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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 4/15/2026. Claims 1-10 are currently amended. Claims 1-10 are pending review in this action.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference being used in the current rejection thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seiji (JP5918037B2; foreign copy and machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Seiji discloses a bipolar plate (e.g., separator 18 having flow paths 32/34 on opposite side surfaces) [pars. ; Figs. 2,4] comprising:
an inlet port (reaction/fuel gas inlet communication hole 24a);
an outlet port (reaction/fuel gas outlet communication hole 24b;
at least one flow field having a plurality of ducts (fuel gas flow path/channel 34 formed corrugated grooves 34a) connecting the inlet port to the outlet port; and
at least one reaction gas bypass duct (first bypass channel 42) at a side of the at least one flow field, wherein a flow resistance in the at least one reaction gas bypass duct is determined by a design of the at least one reaction gas bypass duct {That is, Seiji discloses the bypass channel sharing a wall with the corrugated groove 34 having a wavelike flow path, and thus, by its geometry, necessarily has a flow resistance, as claimed herein}, and wherein a blocking element does not project into a cross section of the at least one reaction gas bypass duct {That is, Seiji discloses the first bypass flow channel by a space between a first resin frame member 74 and a second metal separator 18 [par. 0074; Fig. 2], and further does not mention a blocking element projecting into a cross section of the bypass channel}.
Regarding Claim 2, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above, and further, wherein the at least one flow field includes a plurality of flow fields (e.g., fuel gas flow path/channel 34 and oxidant gas flow path/channel 44), wherein the at least one bypass duct includes a plurality of bypass ducts (first bypass channel 42 and a “bypass channel configured in the same manner as the first bypass channel” – not shown [par. 0077]), and wherein a respective bypass duct is provided on each of opposing sides of each of the flow fields.
Regarding Claim 3, Seiji discloses wherein the at least one bypass duct repeatedly changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port {That is, because the bypass duct forms a wall with the corrugated groove 34 having a wavelike flow path, the bypass duct necessarily changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port [Fig. 4]}.
Regarding Claim 10, Seiji discloses wherein a beginning of the at least one reaction gas bypass duct is formed in a distribution area of the inlet port, upstream of the at lease one flow field [par. 0067; Fig. 4].
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above. Seiji fails to explicitly disclose that bypass duct repeatedly changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port. However, Seiji teaches a wavelike flow passage groove part 34a for the fuel gas flow path/channel 34 as alternative to a linear flow passage groove [par. 0030]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the bypass duct of Seiji to have a wavelike configuration as Seiji identifies this as a known alternative for channel formation which repeatedly changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port. Selecting a specific geometry of the duct is a routine design choice that yields predictable results in flow path configuration.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 3 above, wherein the changes in direction take place in a regularly distributed manner between the inlet port and the outlet port, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a shape of the at bypass duct has a sawtooth profile, a rectangular profile, a double serpentine profile, or a tongue profile. However, selecting a specific sub-type of a profile to define the flow resistance of the duct is a matter of routine design variation within the scope of the broad wavelike configuration. Further, absent persuasive evidence that any unexpected results arise from the selection of a specifically claimed profile, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the bypass duct of Seiji wherein a shape of the at bypass duct has a sawtooth profile, a rectangular profile, a double serpentine profile, or a tongue profile.
Regarding Claim 5, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein a shape of a profile of the cross section of the at least one bypass duct is a V-profile, a rectangular profile, a semicircular profile, a trapezoidal profile, or a hammer head profile. However, Seiji teaches a wavelike flow passage groove part 34a for the fuel gas flow path/channel 34 as alternative to a linear flow passage groove [par. 0030]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the bypass duct of Seiji to have a wavelike configuration as Seiji identifies this as a known alternative for channel formation which repeatedly changes in direction between the inlet port and the outlet port. Selecting a specific geometry of the duct is a routine design choice that yields predictable results in flow path configuration. Further, absent persuasive evidence that any unexpected results arise from the selection of a specifically claimed profile, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the bypass duct of Seiji wherein a shape of a profile of the cross section of the at least one bypass duct is a V-profile, a rectangular profile, a semicircular profile, a trapezoidal profile, or a hammer head profile.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 5 above, wherein the bypass duct has a wavelike configuration, which necessarily meets the limitation wherein sides of a profile of the cross section of the at least one bypass duct are rounded.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiura (US20060110650A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above, but 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 Seiji, wherein a surface in the at least one bypass duct is roughened for the purpose of improving performance of discharging water.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Das (US20100297516A1 – refer to IDS).
Regarding Claim 8, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one reaction gas bypass duct between the inlet port and the outlet port has at least one branch. However, Das, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a fuel cell plate comprising “branches 62 and sub-branches 64 that function to move fluid from the inlet holes to the flow fields [Das – par. 0017; Figs. 1-2]. Das demonstrate that using distinct branches to route fluid is a known architectural feature in fuel cell plates. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the connection method of Seiji to incorporate the branching structure taught by Das in order to allow for precise flow distribution while maintaining unobstructed nature of the bypass duct.
Regarding Claim 9, Seiji discloses the subject matter of claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein a beginning of the at least one reaction gas bypass duct is formed by a branch from a side duct of the at least one flow field. However, Das, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the formation of flow paths via “branches… from a side duct” or transport channels (e.g., sub-branches 64 branching from the main channels) to distribute fluid [par. 0017; Figs. 1-2]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the connection method of Seiji to originate from a side duct via a branch, as taught by Das, in order to achieve improved flow distribution while maintaining unobstructed nature of the bypass duct.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights