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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 24 November 2025 is acknowledged.
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 10-13 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.
As to claim 10, the claim recites the limitation "the flow filed plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis does exist for “the flow field plate”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0085390 A1 to Buechi et al. (Buechi).
As to claim 1, Buechi teaches an electrolysis cell for electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen (Paragraph 0002) the cell comprising a current collector (bipolar plate), a porous transport layer (PTL) (2) including a surface facing the current collector with a surface morphology and a coating layer (12) deposited on the PTL surface morphology to form contact regions between the current collector and the PTL, the PTL including non-contact regions (i.e. gaps along the length not coated with the coating layer (12)) between the contact regions along the PTL surface morphology, the non-contact regions spaced apart from the current collector (i.e. not in direct contact) (Paragraphs 0031-0034; Figure 2).
As to claims 4 and 5, Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Buechi further teaches that the coating is platinum or gold, thus a conductive metal configured to resist corrosion (Paragraph 0034).
As to claim 6, Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Buechi further teaches that the coating has a thickness of, for example, 0.02 microns (Paragraph 0034).
As to claims 8 and 9, Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Buechi further teaches that the PTL is a porous metal sheet formed from sintered titanium (Paragraph 0043).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0215588 A1 to Schmidt-Hansberg et al. (Schmidt) in view of Buechi.
As to claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, Schmidt teaches an electrolysis cell for water electrolysis comprising a current collector (gas impermeable electronically conductive plate) (20) comprising a flow field plate having lands (8) and channels (7) collectively forming a flow field and a porous transport layer (gas permeable electrically conductive plate) (1) including a surface facing the current collector (20) with a surface morphology, the PTL including contact regions wherein the PTL (1) directly contacts the current collector (20) at the lands (8), and non-contact regions between contact regions wherein the PTL (1) does not directly contact the current collector (20) (Paragraphs 0077 and 0182; Figure 6).
However, Schmidt fails to further teach that the cell comprises a coating deposited on the PTL surface morphology. However, Buechi also discusses water electrolysis cells with porous transport layers and teaches that a protective coating should be formed at the interface between the PTL and the current collector (bipolar plate) in order to decrease ohmic contact resistance (Paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a protective coating on the contact regions, where the PTL directly contacts the current collector, of Schmidt in order to decrease ohmic contact resistance as taught by Buechi. Thus an apparatus wherein the contact regions alone are provided with a protective coating and the non-contact regions not comprising a protective coating form gaps extending from the current collector to the PTL.
As to claims 4 and 5, the combination of Schmidt and Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Buechi further teaches that the coating is platinum or gold, thus a conductive metal configured to resist corrosion (Paragraph 0034).
As to claim 6, the combination of Schmidt and Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Buechi further teaches that the coating has a thickness of, for example, 0.02 microns (Paragraph 0034).
As to claims 8 and 9, the combination of Schmidt and Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Schmidt further teaches that the PTL is a porous metal sheet formed from sintered titanium (Paragraphs 0016 and 0017).
As to claims 10 and 11, Schmidt teaches an electrolysis cell for water electrolysis comprising a current collector (gas impermeable electronically conductive plate) (20) comprising a flow field plate having lands (8) and channels (7) collectively forming a flow field and a porous transport layer (gas permeable electrically conductive plate) (1) including a surface facing the current collector (20) with a surface morphology, the PTL including contact regions wherein the PTL (1) directly contacts the current collector (20) at the lands (8), and non-contact regions, aligned with the channels (7), between contact regions wherein the PTL (1) does not directly contact the current collector (20) (Paragraphs 0077 and 0182; Figure 6).
However, Schmidt fails to further teach that the cell comprises a coating deposited on the PTL surface morphology. However, Buechi also discusses water electrolysis cells with porous transport layers and teaches that a protective coating should be formed at the interface between the PTL and the current collector (bipolar plate) in order to decrease ohmic contact resistance (Paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a protective coating on the contact regions, where the PTL directly contacts the current collector, of Schmidt in order to decrease ohmic contact resistance as taught by Buechi. Thus an apparatus wherein the contact regions alone are provided with a protective coating and the non-contact regions not comprising a protective coating form gaps extending from the current collector to the PTL.
As to claims 12 and 13, the combination of Schmidt and Buechi teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Buechi further teaches that the coating is platinum or gold, thus a conductive metal configured to resist corrosion (Paragraph 0034).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794