DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The previously stated 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 7, 13, and 14 is withdrawn. The amended claims do not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-20 stand rejected under the following 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al (US 2013/0011702) in view of Peled et al (US 2012/0308911), and further in view of Lehman et al (US 5879826).
With respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 18, and 19, Horne et al disclose a redox flow battery energy storage system comprising a redox flow battery stack assembly “10” (flow battery stack) comprising: an electrolyte tank “26”, “28” (storage tank) and input flows “34”, “36” (piping) for containing and transporting two different liquid electrolytes to and from the flow battery; and a conductor surfaces “22”, “24” (conductive central element) having a periphery, the conductor surfaces being disposed within a planar structural member “80”, “82” (non-conductive element) that may be made of polyethylene, polypropylene (molded plastic) and is a single continuous element; the planar structural member being characterized as framing the periphery of the conductor surfaces, and the conductor surfaces and the planar structural member together defining a substantially planar surface when engaged with one another; wherein a bipolar frame (bipolar separator plate) is formed from the planar structural member; wherein flow channels “14”, “16” may be included in the redox flow battery stack assembly to reduce electrolyte pressure drops ([0036],[0041],[0051],[0055] and Figs. 6, 9, 10).
However, Horne et al does not expressly teach each of the conductive element and the non-conductive elements element comprising channels that, when taken together, face one another and form a flow pattern on the substantially planar surface; a channel comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion and the second portion being in register with one another; and the channels being restricted by restrictions, being terminated, or being both restricted by restrictions and terminated (claim 1); wherein the conductive element comprises a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels (claim 3); wherein at least a portion of the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls (claim 5); wherein the substantially parallel flow channels each has substantially parallel sidewalls (claim 6); wherein the manifold of the non-conductive element is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element (claim 7).
Peled et al discloses a bipolar plate that has flow channels “40” forming an interdigitate flow field pattern comprising a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels that are terminated; wherein the flow channel comprises a first portion and a second portion that face one another and being in register with one another; wherein the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls; wherein the bipolar plate includes frame “420” (non-conductive element), wherein the frame is made of an insulating material that is a molded plastic; and a manifold that is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element ([0036],[0041], [0051] and Figs. 6, 9, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne planar structural member/conductor surface to include each of the conductive element and the non-conductive element comprising channels that, when taken together, form a flow pattern on the substantially planar surface, and the channels being terminated; wherein the conductive element comprises a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls in order to provide even distribution of reactants to each cell so that an even current density and voltage distribution across the cell and between cells will be achieved ([0041]).
However, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al does not expressly teach a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second
portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another, and the channels extending into the non-conductive element and being restricted by restrictions, being terminated, or being both restricted by restrictions and being terminated within the non-conductive element, the non-conductive element comprising a manifold from which a second portion of a channel extends (claim 1); wherein the non-conductive element comprises at least one plenum, each plenum being in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element (claim 7).
[AltContent: textbox (manifold)]Lehman et al discloses a hydrogen diffuser/collector plate “25” (conductive central element) that contains only parallel flow passages “26”; which would correspond to an interdigitated flow pattern that necessarily comprises flow channels that terminate within the non-conductive element, and a non-conductive element that comprises a manifold/plenum from which a second portion of the flow channel extends and is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element (col. 10, lines 31-36 and Fig. 5).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
554
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled planar structural member/conductor surface to include a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another, and the channels being terminated within the non-conductive element and a non-conductive element comprising at least one manifold/plenum from which a second portion of the flow channel extends, each manifold/plenum being in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element in order to utilize completely parallel flow passages that provide for facile distribution of the electrolytes across the entire electrode such that the corresponding plastic frame is easily fabricated, much less expensive, and lighter (col. 10, lines 50-53, col. 11, lines 9-14). In addition, the fabrication of the bipolar frame (bipolar separator plate) is facilitated by forming the terminated end of the flow channels and manifolds within the non-conductive element (molded plastic) because it is well known in the art that complex structures are easier to fabricate in molded plastic. Lastly, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed location of terminating portion of the parallel flow channels.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, it is noted that the instant claims are being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. Therefore, the claims are obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims).
Claims 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lehman et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perry et al (US 2008/0292938).
However, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al and Lehman et al does not expressly teach restrictions within the non-conductive element that result in convective flow within the conductive element that is substantially out of the substantially planar surface (claim 2); wherein the channels of the conductive central element that are not terminated at an interface between the conductive central element and the non-conductive element are restricted within the non-conductive element by height, width, or both, relative to the corresponding height or width of the corresponding channel in the conductive element as follows: (i) the height is restricted by 10% to 20%; or 20% to 40%; or 40% to 60%; or 60% to 80%; or 80% to 90%; or (ii) the width is restricted by 10% to 20%; or 20% to 40%; or 40% to 60%; or 60% to 80%; or 80% to 90%; or (iii) any combination of (i) and (ii) where height and/or width restrictions may be the same or different (claim 15); wherein at least two adjacent flow channels not terminated at the interface have different height and/or width restrictions relative to each other (claim 20).
