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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number “25” in figs. 3-4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Although the Instant Application is a 371 Application, PCT rule 11.13 has a similar requirement where “reference signs not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings, and vice versa” (MPEP 1825).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “This invention relates to a method for…” Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, recommend not capitalizing the referenced claim, which the claims are dependent upon.
In claim 10, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the bipolar plate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Each of the claims require “internal stresses” or “temperature fields” that are “introduced into at least one of the two planar components.” The Specification describes these “internal stresses” and “temperature fields” as results that come to take place after certain method steps are executed. However, instead of claiming the method steps that produce these results, the claims broadly require the results of these method steps. While the Specification is enabling for the method steps disclosed in the Specification, the Specification is not enabling for all the possible method steps, which are included within the scope of the claims for producing the claimed results. Thus, although breadth in claims is not a cause for indefiniteness, when the claim language is overly broad, which is the case for the current set of claims, then this claim language causes the claims to have a scope of protection beyond that which is justified by the Specification.
The specific factors that were considered by the examiner were the “breadth of the claims” and the “existence of working examples.”
Claims 1 and 11 recite “internal stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components” before integrally bonding (welding) the two planar components. Similarly, claims 4 and 14 recite “tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.”
Breadth of the claims: This scope of the claims encompasses all methods that can cause internal stresses or tensile stresses in the planar components, e.g., electrical stresses, chemical stresses, mechanical stresses, and thermal stresses.
Working examples: The Specification only provides examples of mechanical stresses (embossing, rolling, spinning, and hot embossing in paragraph 0023) and thermal heating from laser light (paragraphs 0020, 0027-0028, and 0055-0061). The Specification does not provide any examples for all the possible method steps that can cause internal stresses in the planar components such as electrical current or chemical reactions.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “the internal stresses are mechanically introduced.”
Breadth of the claims: This scope of the claims encompasses all mechanical methods that can cause internal stresses in the planar components.
Working examples: The Specification only provides examples of mechanical stresses (embossing, rolling, spinning, and hot embossing in paragraph 0023). The Specification does not provide any examples for all the possible mechanical method steps that can cause internal stresses in the planar components such as clamping the planar components or using a vacuum source to apply pressure to the planar components.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components.”
Breadth of the claims: This scope of the claims encompasses all methods that can cause thermal stresses in the planar components.
Working examples: The Specification only provides examples of thermal heating from laser light (paragraphs 0020, 0027-0028, and 0055-0061). The Specification does not provide any examples for all the possible thermal method steps that can cause internal stresses in the planar components such as heating from a furnace or heating from an induction heater.
These rejections can be overcome by reciting method steps that produce the claimed “internal stresses” and “temperature fields.” Claims 3, 6-10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of the examination, because the Specification does not disclose any other method for integrally bonding the two planar components other than welding, this limitation will be interpreted as being a requirement in order to meet the scope of the claim.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “internal stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.” It is unclear when “internal stresses” occur or when “internal stresses” do not occur within the planar component. For example, if the temperature of the component were to change, then this change in temperature should theoretically cause the molecular structure inside the component to move at a faster speed due to the heating. Thus, this change in temperature would result in an “internal stress.” Or, if someone were to place a weight on the component, then presumably there would be an internal stress due to the force from the weight. However, in either of these cases, because the stresses are internal, how would one of ordinary skill in the art know if there were in fact “internal stresses” in the planar components? In other words, the scope of the limitation is unclear because the stresses are “internal” to the component, and one of ordinary skill in the art could not know whether or not they were infringing on the limitation.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “prior to integrally bonding, tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.” Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 14 is dependent on claim 11, which recite that prior to or before integrally bonding, “internal stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.” The scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear how many stresses are required and which types of stresses are required prior to integrally bonding the components together. Specifically, in claims 4 and 14, are both “tensile stresses” and “internal stresses” required or are “tensile stresses” considered to be “internal stresses?”
