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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending in the application. Claims 8-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-13 were rejected in the office action mailed 8/29/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-13 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 10/7/2025, in response to the office action mailed 8/29/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 due to additional prior art.
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.
(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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2014175208A machine translation (Okamoto).
Okamoto teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A bipolar plate for a fuel cell (page 2, line 35 through page 3, line 3),
wherein the bipolar plate comprises a plurality of fluid channels (page 2, line 35 through page 3, line 3:flow path portions 21 ) for transporting operating fluids for the fuel cell,
wherein the plurality of fluid channels each comprise a respective inlet opening (page 7, lines 4-20: inflow side s1) for introducing fluid into the respective fluid channel and an outlet opening (page 7, lines 4-20: outflow side s2) for fluid exiting the respective fluid channel (21),
wherein at least one (page 7, lines 4-20: second channel portion 24) of the plurality of fluid channels (21) has a uniform shape (Figure A below) over an entire length of the bipolar plate in a direction of fluid flow through the respective fluid channel thereby defining a homogenous fluid flow path through the respective fluid channel,
wherein at least one fluid channel (page 7, lines 4-20: first channel portion 23) of the plurality of fluid channels has a non-uniform shape (Figure A below) over the entire length of the bipolar plate in the direction of fluid flow through the respective fluid channel thereby defining a non-homogenous fluid flow path, the at least one fluid channel (23) of the plurality of fluid channels having a non-uniform shape comprising a first region and at least one second region (Figure A below), and
wherein the at least one second region has a reduced cross-section compared to the first region (Figure A below) in order to adjust a volumetric flow of fluid exiting the outlet opening
Figure A: Annotated Okamoto figure 4
PNG
media_image1.png
766
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the at least one fluid channel having the non-uniform shape, in the at least one second region is narrowed by a depression and/or by a material accumulation toward a flow region of the at least one fluid channel (page 7, lines 4-7; figure 4; Figure A above: cross-sectional shape changing part 27)
With regard to claim 3, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 3 limitations:
the at least one fluid channel having the non-uniform shape comprises a roof region, a bottom region, and two flanks connecting the roof region and the bottom region on respective sides of the at least one fluid channel (Figure B below), and
wherein at least one flank and/or the roof region and/or the bottom region in the at least one second region is narrowed relative to the first region toward a flow region of the at least one fluid channel (roof region is narrowed relative to the first region)
Figure B: Annotated Okamoto figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
760
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 4 limitations:
the at least one fluid channel having the non-uniform shape comprises a coolant channel for directing coolant, a hydrogen channel for directing hydrogen, and/or an air channel for directing air (page 3, lines 9-11; page 6, lines 20-33: anode gas can be hydrogen; anode can be the first channel portion 23)
With regard to claim 6, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 6 limitations:
the bipolar plate comprises a plurality of fluid channels having the non-uniform shape and respective second regions of those fluid channels differ from one another in their position along the bipolar plate (Figure C below)
Figure C: Annotated Okamoto figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
765
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 7 limitations:
the bipolar plate comprises a plurality of fluid channels having the non-uniform shape and respective second regions of those fluid channels are shaped in such a way that volumetric flows of fluid flowing out of the respective fluid channels differ from one another at most by a predetermined variance
Okamoto shows a plurality of fluid channels with the non-uniform shape, each with second regions (Figures A & C above). These second regions have a solid shape, so volumetric flow would differ by a predetermined variance.
With regard to claim 12, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Okamoto also teaches the following claim 12 limitations:
A fuel cell system comprising at least one bipolar plate according Claim 1. (page 2, line 35 through page 3, line 3)
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014175208A machine translation (Okamoto), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20190245217A1 (Kato). Okamoto fails to teach the following claim 13 limitations, which are taught by Kato:
wherein the fuel cell system comprises a plurality of bipolar plates (paragraphs 27-28: separators 33a and 33c),
wherein respective bipolar plates differ in their fluid channel geometries in order to adjust a volumetric flow through the entire fuel cell system (paragraph 52: “The groove widths of the wide portions 34a2 and 34c2 may differ from each other. The groove widths of the constant width portions 34a1 and 34c1 may differ from each other. The groove widths of the narrow portions 34a3 and 34c3 may differ from each other.”)
Kato is directed to “a fuel cell stack ensuring joining strength between separators and suppressing pressure loss of coolant” (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Okamoto’s fuel cell to include a plurality of bipolar plates / separators which differ in fluid channel geometries, as taught by Kato, as part of “a fuel cell stack ensuring joining strength between separators and suppressing pressure loss of coolant”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721