CTFR 18/085,325 CTFR 85868 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. When observing the prior art in relationship to the arguments presented and claim amendments, two things are noted by the examiner. The scope of the instant claim does not preclude a situation where the protrusion from the first surface and protrusion from the second surface meet to form a pillar. This is important to note because the instant invention includes a wave shaped plate where the peeks of the waves meet and form a first distance from the valley of the first plate to the peak of the first plate and a second distance from the valley of the second plate to the peak of the second plate whereby the protrusion has a distance from the first surface valley that is less than the first distance and a protrusion from the second plate has a distance from the first surface valley that is less than the second distance. This feature is not positively claimed and is therefore not reviewed at this time, but appears to align with the instant invention – Instant Figure 2. The scope of the instant claim does not preclude an interpretation where the groove is located on the side of a protrusion. The instant figure 2 shows the protrusion to be located at the apex of the protrusion, but is not positively claimed. This specific feature has not been examined since the instant claim does not require it. The scope of the instant claim does not require the groove to be formed into the protrusion, just that the protruding body has a groove. A protrusion forms a groove at the interface of the plate and protrusion as an inherent feature. Prior art elements only need to have an angle such this feature is ‘concave’ to meet the instant claim. A mushroom-type protrusion would be capable of reading on the instant claim as presented. The specifics of a groove formed into the protruding body is reviewed, but not may not be specifically presented in the following action. The protrusions of the instant claim are not specific to be a solid material protrusion versus a dimensioned change of the planar region. The thickness of the protrusion does not specifically require the plate thickness and a separate thickness defining the protrusion. Embodiments from the prior art that teach protrusion being a deviation of the planar surface meet the claim as recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jean-Philippe (JP 2017-135098) . Claim 1, 13: Jean teaches a bipolar plate for an electrochemical cell with reactant flows for a fuel cell [abstract]. The fuel cell [Fig 1-2, 19] comprises a MEA, gas diffusion layer, and bipolar plate [Description of Embodiments]. A first sheet (51) and a second sheet (52) are brought together such that an oxidant reactant flows on outer side of sheet 51 and a fuel flows on the outer side of sheet 52 whereby a refrigerant flows between the two sheets [Fig 27]; this forms applicant’s bipolar plate for a fuel cell. A plurality of protrusions are disposed apart from each other in the channel of the flow direction of the fluid whereby their existence creates a turbulent flow compared to a situation where they are not present [Fig 27]. The protrusions (506) that extend from a planar surface are interpreted to be applicant’s protruding body. Modified Figure 29 is presented herein to show a concave portion that exists between the protruding body and the plate. PNG media_image1.png 138 291 media_image1.png Greyscale Additionally, Figure 5 and 6 show protrusions an concave regions. Figure 12-14, 16, 18 also teach protrusions with concave regions. The concave region has at least a portion that exists in the flow direction. The operation of the groove allows for fluid to flow within the concave region and the entire structure operates to create a turbulent flow, inherently, compared to a situation where no dimensional change was present [Description of Embodiments]. Claim 2: Jean teaches a channel is formed from inlet 593 to outlet 594 [Fig 17]. A first surface of the first plate and a second surface of the second plate are parallel regions that face each other and distanced from each other to have a flow region therein [Fig 18]. A protrusion from the first or second plate is any change in parallel region that define the planar plate region of the first and second plate and protrude towards the other plate surface [Fig 18]. Claim 3: Jean teaches a first protruding body to be an oblong shape and having at least two rounded portions [Fig 16]. Claim 4: Jean teaches at least one round shape formed by the protruding body from the first surface towards the second surface and a first protruding body of the second protrusion to have a round shape from the second surface [Fig 15-19]. Claim 5: Jean teaches each of the protrusions to have a concave region towards their respective surfaces [Fig 15-19, 27]. Claim 6: Jean teaches the protrusion to exist between a flow direction between inlet 593 and outlet 594 and therefore the grooves that exist there between are in a direction of such flow [Fig 17]. Claim 7: Jean teaches protrusions which are substantially cylindrical in shape [Fig 15-16, 26, 32]. Claim 8: Jean teaches a shape which can be interpreted to comprise portions which have substantially hemispherical shapes toward the center of the channel [Fig 3-6]. Claim 9: Jean teaches a first protrusion and second protrusion which substantially overlap each other in the direction of the first surface toward the second surface [Fig 5]. Claim 10: When considering protrusions from one side of the flow 533 to the other side, they are offset from each other [Fig 5-6]. Instant claim does not recite “Each protrusion from a first plate is offset from each protrusion of the second plate” and therefore this interpretation is accurate to the scope presented by the instant claim. Claim 11: Jean teaches a joining region of the first plate and second plate as shown in Fig 5-6. The third and fourth surfaces exist at the joining region and the first and second surface are at the maximum distance of the plates. “An angle” as presented is not defined as a structural feature tied to physical objects of the instant claim and therefore an angle is drawn between the first surface and third surface, even if as projections thereof, such the claim language is met. Claim 12: Jean teaches four protrusions located at each of the following locations: between the first and third surface, the first and fourth surface, the second and third surface, and second and fourth surface [Fig 5-6]. This teaches the four projections for the instant claim to be met. Claim 14: The instant claim pertains to a product by process claim – MPEP 2113 – the prior art meets all positively recited structural limitations and is therefore not patentably distinct based upon a method of making . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2014-170670: Figure 7 and Figure 8 show protrusions which have indents with concave sections. WO 2015/049860: Figure 4 shows a protrusion structure that has a connecting region to a second plate and a “u” shaped concave region that is separate from connection protrusion and the lower first plate. CN 111540925: The cathode side and corresponding flow field for coolant comprise teardrop shaped projections from a first surface region. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p. 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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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. /STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 2 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 3 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 4 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 5 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 6 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/085,325 Page 7 Art Unit: 1752
Prosecution Insights