The Specification describes “tensile stresses” in the context of a weld seam that has been placed on the planar components. These tensile stresses 11 are shown as being directed inwards towards the weld seam 33 as opposed to compressive strains 13, which are directed outwards from the weld seam (fig. 8 in the Instant Application). However, claims 4 and 14 recite “prior to integrally bonding, tensile stresses are introduced.” When there is no weld seam present, how are the tensile stresses defined? Can the tensile stresses point in any direction?
Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “tensile stresses,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed stresses, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components.” It is unclear how a “temperature field is introduced” into a planar component. A temperature field is understood to be defined as “a scalar field that describes the distribution of temperature in a region of space at a given time.” As a result, instead of “introducing” a temperature field, a temperature field of object can be changed, either by cooling or heating the object. It is unclear then how a temperature field is “introduced” into a planar component. The Specification discloses that this temperature field can be affected by “beamforming a welding laser or by using an additional laser, in particular by laser spots.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted such that if additional laser spots are taught, then the requirements of the claim will be satisfied.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "thereafter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what the antecedent is for “there.” Does “there” represent step (a), step (b), or steps (a) and (b)? The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what order of steps is required. Since there is no way of determining the order of steps in the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed streps (albeit in no particular order), then it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 18 recites: “characterized in that the two planar components are an anode sheet or a cathode sheet in each case.” It is unclear if this claim requires that the two planar components are combined as either an anode sheet or combined as an cathode sheet; or the claim requires instead that one component is an anode sheet or the second component is a cathode sheet; or instead that one component is an anode sheet and the second component is a cathode sheet. It is also not clear from the Specification, which of the three interpretations is intended (the Drawings do not show the claimed anode/cathode sheets, and the Specification repeats the claim limitation). Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches a method (title) for producing a bipolar plate (fig. 2; has an anode side ad a cathode side as well as a shield pate 45, para 0033, used to produce a fuel cell, fig. 3; the power generation unit 20 is construed as a bipolar plate), comprising the following steps:
a. providing two planar components (sheet 210, fig. 6, which becomes body flow path 40, fig. 2, and shield plate 45, fig. 2; construed as each being planar components), and
b. integrally bonding the two planar components, in particular by welding (body flow path 40 is welded to shield plate 45, fig. 17; paras 0060-0061), in a joining plane (plane on top of shield plate 45, fig. 16; construed as having a depth, which is shown in fig. 14), wherein, prior to integrally bonding (fig. 17), internal stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components (the sheet 210 is rolled by rollers 340, fig. 6; para 0023 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “rolling” causes “internal stresses;” construed such that the rolling of the sheet 210 taught by Okabe in fig. 6 results in internal stresses prior to the welding taught by Okabe in fig. 17; fig. 4).
Okabe, figs. 6 and 17
PNG
media_image1.png
386
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
791
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okabe teaches characterized in that the internal stresses are mechanically introduced (the sheet 210 is rolled by rollers 340, fig. 6; para 0023 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “rolling” are examples of “internal stresses” that are “mechanically introduced”).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe teaches characterized in that, during integrally bonding (body flow path 40 is welded to shield plate 45, fig. 17; paras 0060-0061), at least one of the two planar components is deformed toward the joining plane (“second inclined portion 412 is deformed by the pressing force until it contacts the shield plate 45,” para 0061).
Regarding claim 6, Okabe teaches characterized in that, when integrally bonding (fig. 17), a part (portion 412, figs. 16-17) of at least one of the two planar components is moved toward the joining plane (top surface of plate 45, fig. 17).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe teaches characterized in that at least one of the two planar components (body flow 40, fig. 17) comprises geometry elements (parts 450, fig. 11) with a direction component (mesh 470 inserts into gap that is inside the parts 450, figs. 3 and 11, para 0037) perpendicular to a surface (flat portion 415, figs. 3 and 11) of the respective planar component.
