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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/16/2023 and 06/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 05/16/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 05/16/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/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 19 recites the limitation “the coating” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchet discloses a component for an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
a plate (flow structure 5) for a fuel cell (10) comprising a substrate formed from a material comprising an expanded metal grille (expanded metals, [0026]) and the material is formed from a tin-nickel alloy (nickel-tin alloy, [0026]).
Blanchet discloses the component as a “flow structure” ([0026]) and thus does not explicitly disclose the component as a bipolar plate (it is noted that additional components are referred to as bipolar plates 2, [0028]), nor does Blanchet disclose the component being used as an electrode for a redox flow cell, nor as a fluid diffusion layer for an electrolyzer.
Stoehr teaches a separator plate for an electrochemical system (Title). Stoehr teaches that known electrochemical systems usually comprise multiple separator plates/bipolar plates ([0002]). Stoehr teaches that separator plates form media channels for feeding or discharging media, e.g. hydrogen, methanol, air, or oxygen ([0003-0004]). Stoehr explicitly teaches that a bipolar plate is formed from two separator plates, made of metal sheets, which are welded together ([0022-0024]). Stoehr further teaches that such separator/bipolar plates may be used in fuel cell, electrolyzers, or redox flow batteries ([0044-0045]).
Blanchet and Stoehr are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely components for electrochemical systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the flow structure of Blanchet is reasonably considered to be a component of a bipolar plate because a bipolar plate commonly has two separate metal plates which act together to distribute e.g. hydrogen or air, as suggested by Stoehr (0003-0004]). In other words, the skilled artisan would reasonably understand that Blanchet refers to the component as a flow structure, but would reasonably consider such a component as one half of a complete bipolar plate.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that the component of Blanchet could be used as an electrode for a redox flow cell or as a fluid diffusion layer for an electrolyzer, as suggested by Stoehr ([0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses that the expanded metal grille has a three-dimensional profile at least in regions (as indicated by the term “expanded”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses a coating which is applied to the substrate (Blanchet: corrosion-resistant coating, [0026]) wherein the coating is a noble metal (Blanchet: gold, [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses a fuel cell (Blanchet: [0003]) comprising the recited bipolar plate (as noted above) and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane (Blanchet: PEM membrane 8, [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses an electrolyzer (Stoehr: [0045]) comprising the recited bipolar plate (as noted above) and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane (Blanchet: PEM membrane 8, [0025]; see also Stoehr: MEA, [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses that the expanded metal grille has a three-dimensional profile at least in regions (as indicated by the term “expanded”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses a coating which is applied to the substrate (Blanchet: corrosion-resistant coating, [0026]) wherein the coating is a noble metal (Blanchet: gold, [0026]).
Claim(s) 2, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”), as applied to claims 1, 9, or 10 above, in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0365913 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 2, 15 and 20, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses the recited component is an expanded metal grille (Blanchet: [0026]), but does not disclose any appropriate thickness, and therefore does not disclose a maximum thickness of 5 mm.
Zhang teaches a fuel cell stack with bipolar plates (Title). Zhang teaches that a bipolar plate is made of a first bipolar plate (1) and a second bipolar plate (2) ([0074]). Zhang teaches that each bipolar plate should preferably be made of a metal or alloy thin plate with a thickness of less than 0.5 mm ([0092]).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely components for electrochemical systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the bipolar plate of modified Blanchet must necessarily have a thickness, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the bipolar plate with a maximum thickness of 0.5 mm, as suggested by Zhang ([0092]), and which falls within the recited range.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”), as applied to claims 4, 10, or 17 above, in further view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0159515 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18-19, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses the coating of a noble metal (Blanchet: [0026]), but does not disclose an appropriate coating thickness, and therefore does not disclose a layer thickness in a range of 2 to 500 nm.
Kim teaches fuel cell bipolar plate alloys (Title). Kim teaches that the bipolar plate is formed of a substrate (304) with a surface layer coating (310) having an optimized thickness of 100 nm to 250 nm ([0161]).
Kim is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely components for electrochemical systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the coating of modified Blanchet must necessarily have a thickness, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the coating with a thickness between 100 to 250 nm, as suggested by Kim ([0161]), and which falls within the recited range.
Regarding claim 6, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses that the component can be an electrode for a redox flow cell (Stoehr: [0044-0045]) and that the coating (Kim: 310) covers the substrate at least in a contact region to an electrolyte of the redox flow cell (electrolytes necessarily contact electrodes, and thus the coatings on substrates of said electrodes, in redox flow cells in order to function).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Perry (US 2020/0044267 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses that the component can be an electrode for a redox flow cell (Stoehr: [0044-0045]), but does not explicitly disclose said redox flow cell, and therefore does not explicitly disclose at least one electrolyte with a pH in a range from 7 to 14.
Perry teaches a redox flow battery (Title). Perry teaches that the redox flow battery comprises a first circulation loop that contacts a polysulfide electrolyte having a pH of 11.5 or greater with a first electrode ([0003]).
Perry is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely redox flow cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that when utilizing the component of modified Blanchet in a redox flow cell, it would be obvious that the redox flow cell must necessarily comprise some electrolyte, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the redox flow cell to have an electrolyte with a pH of 11.5 or greater, as suggested by Perry (Perry: [0003]).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (11.5 orgreater significantly overlaps with 7 to 14) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses at least two electrodes (Perry: first and second electrodes, [0003]), a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber (Perry: first and second circulation loops, [0003]; also as shown in Fig 1) wherein each of the reaction chambers is in contact with one of the electrodes (Perry: [0003]) and the reaction chambers are separated from each other by an ion exchange membrane (Perry: separator layer, [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses that the expanded metal grille has a three-dimensional profile at least in regions (as indicated by the term “expanded”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet further discloses a coating which is applied to the substrate (Blanchet: corrosion-resistant coating, [0026]) wherein the coating is a noble metal (Blanchet: gold, [0026]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”) and Perry (US 2020/0044267 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0365913 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses the recited component is an expanded metal grille (Blanchet: [0026]), but does not disclose any appropriate thickness, and therefore does not disclose a maximum thickness of 5 mm.
Zhang teaches a fuel cell stack with bipolar plates (Title). Zhang teaches that a bipolar plate is made of a first bipolar plate (1) and a second bipolar plate (2) ([0074]). Zhang teaches that each bipolar plate should preferably be made of a metal or alloy thin plate with a thickness of less than 0.5 mm ([0092]).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely components for electrochemical systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the bipolar plate of modified Blanchet must necessarily have a thickness, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the bipolar plate with a maximum thickness of 0.5 mm, as suggested by Zhang ([0092]), and which falls within the recited range.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US 2015/0050571 A1) in view of Stoehr et al. (US 2021/0210769 A1; hereinafter “Stoehr”) and Perry (US 2020/0044267 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0159515 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Blanchet discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Blanchet discloses the coating of a noble metal (Blanchet: [0026]), but does not disclose an appropriate coating thickness, and therefore does not disclose a layer thickness in a range of 2 to 500 nm.
Kim teaches fuel cell bipolar plate alloys (Title). Kim teaches that the bipolar plate is formed of a substrate (304) with a surface layer coating (310) having an optimized thickness of 100 nm to 250 nm ([0161]).
Kim is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely components for electrochemical systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the coating of modified Blanchet must necessarily have a thickness, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the coating with a thickness between 100 to 250 nm, as suggested by Kim ([0161]), and which falls within the recited range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin et al. (US 2018/0166704 A1) discloses a bipolar plate for a fuel cell; and
Okusawa et al. (US 2008/0081239 A1) discloses a fuel cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 01/21/2026