Perry et al disclose a fuel cell flow field channel with partially closed end, wherein, in one example, the obstruction member “46” (restriction) blocks greater than about 0% and below about 100% of the respective channel 18 cross-sectional area. In another example, the obstruction member “46” blocks between about 70% and about 90% of the channel “18” cross-sectional area. In another example, the obstruction member 46 covers about 80% of the channel “18” cross-sectional area ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lehman planar structural member/conductor surface to include restrictions within the planar structural member that result in convective flow within the conductor surface that is substantially out of the substantially planar surface; wherein a height or width of the channels is restricted in the non-conductive element; wherein the height or width of a restricted portion of the channels in the non-conductive element is about 10% to about 30% a height or width of the channels in the conductive element in order to control a balance between reactants pressure drop across the stack assembly and reactant utilization efficiency ([0029]).
Claims 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lehman et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata et al (US 2004/0058223).
However, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al and Lehman et al does not expressly teach a conductive element comprising porous flow media (claim 8); a conductive central element that has a recess that accepts the fluid diffusion medium, the recess being sized so that the fluid diffusion medium is compressed when pressed against a flat side of the adjoining plate (claim 13); wherein the fluid diffusion medium comprises metal, carbon, polymeric binder, and is constructed of woven cloth, nonwoven felt, paper, expanded or reticulated vitreous foam, perforated sheets, or expanded mesh (claim 14).
Shibata et al teaches a separator plate “24A” (conductive central element) that has a recess which accepts a gas diffusion layer “23A” (fluid diffusion medium / flow media) that is superposed on the channels of the separator plate, the recess being sized so that the gas diffusion layer (flow media) is compressed to the desired degree when pressed against the flat side of the adjoining plate ([0039],[0041] and Fig. 3); wherein the gas diffusion layer (fluid diffusion medium) that is a carbon fiber non-woven fabric ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lehman conductor surface to include a fluid diffusion medium superposed on the channels of the conductive element and a conductive central element that is a plate having a recess which accepts flow media, the recess being sized so that the flow media is compressed to the desired degree when pressed against the flat side of the adjoining plate, wherein the fluid diffusion medium is a carbon fiber non-woven fabric in order to provide a gas diffusion layer that lowers the diffusibility of the compressed section, thereby improving the performance of the assembly (0009]).
Claims 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lehman et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ji et al (US 2006/0099481).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al and Lehman et al does not expressly teach substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophilic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels (claim 16); substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophobic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels (claim 17).
Ji et al discloses an electroconductive element (parallel flow channels) comprising a surface having a fluid flow field formed therein and an electroconductive polymer coating applied along a region of the flow field, wherein the surface free energy (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) of the electroconductive coating can be tailored by using different counter ions or deposition conditions ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lehman conductor surfaces to include substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophilic or hydrophobic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels in order to reduce liquid accumulation on the coated region as fluid flows through the flow field, as well as to provide coatings that are electrically conductive and exhibit good corrosion resistance, thereby improving the performance of the stack assembly ([0020]).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al (US 2013/0011702) in view of Peled et al (US 2012/0308911), and further in view of Lindenau (DE 102011120802 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 18, and 19, Horne et al disclose a redox flow battery energy storage system comprising a redox flow battery stack assembly “10” (flow battery stack) comprising: an electrolyte tank “26”, “28” (storage tank) and input flows “34”, “36” (piping) for containing and transporting two different liquid electrolytes to and from the flow battery; and a conductor surfaces “22”, “24” (conductive central element) having a periphery, the conductor surfaces being disposed within a planar structural member “80”, “82” (non-conductive element) that may be made of polyethylene, polypropylene (molded plastic) and is a single continuous element; the planar structural member being characterized as framing the periphery of the conductor surfaces, and the conductor surfaces and the planar structural member together defining a substantially planar surface when engaged with one another; wherein a bipolar frame (bipolar separator plate) is formed from the planar structural member; wherein flow channels “14”, “16” may be included in the redox flow battery stack assembly to reduce electrolyte pressure drops ([0036],[0041],[0051],[0055] and Figs. 6, 9, 10).
However, Horne et al does not expressly teach each of the conductive element and the non-conductive elements element comprising channels that, when taken together, form a flow pattern on the substantially planar surface, and the channels being restricted by restrictions, being terminated, or being both restricted by restrictions and terminated (claim 1); wherein the conductive element comprises a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels (claim 3); wherein at least a portion of the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls (claim 5); wherein the substantially parallel flow channels each has substantially parallel sidewalls (claim 6); wherein the non-conductive element comprises a plenum that is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element (claim 7).
