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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 4, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
A new 112 rejection has been made in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 15 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.
The term “densely” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “densely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Constanzo et al. (WO 2021/233717) in view of Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267) as evidenced by Los Alamos National Laboratory (“Silicon”). The English machine translation of Di Constanzo et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Di Constanzo et al. teaches a process of joining two bipolar plates to form a bipolar module (Para. [0045]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) for an electrochemical device (Para. [0088]), wherein two adjacent bipolar plates (Fig. 1, #130A, #130B) of two adjacent cells are joined together to form a bipolar module (i.e. providing a first main plate body and a second main plate body as fibrous shaped bodies each having a joining face and an opposing useful face) (Para. [0005]) wherein each bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers (Para [0021]) (i.e. including carbon fibers), each bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers impregnated in a thermoplastic resin (Para. [0021]) (i.e. infiltrating the first and second main bodies with at least one carbon allotrope), a residual layer of polymer matrix layer (Fig. 5, #31) provided on a peripheral portion of a first bipolar plate to bond the first bipolar plate with the second bipolar plate, and providing heating in the peripheral heat zone so as to melt the polymer matrix layer of the peripheral portion to bond the plates (Para. [0106]) (i.e. locally applying polymer matrix to respective joining sites in the joining faces, at least locally heating the joining sites such that the polymer matrix melts and reacts with adjoining plates to form a bond), placing the joining faces against one another, such that the joining sites rest against one another and the useful faces of the first and second main plate bodies face away from one another (see Annotated Di Constanzo -- Fig. 16 below).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach locally applying silicon, locally heating joining sites such that the silicon melts and reacts with adjoining carbon to form a silicon-carbon bond.
However, Guttermann et al. teaches a joining process where the bipolar plate is formed such as welding (Para. [0034]) wherein a bead arrangement is attached to the bipolar plate (Para. [0017]) and a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. locally applying silicon to respective joining sites in joining faces; at least locally heating the joining sites such that silicon melts and reacts with adjoining bipolar plate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of using silicon in place of the residual layer of polymer matrix and welding as taught by Guttermann et al., as such a material has low hydrogen diffusion through the seal (Para. [0015]) providing optimal operation when used in a fuel cell (Para. [0010]). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the process of Di Constanzo et al. also produces a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (Para. [0079] of Di Constanzo et al.). Thus, as silicon would be welded to the carbon fiber bipolar plates, the silicon in the modified process would inherently react with adjoining carbon to form a silicon-carbon bond.
Annotated Di Constanzo – Fig. 16
PNG
media_image1.png
523
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches wherein the joining sites are disposed in radially outer edge regions of the main plate bodies (see Annotated Di Constanzo et al. – Fig. 16 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches wherein the local heating comprises heating of a peripheral edge section of the first and second main plate bodies and polymer matrix (see Annotated Di Constanzo et al. – Fig. 16 above).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach silicon.
However, Guttermann et al. teaches a joining process where the bipolar plate is formed such as welding (Para. [0034]) wherein a bead arrangement is attached to the bipolar plate (Para. [0017]) and a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. locally applying silicon to respective joining sites in joining faces; at least locally heating the joining sites such that silicon melts and reacts with adjoining bipolar plate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of using silicon in place of the residual layer of polymer matrix and welding as taught by Guttermann et al., as such a material has low hydrogen diffusion through the seal (Para. [0015]) providing optimal operation when used in a fuel cell (Para. [0010]). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the process of Di Constanzo et al. also produces a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (Para. [0079] of Di Constanzo et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches residual layer of polymer matrix layer (Fig. 5, #31) provided on either side of the bipolar plates (Para. [0087] and see Annotated Di Constanzo et al. – Fig. 16 above) (i.e. further comprising applying a coating to the useful faces).