Regarding claim 8, Okabe teaches characterized in that the two planar components are sheets (sheet 210, fig. 6, and shield plate 45, fig. 2; shield plate 45 is construed as sheet, fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10, Okabe teaches a method for producing a fuel cell (fuel cell 100, fig. 1), the method comprising producing a bipolar plate according to the method of claim 1 (please see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Okabe teaches a method (title) for producing a bipolar plate (fig. 2; has an anode side ad a cathode side as well as a shield pate 45, para 0033, used to produce a fuel cell, fig. 3; the power generation unit 20 is construed as a bipolar plate), the method comprising the following steps:
a. providing two planar components (sheet 210, fig. 6, which becomes body flow path 40, fig. 2, and shield plate 45, fig. 2; construed as each being planar components) in a stacked manner (the flow path 40 is stacked with the shield plate 45, fig. 2),
b. introducing internal stresses into at least one of the two planar components (the sheet 210 is rolled by rollers 340, fig. 6; para 0023 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “rolling” causes “internal stresses;” construed such that the rolling of the sheet 210 taught by Okabe in fig. 6 results in internal stresses prior to the welding taught by Okabe in fig. 17; fig. 4), and
c. thereafter integrally bonding the two planar components, by welding (body flow path 40 is welded to shield plate 45, fig. 17; paras 0060-0061), in a joining plane (plane on top of shield plate 45, fig. 16; construed as having a depth, which is shown in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe teaches characterized in that the internal stresses are mechanically introduced (the sheet 210 is rolled by rollers 340, fig. 6; para 0023 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “rolling” are examples of “internal stresses” that are “mechanically introduced”).
Regarding claim 13, Okabe teaches characterized in that, during integrally bonding (body flow path 40 is welded to shield plate 45, fig. 17; paras 0060-0061), at least one of the two planar components is deformed toward the joining plane (“second inclined portion 412 is deformed by the pressing force until it contacts the shield plate 45,” para 0061).
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11-13 above and further in view of Kimura et al. (US-20100021628-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Okabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding, tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Kimura teaches characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding (“assembly may be curved such that its surface where the electrolyte membrane is formed is concavely curved,” para 0012; construed such that the compressive stress taught by Kimura is applied before the welding taught by Okabe), tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components (compressive stress C, fig. 5B; para 0049).
Kimura, fig. 5B
PNG
media_image3.png
978
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Kimura, by applying a compressive stress C, as taught by Kimura, to the shield plate 45 prior to the body flow 40 being welded to the plate 45, as taught by Okabe, in order to produce a concave surface in the electrolyte membrane, for the advantage of reducing the opposing tensile stress in the electrolyte membrane and hence the possibility of damage to the electrolyte membrane (Kimura, para 0013).
Regarding claim 14, Okabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding, tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Kimura teaches characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding (“assembly may be curved such that its surface where the electrolyte membrane is formed is concavely curved,” para 0012; construed such that the compressive stress taught by Kimura is applied before the welding taught by Okabe), tensile stresses are introduced into at least one of the two planar components (compressive stress C, fig. 5B; para 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Kimura, by applying a compressive stress C, as taught by Kimura, to the shield plate 45 prior to the body flow 40 being welded to the plate 45, as taught by Okabe, in order to produce a concave surface in the electrolyte membrane, for the advantage of reducing the opposing tensile stress in the electrolyte membrane and hence the possibility of damage to the electrolyte membrane (Kimura, para 0013).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wilkosz et al. (US-20160368078-A1).
Okabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding, at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Wilkosz teaches characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding (“continuous line welding,” para 0029; fig. 5), at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components (apertures 20 from “burst spot welds,” para 0027; fig. 3).
Wilkosz, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
806
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Wilkosz, by applying burst spot welds and by using the welding fixture assembly 14, as taught by Wilkosz, when welding the body flow 40 to the plate 45, as taught by Okabe, in order to use interim spot welds prior completing the weld using continuous line welding, for the advantage of maintaining alignment of the workpieces by using the spot welds, which minimize the heat flux experienced by the workpieces (Wikosz, paras 0003-0004; fig. 14 of Okabe shows a plan view of body 40 and plate 45).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bossel et al. (US-5338621-A).
Okabe teaches characterized in that the planar component each has a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (“the thickness which is adopted in order to reduce the deformation of the shield plate 45 is 0.1 mm,” para 0077).
