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 .
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each instance of the phrase “by means of…” in Claims 1, 4-5, 11-12, 15-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, it is suggested that the phrase “of the welding device (6), two metal plates (11) being joined” should be written as “of the welding device (6) thereby forming two metal plates (11) being joined” (similar to the phrase “of the stamping device (3) thereby forming metal plates” in step a). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, it is suggested that the phrase “up to the injection molding machine” should be written as “up to the injection-molding machine.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective flow field fuel-cell plate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow field fuel-cell plates." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that there appears to be no previous recitation or explicit mention of a presence of more than one flow field fuel-cell plate in Claim 1).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entire production method." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (i.e. while it is evident that the claimed structures are conveyed by the conveying device, it is unclear if said claimed structures are required to be conveyed continuously by the conveying device). See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the instantly claimed structures are required to be conveyed by the conveying device continuously.
Claims 2, 12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the strip conveying direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the strip conveying direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the respective handling." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective roller." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Regarding Claim 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (i.e. while it is evident that the metal strip is tensioned, it is unclear if the metal plates are required to be tensioned). See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the metal strip and the metal plates are required to be tensioned.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 2." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 2” is suggested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the two metal plates." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (i.e. while it is evident that the anode and cathode are welded together, it is unclear if the anode and cathode are required to be welded together by laser welding). See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the anode and cathode are required to be welded together by laser welding.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective flow field fuel-cell plate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "The production method according to claim 1." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 is drawn to “A method for producing…” as opposed to explicitly “A production method”). A preamble such as “A method according to claim 1” is suggested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the further camera." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is replete with further antecedent basis issues (e.g. “after inspecting,” “the predetermined geometrical features,” “further camera”). However, it is evident that Claim 16 should depend from Claim 15 (instead of Claim 1) based on the limitations recited in Claim 15. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that Claim 16 depends from Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisar et al. (WO 2018/114974, using the equivalent US 2021/0135245 for citation purposes), and further in view of Coleman et al. (US 2003/0157391) and Jin et al. (US 2015/0180053).
Regarding Claim 17, Cisar teaches a method and a device (“production line”) for producing a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (“flow field fuel-cell plate”) (Title, Abstract, [0075]-[0076]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Cisar teaches that the device (1) produces the bipolar plate (93) from a continuous metal substrate strip (97) (“continuous or discontinuous metal strip”) ([0075]-[0076]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Cisar teaches that the device comprises a conveying device (2) (“single conveying device”) disposed along the device, a forming device (3) which stamps the metal substrate strip (“stamping device”), and a joining device (4) which welds individual substrate plates (98) together (“welding device”) ([0075]-[0076]). As illustrated in Figure 2, the conveying device is disposed or extends from the forming device and along the joining device.
Cisar does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a cleaning device or a coating device.
However, Coleman teaches a coating apparatus for coating fuel cell bipolar plates (Abstract, [0102]). As illustrated in Figure 5, Coleman teaches that after being stamped, a metal strip is conveyed along the apparatus to a cleaning device (i.e. first tank (56), first rinse tank (62), second rinse tank (68), third rinse tank (70), alone or in combination) and then to a coating device (i.e. first treating tank (76)), wherein the coating device coats surfaces of the metal strip with a silane-comprising coating, and wherein the cleaning device cleans the metal strip to provide an ion-free and degreased clean surface for coating with the silane-comprising coating ([0099], [0102]). Coleman teaches that the silane-comprising coating provides for enhanced corrosion resistance characteristics ([0012]-[0013], [0067], [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the device of Cisar, further include along the conveying device after the forming device a “cleaning device” (i.e. first tank (56), first rinse tank (62), second rinse tank (68), third rinse tank (70), alone or in combination) followed by a “coating device” (i.e. first treating tank (76)) which provides a silane-comprising coating, as taught by Coleman, given that such a coating would help enhance corrosion resistance characteristics and such a cleaning device would help provide an ion-free and degreased clean surface for coating with the silane-comprising coating (based on said positioning, it is considered that the conveying device of Cisar, as modified by Coleman, is disposed or extends from the forming device and along the cleaning device, the coating device, and the joining device).
Cisar, as modified by Coleman, does not explicitly teach that the device comprises an injection-molding machine.
However, Jin teaches a bipolar separator for a fuel cell (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2, Jin teaches that after being brought together, an injection-molding device comprising an injection-molding mold overmolds peripheral portions of metal plates of the bipolar separator with an injection-molded gasket in order to ensure sealing of said peripheral portions ([0031]-[0033], [0040]-[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the device of Cisar, as modified by Coleman, further include after the joining device an injection-molding device (“injection-molding machine”), as taught by Jin, to which the conveying device also extends or is disposed up to, given that such a device would be operable to provide an injection-molded gasket to peripheral portions of the bipolar plate to thereby enhance sealing characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 requires, among all other limitations, that (1) the production line comprises the instantly claimed conveying device, stamping device, cleaning device, coating device, welding device, and injection-molding machine, (2) the method comprises the instantly claimed steps a-e, and (3) the metal plate strip, metal plates, and flow field fuel-cell plates are disposed on the conveying device during the entire production method and are conveyed continuously by the conveying device.
The closest prior art references of record relevant to at least independent Claim 1 are Cisar, Coleman, and Jin, as previously described.
Cisar, as modified by Coleman and Jin, as previously described, disclose a method and device for producing a bipolar plate for a fuel cell, wherein the device includes features such as the conveying device, the forming device, the cleaning device, the coating device, the joining device, and the injection-molding device, wherein said devices perform stamping, cleaning, coating, welding, and overmolding processes. However, Cisar, as modified by Coleman and Jin, does not explicitly teach that the substrate strip, the individual substrate plates and the bipolar plate are disposed on the conveying device during the entire method of producing the bipolar plate and are each conveyed continuously by the conveying device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728