FLOW FIELD PLATE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 3/23/2026:
Claim 7 has been amended; no claims have been canceled. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Yasumura fails to teach this specific sequence. Yasumura, in paragraph [0134], discloses a conventional single-stage mixing process where all resin components and the filler are combined in a single step within a kneader, as the Office Action indicates in item 5 of the FOA. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Yasumura of first creating separate, filler-containing reactive pre-mixtures and subsequently combining them, as recited by amended claim 7. For at least these reasons, Yasumura cannot reasonably be considered to anticipate the pending claims.
The inventive concept lies in the recognition of a specific advantage tied to the chemistry of the claimed system. As explained in paragraph [0010] of the present application, the unmixed starting components (polyol and isocyanate) have a relatively low viscosity. The claimed process cleverly exploits this low-viscosity window to achieve a superior, "extraordinarily efficient and uniform distribution of the filler". This is a distinct advantage over trying to disperse the filler into a mixture where the reaction has already begun, and viscosity is rapidly increasing.
This solution provides the unexpected result of an extraordinarily uniform filler distribution, which directly translates to improved and more reliable properties of the final flow field plate. This would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art starting from the teachings of Yasumura. Hence, the person skilled in the art would not have arrived at the subject matter of amended claim 7. For at least these reasons, the Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. While Yasumara et al. do not teach the two-stage mixing process as now amended claim 7 states, both Yasumara and Applicant yield similar results. Like the Applicant, Yasumara discloses high electrical conductivity (See paragraphs 31, 32, 36, and 145) and a uniform distribution of filler (Paragraph 0022). Therefore, the limitation of wherein the two starting components are first mixed with the filler and then the two starting components that have already been mixed with the filler are then mixed in turn is an example of Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients: MPEP 2144.04 IV C: Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
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.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumura et al. (US 2006/0060824 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yasumura et al. teach a method for producing a flow field plate for a fuel cell made of a synthetic resin with a filler (Abstract; Paragraph 0005 disclose making a conductive resin for a fuel cell separator which operates as a flow field plate due to its stable feeding of fuel and oxidizer to electrodes in a separated state.), wherein at least two starting components are cured to form the synthetic resin (Paragraph 0145 discloses obtaining a molded article by curing the conductive resin. Further, claim 1 discloses the conductive resin comprises multiple components.), wherein the starting components used are those that form a polyurethane resin and being mixed in liquid form and then cured at least temporarily in a tool that generated the structure of the flow field plate under the action of temperature, and starting components (A,B) used are polyols (A) and isocyanate (B), both of which are provided with graphite (C) and/or carbon black as filler prior to mixing (Claim 1 discloses the conductive resin comprises a conductive filler (A), a urethane-modified epoxy (meth)acrylate (B), a (meth)acrylate (C) and an ethylenically unsaturated monomer (D). Claim 4 further discloses the (meth)acrylate (C) is obtained by reaction of a polyisocyanate with a polyetherpolyol. Paragraphs 0030-0031 disclose the conductive filler (A) is preferably a carbon material, selected from preferably synthetic graphite, natural graphite and expanded graphite, since a high conductivity is attainable. Finally, paragraph 0135 discloses the mixture is then cured in a compression mold.).
However, Yasumara et al. do not teach wherein the two starting components are first mixed with the filler and then the two starting components that have already been mixed with the filler are then mixed in turn.
This is an example of Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients: MPEP 2144.04 IV C: Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
Regarding claim 9, Yasumura et al. teach the method according to claim 7, wherein the temperature of approximately 50-60°C is specified at least to start curing (Paragraph 0135 discloses a lower mold temperature of 145°C and an upper mold temperature of 150°C.).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Yasumura et al. teach the method according to claim 7, wherein the starting components together with the filler are pressed into the tool and/or held in it at least temporarily under pressure (Paragraph 0135 discloses the pressing at 140 kgf/cm2 for 10 minutes.).
Regarding claim 16, Yasumura et al. teach the method according to claim 7, wherein the filler makes up between 60% by volume and 80% by volume of the finished component (Table 1; Examples 1-6 disclose 70-85%).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 31st, 2026
Prosecution Insights