Regarding Claim 12, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further a bipolar module (i.e. plate) produced by the process of claim 1 (Para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 13, Di Constanzo et al. teaches a process of joining two bipolar plates to form a bipolar module (Para. [0045]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) for an electrochemical device (Para. [0088]), wherein two adjacent bipolar plates (Fig. 1, #130A, #130B) of two adjacent cells are joined together to form a bipolar module ) (Para. [0005]) via welding (Para. [0131]) (i.e. a method for welding of two main plate bodies, composed of a fibrous shaped body, see Fig. 1 or Fig. 16)wherein each bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers (Para [0021]) (i.e. including carbon fibers), each bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers impregnated in a thermoplastic resin (Para. [0021]) (i.e. infiltrating the first and second main bodies with at least one carbon allotrope in order to form a bipolar plate), a residual layer of polymer matrix layer (Fig. 5, #31) provided on a peripheral portion of a first bipolar plate to bond the first bipolar plate with the second bipolar plate, and providing heating in the peripheral heat zone so as to melt the polymer matrix layer of the peripheral portion to bond the plates (Para. [0106]) .
Di Constanzo does not teach using silicon for welding.
However, Guttermann et al. teaches a joining process where the bipolar plate is formed such as welding (Para. [0034]) wherein a bead arrangement is attached to the bipolar plate (Para. [0017]) and a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. a method of using silicon for welding of two main plate bodies).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of using silicon in place of the residual layer of polymer matrix and welding as taught by Guttermann et al., as such a material has low hydrogen diffusion through the seal (Para. [0015]) providing optimal operation when used in a fuel cell (Para. [0010]). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the process of Di Constanzo et al. also produces a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (Para. [0079] of Di Constanzo et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explain above.
Guttermann et al. teaches a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. wherein the welding comprises heating the silicon such that the silicon melts and reacts with the adjoining surface). Thus, as silicon would be welded to the carbon fiber bipolar plates, the silicon in the modified process would inherently react with adjoining carbon to form a silicon-carbon bond and as the silicon melting temperature is 1414 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by Los Alamos National Laboratory), the silicon is inherently heated to a temperature above 1414 degrees Celsius). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Guttermann et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 15, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches the carbon fibers impregnated with polymer resin forming a matrix (i.e. each of the fibrous shaped bodies forms a matrix that is densely infiltrated with the at least one carbon allotrope).
Regarding Claim 16, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches two adjacent bipolar plates (Fig. 1, #130A, #130B) of two adjacent cells are joined together to form a bipolar module (i.e. wherein the first and second main plate bodies are respect plate halves that are joined to form the bipolar plate).
Regarding Claim 17, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Guttermann et al. teaches a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. the at least local heating comprises heating the silicon such that the silicon melts comprises heating the joining sites). Thus, as the silicon melting temperature is 1414 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by Los Alamos National Laboratory), the silicon is inherently heated to a temperature above 1414 degrees Celsius). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Guttermann et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 20, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches a peripheral portion (Fig. 4, #3) including the residual layer of polymer matrix used for joining the two bipolar plates (Para. [0087]) including a welding portion (Fig. 5. #32) (Para. [0090]) (i.e. wherein the first and second main plate bodies are joined by weld bond extending circumferentially along radially outer edge regions of the first and second main plate bodies).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach a silicon-carbon wed bond.
However, Guttermann et al. teaches a joining process where the bipolar plate is formed such as welding (Para. [0034]) wherein a bead arrangement is attached to the bipolar plate (Para. [0017]) and a separate component placed on a bipolar plate and integrated by welding so that altogether a sealing connection is provided between the separate component and the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) wherein the bead arrangement is silicon (Para. [0015]) (i.e. a silicon-carbon weld bond).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of using silicon-carbon weld bond as taught by Guttermann et al., as such a material has low hydrogen diffusion through the seal (Para. [0015]) providing optimal operation when used in a fuel cell (Para. [0010]).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Constanzo et al. (WO 2021/233717) in view of Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loeve (CN103814463A). The English machine translation of Loeve is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 3, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. teaches the residual layer of polymer matrix is disposed at the joining sites (see Annotated Di Constanzo -- Fig. 16 above and Fig. 5, #31).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach silicon is disposed at the joining sites in the form of a wire and/or a powder.
However, Loeve teaches each bipolar plate has a frame in which a reinforcement sealant comprising silicon powder for sealing and mounting (Para. [0031]) wherein frames are welded together (Para. [0051]).
