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 .
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 1-2, 6, 9 and 12-13 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). 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.).
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 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 follow 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. 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 follow 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]).
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 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 no 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 no 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]).
Conclusion
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