US 4,197,145, previously cited) . Claims 10-11 and 19-20: The teachings of Crosby and Vyas regarding claims 8 and 17 are outlined above. Vyas-modified Crosby teaches a coated substrate for a nuclear fuel reactor (Crosby, Col. 1, l. 49-57) where the composite coating may be applicable to any heat emissive surface (Crosby, Col. 2, l. 63-69)., but does not teach a zirconium alloy as a material for the substrate. In a field of endeavor related to nuclear power systems (i.e. nuclear reactors), Hanneman teaches that important requirements for materials used in nuclear reactor construction include low absorption for thermal neutrons, corrosion and stress-corrosion resistance, and mechanical strength, and that zirconium-base alloys including Zircaloy-2 and Zircaloy-4 sufficiently satisfy these requirements and are widely used for such purposes (Col. 1, l. 27-38). As Hanneman and Crosby both teach a system for nuclear power (i.e. nuclear reactors), they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the doped tin-oxide coating of Vyas-modified Crosby to include where the substrate is a zirconium-base alloy such as Zircaloy-2 or Zircaloy-4 as taught by Hanneman because such alloys are known to be used for nuclear power systems, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyas et al. (US 2004/0081881) as applied to claim s 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (Semicond. Sci. Technol. 2009, NPL previously cited) . Claims 5 and 16: The teachings of Vyas regarding claims 4 and 15 are outlined above. Vyas teaches a bipolar plate or sheet metal product having on at least one side a conductive and corrosion-resistant protective coating of a metal oxide having a treatment which ensures the conductivity (paragraph 0033), such as an oxide of tin that can be made conductive through the use of dopants (i.e. a doped tin oxide) (paragraph 0041). However, Vyas does not teach tungsten as a dopant. In a field of endeavor related to conductive tin oxide films, Huang teaches that the resistivity of tin oxide is dependent on oxygen vacancies and that tungsten has a radius close to that of tin ions which makes it easy to replace the Sn 4+ ions (i.e. of tin oxide) (introduction). Huang further teaches that undoped SnO 2 (i.e. tin oxide) films have poor conductivity but an appropriate amount of tungsten doping can effectively lower the resistivity of SnO 2 films (section 3.3). As Vyas and Huang both teach doped tin oxide films, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of Vyas to include where the tin oxide is doped with tungsten because Huang teaches that tungsten doping also can effectively lower the resistivity of tin oxide films, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 12, 21, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2014/0370217, previously cited) in view of Vyas et al. (US 2004/0081881) . Claims 1 and 12: Perez teaches equipment for oil and/or gas drilling, storage, etc. including pipes, tubes, etc. that are coated with a composite material to protect against attack by corrosive substances (paragraphs 0001 and 0019) (i.e. a system comprising a hollow substrate; i.e. a fuel positioned within the hollow substrate; i.e. a coating disposed on at least a portion of the hollow substrate). The coating may include a tin oxide or doped tin oxide, etc. (paragraph 0077). However, Perez does not teach the tin oxide as being doped with a transition metal. In a related field of endeavor, Vyas teaches a doped tin oxide as part of a coating that is a corrosion-resistant protective coating (paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0024, and 0032). Suitable dopants include chromium, silver, antimony, molybdenum, etc. (paragraph 0043). As Perez and Vyas both teach a doped tin oxide coating for corrosion-protection, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the doped tin oxide of Perez to include a tin oxide doped chromium, silver, antimony, or molybdenum because these are conventionally known doped tin oxides used for a corrosion protective coating, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 21: Perez teaches equipment for oil and/or gas drilling, storage, etc. including pipes, tubes, etc. (paragraph 0001) (i.e. the fuel is oil and/or gas, which would be generally considered to include natural gas). Claims 30 and 31: Perez teaches that to protect corroding metals such as steel, the application of a surface coating with a very good diffusion barrier to small gas molecules is required and inorganic materials such as ceramics or glasses are structurally impermeable to gases (paragraph 0003) (i.e. metal oxides are considered an inorganic ceramic material). Vyas also teaches the sheet metal product of a doped tin oxide coated substrate to have the required impermeability to gases (paragraphs 0044-0046), wherein gases used within the assembly includes hydrogen gas (paragraph 0066). In combination, the teachings of Perez and Vyas outlined herein render obvious to one of ordinary skill that the doped tin oxide coating is impermeable to gases such as hydrogen gas and is more impermeable (i.e. has a lower hydrogen flux) than the substrate since the coating serves to protect the substrate from corrosion by such gases (i.e. the coating reduces and/or prevents hydrogen permeation into the substrate). Response to Arguments The amendment to claim 11 has overcome the indefiniteness previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 29 December 2025. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments because neither Varanasi nor Huang teach a metal substrate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vyas, as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-11, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejections that include the teachings of Varanasi, have been fully considered and are persuasive insofar as Varanasi teaches low emissivity coatings. The rejections under 35 U.SC. 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of Vyas as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-10, filed 30 march 2026, regarding being analogous art, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Crosby (and other art) are not analogous because they are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention whereas the instant application describes coatings that reduce and/or prevent permeation of hydrogen into the substrate. However, this feature is not recited in the above rejected claims. Independent claim 1 is directed to an article requiring only a metal substrate and a doped tin oxide coating wherein the dopants include one or more transition metals. Independent claim 12 only differs insofar that the substrate is hollow (and is not required to be metal except in dependent claims) and has a fuel positioned within it. The teachings of Crosby and the prior art applied above are relevant to an article having a doped tin oxide coating and/or an article that can include fuel within it. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 11, regarding suitable motivation, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues hindsight gleaned from instant application. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A). In this respect, the prior art was properly cited for the relevant teachings applied in the rejections. Applicant argues a lack of suitable motivation, but a motivation was provided in the previous Office Action and above and Applicant has not pointed out why the motivation is not suitable. It is noted that the courts have held that a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of a known technique to improve similar devices/methods/products in the same way are considered to be example rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I). Applicant’s arguments, see p. 11-12, regarding the teachings of Perez, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments because Perez does not teach a transition metal dopant for the tin oxide coating. This rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made over Perez in view of Vyas. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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. /KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 2 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 3 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 4 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 5 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 6 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 7 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 8 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 9 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 10 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 12 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 13 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 14 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 17/923,407 Page 15 Art Unit: 1784
Prosecution Insights