Peled et al discloses a bipolar plate that has flow channels “40” forming an interdigitate flow field pattern comprising a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels that are terminated; wherein the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls; wherein the bipolar plate includes frame “420” (non-conductive element) is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element, wherein the frame is made of an insulating material that is a molded plastic ([0036],[0041], [0051] and Figs. 6, 9, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne planar structural member/conductor surface to include each of the conductive element and the non-conductive element comprising channels that, when taken together, form a flow pattern on the substantially planar surface, and the channels being terminated; wherein the conductive element comprises a plurality of substantially parallel flow channels; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of substantially parallel flow channels has substantially parallel sidewalls in order to provide even distribution of reactants to each cell so that an even current density and voltage distribution across the cell and between cells will be achieved ([0041]).
However, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al does not expressly teach a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second
portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another, and channels extending into the non-conductive element and being restricted by restrictions, being terminated, or being both restricted by restrictions and being terminated within the non-conductive element, the non-conductive element comprising a manifold from which a second portion of the channel extends (claim 1); wherein the manifold of the non-conductive element is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element (claim 7).
Lindenau discloses a bipolar plate comprising an inner region “B1” (conductive central element) and an electrically insulating edge region “B2” (non-conductive element) that completely surround the inner region, wherein flow channels “2” extend into the electrically insulating edge region and is terminated within the electrically insulating edge region; wherein the electrically insulating edge region comprises a plenum that is in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the inner region; the electrically insulating edge region comprising a manifold from which a second portion of the flow channel extends ([0045] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled planar structural member/conductor surface to include a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another, and channels being terminated within the non-conductive element and a non-conductive element comprising at least one plenum, each manifold being in fluid communication with two or more of the substantially parallel flow channels of the conductive central element; the non-conductive element comprising the manifold from which a second portion of the channel extends in order to utilize a channel structure of the frame that is made of a weldable thermoplastic, thereby simplifying the structure and manufacture of the bipolar plate ([0049]).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, it is noted that the instant claims are being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. Therefore, the claims are obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims).
Claims 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lindenau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perry et al (US 2008/0292938).
However, Horne et al. as modified by Peled et al and Lindenau does not expressly teach restrictions within the non-conductive element that result in convective flow within the conductive element that is substantially out of the substantially planar surface (claim 2); wherein the channels of the conductive central element that are not terminated at an interface between the conductive central element and the non-conductive element are restricted within the non-conductive element by height, width, or both, relative to the corresponding height or width of the corresponding channel in the conductive element as follows: (i) the height is restricted by 10% to 20%; or 20% to 40%; or 40% to 60%; or 60% to 80%; or 80% to 90%; or (ii) the width is restricted by 10% to 20%; or 20% to 40%; or 40% to 60%; or 60% to 80%; or 80% to 90%; or (iii) any combination of (i) and (ii) where height and/or width restrictions may be the same or different (claim 15); wherein at least two adjacent flow channels not terminated at the interface have different height and/or width restrictions relative to each other (claim 20).
Perry et al. disclose a fuel cell flow field channel with partially closed end, wherein, in one example, the obstruction member “46” (restriction) blocks greater than about 0% and below about 100% of the respective channel 18 cross-sectional area. In another example, the obstruction member “46” blocks between about 70% and about 90% of the channel “18” cross-sectional area. In another example, the obstruction member 46 covers about 80% of the channel “18” cross-sectional area ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lindenau planar structural member/conductor surface to include restrictions within the planar structural member that result in convective flow within the conductor surface that is substantially out of the substantially planar surface; wherein a height or width of the channels is restricted in the non-conductive element; wherein the height or width of a restricted portion of the channels in the non-conductive element is about 10% to about 30% a height or width of the channels in the conductive element in order to control a balance between reactants pressure drop across the stack assembly and reactant utilization efficiency ([0029]).
Claims 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lindenau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata et al (US 2004/0058223).
However, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al and Lindenau does not expressly teach a conductive element comprising porous flow media (claim 8); a conductive central element that has a recess that accepts the fluid diffusion medium, the recess being sized so that the fluid diffusion medium is compressed when pressed against a flat side of the adjoining plate (claim 13); wherein the fluid diffusion medium comprises metal, carbon, polymeric binder, and is constructed of woven cloth, nonwoven felt, paper, expanded or reticulated vitreous foam, perforated sheets, or expanded mesh (claim 14).
Shibata et al teaches a separator plate “24A” (conductive central element) that has a recess which accepts a gas diffusion layer “23A” (fluid diffusion medium / flow media) that is superposed on the channels of the separator plate, the recess being sized so that the gas diffusion layer (flow media) is compressed to the desired degree when pressed against the flat side of the adjoining plate ([0039],[0041] and Fig. 3); wherein the gas diffusion layer (fluid diffusion medium) is a carbon fiber non-woven fabric ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lindenau conductor surface to include a fluid diffusion medium superposed on the channels of the conductive element and a conductive central element that is a plate having a recess which accepts flow media, the recess being sized so that the flow media is compressed to the desired degree when pressed against the flat side of the adjoining plate, wherein the fluid diffusion medium is a carbon fiber non-woven fabric in order to provide a gas diffusion layer that lowers the diffusibility of the compressed section, thereby improving the performance of the assembly (0009]).