The substitution of silicon powder as taught by Loeve, for polymer matrix in the residual layer disposed at the joining sites in the process of Di Constanzo et al. would achieve the predictable result of ensuring sealing of the bipolar plate (see Di Constanzo et al. – Para. [0135] and Loeve – Para. [0031]) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute silicon powder as taught by Loeve, for polymer matrix in the residual layer disposed at the joining sites in the process of Di Constanzo et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of ensuring sealing of the bipolar plate (see Di Constanzo et al. – Para. [0135] and Loeve – Para. [0031]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 5, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches providing heating in the peripheral heat zone so as to melt the polymer matrix layer of the peripheral portion to bond the plates (Para. [0106]) (i.e. wherein the at least local heating comprises the local heating at least of the joining sites) via welding (Para. [0131]).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach with a laser or a plasma beam.
However, Loeve teaches bipolar plates laser-welded together (Para. [0016]) (i.e. heating with a laser).
The substitution of laser welding as taught by Loeve, for welding in the process of Di Constanzo et al. would achieve the predictable result of welding bipolar plates to ensure sealing of the bipolar plate (see Di Constanzo et al. – Para. [0135] and Loeve – Para. [0031]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute The substitution of laser welding as taught by Loeve, for welding in the process of Di Constanzo et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of welding bipolar plates to ensure sealing of the bipolar plate (see Di Constanzo et al. – Para. [0135] and Loeve – Para. [0031]).The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Constanzo et al. (WO 2021/233717) in view of Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faulkner et al. (DE102011/120252A).
Regarding Claim 4, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches a heating step E4 so as to melt the matrix of each bipolar plate to join the first bipolar plate with the second bipolar plate (Para. [0103]) (i.e. wherein the at least local heating comprises introducing the first and second main plate bodies and polymer matrix into a heating element and heating by the heating element).
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach a kiln.
However, Faulkner et al. teaches forming bipolar plates (Para. [0002]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) wherein a bipolar plate comprising a sealing outer layer (Para. [0020]) which can be bonded to a graphite resin inner layer in a kiln by heating (Para. [0021]) (i.e. into a kiln and heating by the kiln).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating element of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of a kiln as a heating element as taught by Faulkner et al., as kiln converts the carbon into more chemically inert forms of carbon, helping reduce the surface energy of the bipolar plate (Para. [0021]) helping reduce bipolar plate corrosion (Para. [0016]).
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Constanzo et al. (WO 2021/233717) in view of Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 110993981B). The English machine translation of Li et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 7, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach the process further comprising introducing of flow channels into the useful faces.
However, Li et al. teaches a method of preparing bipolar plates (Para. [n0001]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) including shaping the bipolar plate with flow channels (Para. [0016]) (i.e. comprising introducing of flow channels) using a roller, wherein the flow channel is followed by trim, cut and shaping the bipolar plate (Para. [0066], [0068]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the useful (i.e. exposed) faces of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of introducing flow channels, as such a process provides a low-cost and high-performing bipolar plate (Para. [0083]).
Regarding Claim 8, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach the process further comprising introducing of flow channels into the useful faces is conducted by at least one removal method.
However, Li et al. teaches a method of preparing bipolar plates (Para. [n0001]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) including shaping the bipolar plate with flow channels (Para. [0016]) (i.e. comprising introducing of flow channels) using a roller, wherein the flow channel is followed by trim, cut and shaping the bipolar plate (Para. [0066], [0068]) (i.e.at least one removal method of a mechanical removal method).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the useful (i.e. exposed) faces in the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of introducing flow channels, as such a process provides a low-cost and high-performing bipolar plate (Para. [0083]).
Regarding Claim 18, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explain above.
Guttermann et al. teaches the silicon-carbon bond is formed as explained above and Li et al. teaches the flow channels are introduced into the useful faces as explained above. Regarding the order of performing process steps (i.e. the flow channels are introduced into the useful faces after the silicon-carbon bond is formed), the order is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See 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).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Constanzo et al. (WO 2021/233717) in view of Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267) as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2008/0268318).