Okabe does not explicitly disclose characterized in that the two planar components each have a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (Okabe does not explicitly disclose a thickness for the sheet 210).
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Bossel teaches that the two planar components each have a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (“gastight separating plate 6 designed as a hollow body produced from two half-shell sheet metal bodies having a thickness of 0.1 mm,” column 7, lines 28-29).
Bossel, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
408
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Bossel, by using a thickness of 0.1 mm, as taught by Bossel, for the sheet 210, as taught by Okabe, in order to use metal bodies that can form a gastight separating plate through welding according to a standard composition, in order to flow the gas along the surface of the separating plate, which makes it possible to carry out endothermial chemical conversion reactions within the fuel electrodes (Bossel, column 2, lines 47-54 and column 7, lines 27-34).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1) in view of Kimura et al. (US-20100021628-A1) as applied to claims 11-14 above and further in view of Wilkosz et al. (US-20160368078-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Okabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding, at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Wilkosz teaches characterized in that, prior to integrally bonding (“continuous line welding,” para 0029; fig. 5), at least one temperature field is introduced into at least one of the two planar components (apertures 20 from “burst spot welds,” para 0027; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Wilkosz, by applying burst spot welds and by using the welding fixture assembly 14, as taught by Wilkosz, when welding the body flow 40 to the plate 45, as taught by Okabe, in order to use interim spot welds prior completing the weld using continuous line welding, for the advantage of maintaining alignment of the workpieces by using the spot welds, which minimize the heat flux experienced by the workpieces (Wikosz, paras 0003-0004; fig. 14 of Okabe shows a plan view of body 40 and plate 45).
Regarding claim 16, Okabe teaches characterized in that, when integrally bonding (fig. 17), a part (portion 412, figs. 16-17) of at least one of the two planar components is moved toward the joining plane (top surface of plate 45, fig. 17).
Regarding claim 17, Okabe teaches characterized in that at least one of the two planar components (body flow 40, fig. 17) comprises geometry elements (parts 450, fig. 11) with a direction component (mesh 470 inserts into gap that is inside the parts 450, figs. 3 and 11, para 0037) perpendicular to a surface (flat portion 415, figs. 3 and 11) of the respective planar component.
Regarding claim 18, Okabe teaches characterized in that the two planar components (sheet 210, fig. 6, which becomes body flow path 40, fig. 2, and shield plate 45, fig. 2) are an anode sheet (shield plate 45 is on the side of the anode separator 73, fig. 2; construed as an anode sheet) or a cathode sheet (body flow 4 is on the side of the cathode separator 71, fig. 2; construed as a cathode sheet) in each case.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US-20160104902-A1) in view of Kimura et al. (US-20100021628-A1) and Wilkosz et al. (US-20160368078-A1) as applied to claims 11-18 above and further in view of Bossel et al. (US-5338621-A).
Okabe teaches characterized in that the planar component each has a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (“the thickness which is adopted in order to reduce the deformation of the shield plate 45 is 0.1 mm,” para 0077).
Okabe does not explicitly disclose characterized in that the two planar components each have a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (Okabe does not explicitly disclose a thickness for the sheet 210).
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell manufacturing, Bossel teaches that the two planar components each have a thickness of not more than 0.1 mm (“gastight separating plate 6 designed as a hollow body produced from two half-shell sheet metal bodies having a thickness of 0.1 mm,” column 7, lines 28-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Okabe, in view of the teachings of Bossel, by using a thickness of 0.1 mm, as taught by Bossel, for the sheet 210, as taught by Okabe, in order to use metal bodies that can form a gastight separating plate through welding according to a standard composition, in order to flow the gas along the surface of the separating plate, which makes it possible to carry out endothermial chemical conversion reactions within the fuel electrodes (Bossel, column 2, lines 47-54 and column 7, lines 27-34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. (US-20100015505-A1) teach a method for stamping metal in fuel cell bipolar plates.
Lin et al. (US-20180166704-A1) teach laser welding bipolar plates.
Bloehs (US-20220149395-A1) teaches a system for preheating bipolar plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/1/2025