Claims 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al in view of Peled et al and Lindenau as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ji et al (US 2006/0099481).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Horne et al as modified by Peled et al and Lindenau does not expressly teach substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophilic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels (claim 16); substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophobic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels (claim 17).
Ji et al discloses an electroconductive element (parallel flow channels) comprising a surface having a fluid flow field formed therein and an electroconductive polymer coating applied along a region of the flow field, wherein the surface free energy (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) of the electroconductive coating can be tailored by using different counter ions or deposition conditions ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Horne/Peled/Lindenau conductor surfaces to include substantially parallel flow channels that are coated with a hydrophilic or hydrophobic coating within the substantially parallel flow channels in order to reduce liquid accumulation on the coated region as fluid flows through the flow field, as well as to provide coatings that are electrically conductive and exhibit good corrosion resistance, thereby improving the performance of the stack assembly ([0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the office's suggestion is misplaced, as the office does not identify disclosure in the cited references that teaches or suggests the feature of "a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another and the first and second portions being in register with one another" as recited in claim 1. Although the Lehman reference may teach the presence of manifolds, Lehman - like the other references - fails to teach or suggest "a channel comprising a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another and the first and second portions being in register with one another" as recited in claim 1. As shown, Lehman does not teach or suggest "a channel comprising a first portion residing in the
conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another and the first and second portions being in register with one another" as recited in claim 1. First, the space between conductive element 25 and nonconductive frame 320 confirms that conductive element 25 does not abut non-conductive frame 320 - and the office does not identify any disclosure in Lehman or any other reference to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Lehman in the ways necessary to arrive at this feature. Second, outlet passages 324 are not in register with the channels of conductive element 25 - and the office does not identify any disclosure in Lehman or any other reference to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Lehman in the ways necessary to arrive at this additional feature. As MPEP 2142 explains, the legal conclusion of obviousness "must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art" and not on an applicant's own disclosure, and in the present case, the only teaching in the record of the features of Applicant's independent claim 1 is found in Applicant's own disclosure, not in the cited references”.
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). The Lehman reference is relied upon for teaching the concept of forming a conductive central element “25” that contains only parallel flow passages “26”. As shown in the annotated Fig. 6 of Peled above, the teachings of the Lehman can be applied to the Peled interdigitated flow field pattern to form a conductive central element having only parallel flow channels which simplifies the manufacture of the conductive central element. As a result of this modification, the Peled flow channels “40” would necessarily comprises a first portion residing in the conductive element and a second portion residing in the non-conductive element, the first and second portions abutting one another and the first and second portions being in register with one another. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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 In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivation to modify the Peled bipolar plate to include a conductive element comprising only substantially parallel flow channels is found in Lehman which teaches that “One design of the present invention uses polypropylene (non-conductive element) which is easily fabricated, much less expensive, and lighter” (see col. 11, lines 12-14). Since the Peled bipolar plate still requires a conductive central element, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the frame that is made of an insulating material such as a molded plastic would facilitate the fabrication of complex structures such as the manifold and portions of the flow channels that extend from the parallel flow channels of the conductive central element. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the Peled interdigitated flow field pattern to include a space between the conductive element and non-conductive element taught by Lehman because that space would not be applicable to the Peled interdigitated flow field pattern.
The Applicant further argues that “in Lindenau, "[t]he electrically insulating edge region B2 completely surrounds the active inner region B1, in which the channel structure 2 for the media is formed, wherein the edge region B2 is fluid-tight." Lindenau at paragraph [0045]; see also Lindenau at [0039] (explaining that edge region B2 is "not electrically conductive"). Thus, Lindenau itself confirms that no part of any channel or of any manifold resides in the non-conductive region B2. Second, a search in "Lindenau" for the term "manifold" results in zero "hits," further confirming that a person of skill in the art who reads that reference would have no motivation to arrive at the manifold arrangement of Applicant's claim 1.”.
In response, the Office disagrees that Lindenau itself confirms that no part of any channel or of any manifold resides in the non-conductive region B2. In fact, Fig. 5 of Lindenau shows a manifold residing in the non-conductive region B2 even if the manifold is not labeled. The reference number “2” shown in Fig. 5 would correspond to the location of the manifold shown in Fig. 4. In addition, Fig. 5 also confirms that the active inner region B1 (which is electrically conductive) only includes parallel flow channels of the flow field pattern.
Conclusion
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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/27/2026