Regarding Claim 10, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach wherein the first and second main plate bodies are infiltrated with graphite.
However, Jang et al. teaches providing a composition for a flow field plate (i.e. a process of producing a bipolar plate) comprising a conductive filler (Para. [0018]) comprising nano-scaled graphite planes and graphitic nano-fibers (i.e. infiltrated with graphite) (Para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second main plate bodies in the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of infiltrating with graphite as taught by Jang, as such a conducting filler material provides high strength, stiffness and electrical conductivity (Para. [0051]).
Regarding Claim 11, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al. and Jang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach wherein the first and second main plate bodies are infiltrated with graphene nanoplatelets.
However, Jang et al. teaches providing a composition for a flow field plate (i.e. a process of producing a bipolar plate) comprising a conductive filler (Para. [0018]) comprising nano-scaled graphene plates (i.e. infiltrated with graphene platelets) (Para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main plate bodies in the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of infiltrating with graphite as taught by Jang, as such a conducting filler material provides high strength, stiffness and electrical conductivity (Para. [0051]).
Regarding Claim 19, Di Constanzo et al. as modified by Guttermann et al.. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explain above.
Di Constanzo et al. further teaches the residual layer of polymer matrix (Para. [0087]) wherein the polymer matrix contains electrically conductive carbon fibers (Para. [0083]) (i.e. the coating is electrically conductive)
Di Constanzo et al. does not teach the coating comprises alpha-C.
However, Jang et al. teaches a composite matrix material (Para. [0020]) comprising conductive filler (Para. [0021]) such as amorphous carbon (Para. [0019]) (i.e. comprises alpha-C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating in the process of Di Constanzo et al. to incorporate the teaching of amorphous carbon (i.e. alpha-C) as taught by Jang, as such a conducting filler material provides high strength, stiffness and electrical conductivity (Para. [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a thermoplastic or thermosetting polymer resin is not an allotrope of carbon.
The argument is not commensurate in scope with rejection of record as the rejection of record relies on the carbon fibers for teaching the carbon allotrope (see rejection to claim 1 above). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the carbon fibers cannot be used to satisfy both the carbon fibers and the carbon allotrope with which the fibrous shaped bodies are infiltrated which are recited separately from each other and thus Di Constanzo fails to disclose or suggest infiltrating the first and second carbon-fiber main plate bodies with at least one carbon allotrope as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., carbon-fiber main plate bodies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it appears as though the claim language is broader than applicant is interpreting. The claim requires the main plate bodies including carbon fibers and infiltrating the first and second main plate bodies with at least one carbon allotrope. Di Constanzo et al. teaches bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers (Para [0021]) (i.e. including carbon fibers), each bipolar plate comprises carbon fibers impregnated in a thermoplastic resin (Para. [0021]) (i.e. infiltrating the first and second main bodies with at least one carbon allotrope). Thus, the limitations including carbon fibers and infiltrating first and second main plate bodies with at least one carbon allotrope have both been met by the carbon fibers. There are carbon fibers (plural, reading on carbon fibers and also on a carbon allotrope) taught by Di Constanzo et al. and thus carbon fibers are included and a carbon allotrope infiltrates the first and second main bodies. There is nothing in the claim language that prevents the carbon allotrope from being carbon fibers. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Constanzo teaches two completed bipolar plates and produces a larger bipolar module, whereas the claim 1 begins with two main plate bodies and joins those main plate bodies to produce the bipolar plate itself and thus does not teach claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the claim language is broader than applicant is interpreting. The teachings of two adjacent bipolar plates (Fig. 1, #130A, #130B) of two adjacent cells reads on two main plate bodies, and the bipolar module in Di Constanzo et al. reads on a bipolar plate. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the bead arrangement of Guttermann et al. is formed from steel and does not describe melting the elastomeric sealing material (silicon).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teaching of another bead arrangement material (in this case, steel) does not teach away from the bead arrangement of thin coating wherein the thin coating is silicon as taught by Guttermann et al. in Para. [0015]). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gutterman does not disclose melting the elastomer and reacting it with adjoining carbon and silicon would not necessarily melt and react with adjoining carbon to form the claimed silicon-carbon bond.
The argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. The rejection of claim indicates that Gutterman et al. teaches locally applying silicon to respective joining sites in joining faces; at least locally heating the joining sites such that silicon melts and reacts with adjoining bipolar plate. as silicon would be welded to the carbon fiber bipolar plates, the silicon in the modified process would react with adjoining carbon to form a silicon-carbon bond. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, regarding melting and reacting with adjoining carbon to form the claimed silicon-carbon bond, Di Constanzo et al. teaches melting the matrix to bond the first bipolar plate with the second bipolar plate and forming a weld bead (Para. [0017]) (i.e. melting and reacting with the adjoining plate which is formed of carbon). The modification incorporating the process of welding and melting silicon as taught by Guttermann et al. (Para. [0015], [0034]) would thus form a weld bead containing silicon-carbon bond. Applicant has not demonstrated or provided evidence that the silicon-carbon bond would not necessarily be present. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Di Constanzo et al. does not teach melting temperature of silicon, substitution would change the principle of operation, and Guttermann et al. does not provide a reason to replace the joining matrix of Constanzo with silicon and thus, the rejection is erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Guttermann et al. teaches welding and melting silicon. (Para. [0034]) (i.e. wherein the welding comprises heating the silicon such that the silicon melts and reacts with the adjoining surface) and Di Constanzo et al. teaches melting the matrix to bond the first bipolar plate with the second bipolar plate and forming a weld bead (Para. [0017]), the silicon would be welded to the carbon fiber bipolar plates in modified Di Constanzo et al. via the weld bead, the silicon in the modified process would inherently react with adjoining carbon to form a silicon-carbon bond and as silicon melting temperature is 1414 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by Los Alamos National Laboratory), the silicon is inherently heated to a temperature above 1414 degrees Celsius. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Loeve, Faulker, Li and Jiang) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim. Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Applicant argues Di Constanzo et al. does not locally apply silicon and thus claims 2 and 6 are erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Di Constanzo et al. is not relied upon for teaching locally applying silicon. Rather, Guttermann et al. is relied upon as explained above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed useful faces are outwardly facing functional surfaces of the resulting bipolar plates and thus claim 9 is erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., outwardly facing functional surfaces) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The arguments to claim 12 have been addressed above.
Applicant argues the Examiner cannot simply substitute a rubber gasket and thus claim 13 is erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A rubber gasket teaching in Guttermann et al. is not relied upon in the rejection of record. Rather, the rejection of record incorporates silicon (Para. [0015]) taught by Guttermann et al.. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the English-language version of Lev describes a silica powder and/or a silane which is not elemental silicon powder, Lev does not teach welding or melting and thus claim 3 is erroneous.
Examiner acknowledges the English-language version of Loeve et al. as cited above. However, a silica powder reads on silicon as silicon is present. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., elemental silicon) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Loeve et al. is not relied upon for teaching the welding or melting. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Loeve et al. does not teach laser or plasma beam as it does not remedy the absence of carbon-allotrope-infiltrated carbon-fiber plate halves, locally applied silicon, or the claimed silicon-carbon reaction bond, Faulkner does not teach melting silicon to form a silicon-carbon bond and thus claims 4 and 5 are erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These references are not relied upon for teaching these limitations and thus, the argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Li does not disclose introducing the flow channels by the removal methods recited in claim 8.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li et al. teaches a method of preparing bipolar plates (Para. [n0001]) (i.e. a process for producing a bipolar plate) including shaping the bipolar plate with flow channels (Para. [0016]) (i.e. comprising introducing of flow channels) using a roller, wherein the flow channel is followed by trim, cut and shaping the bipolar plate (Para. [0066], [0068]) (i.e. reading on at least one removal method of a mechanical removal method). It is unclear how this limitation does not read on instant claim 8’s mechanical removal method. Thus, the limitations of claim 8 have been met and the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Jang does not teach infiltration and thus the rejections to claims 10-11 are erroneous.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jang is not relied upon for teaching these limitations and thus, the argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights