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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102020114066.5, filed on 05/26/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oruc (US20210384529A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oruc discloses a bipolar plate 2 [pars. 0090-103; Fig. 2-3,6-14] comprising:
an inlet port (through-opening 11a);
an outlet port (through-opening 11d);
at least one flow field 17,20,20’ having a plurality of ducts (structures 21, 15,18,19,20,20’) connecting the inlet port to the outlet port; and
at least one bypass duct (bead interior 22 formed by perimeter bead 12e) at a side of the at least one flow field, wherein a flow resistance in the at least one bypass duct is determined by a design of the at least one bypass duct, and wherein a blocking element does not project into a cross section of the at least one bypass duct (i.e., Oruc does not disclose any blocking element projected into the cross section of the bead interior).
Regarding Claim 2, Oruc discloses wherein the at least one flow field includes a plurality of flow fields (e.g., flow field 17, distribution region 20, collection region 20’), wherein the at least one bypass duct includes a plurality of bypass ducts (top and bottom ducts as shown in Figs. 3,6-16), and wherein a respective bypass duct is provided on each of opposing sides of each of the flow fields [Figs. 3,6-14].
Regarding Claim 3, Oruc discloses wherein the at least one bypass duct repeatedly changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port [best seen in Figs. 13-14].
Regarding Claim 4, Oruc discloses wherein the changes in direction take place in a regularly distributed manner between the inlet port and the outlet port, and wherein a shape of the at least one bypass duct has a double serpentine profile (i.e., profile has two wavy sections – not shown) [par. 0097; Figs. 13-14]
Regarding Claim 5, Oruc discloses wherein a shape of a profile of the cross section of the at least one bypass duct is semicircular (e.g., one wave down, one wave up) [Figs. 13-14].
Regarding Claim 6, Oruc discloses wherein sides of the profile of the cross section of the at least one bypass duct are rounded [par. 0097].
Regarding Claim 8, Oruc discloses wherein the at least one bypass duct between the inlet port and the outlet port has at least one branch [par. 0101].
Regarding Claim 9, Oruc discloses wherein a beginning of the at least one bypass duct is formed by a branch from a side duct of the at least one flow field [Fig. 3,10].
Regarding Claim 10, Oruc discloses wherein a beginning of the at least one bypass duct is formed in a distribution area of the inlet port, upstream of the at least one flow field [Figs. 3,6-12].
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oruc, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiura (US20060110650A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Oruc fails to disclose wherein a surface in the at least one bypass duct is roughened. However, Sugiura, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a separator plate 102 including a bypass duct 104 at a side of a flow field (not shown), wherein the flow groove surface 104a of the bypass duct undergoes a hydrophilic treatment such as chlorination treatment or plasma treatment, which necessarily roughens the duct surface, for the purpose of improving performance of discharging water [Sugiura – pars. 0053,0079,0083; Figs. 7-8]. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Sugiura to have modified the bipolar plate of Oruc, wherein a surface in the at least one bypass duct is roughened for the purpose of improving performance of discharging water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751