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 .
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lateral zones" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of lateral zones of the flow field plate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the flow field plate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of a particular surface of the flow field plate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central zone" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of a central zone of the flow field plate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface perpendicular" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a surface perpendicular to the surface of the flow field plate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slot" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one slot” is previously introduced in line 7 of the claim. In the case of more than one slot, it is therefore unclear which individual slot is being referred to in the later recitation.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" (lines 3 and 5-6) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the term "preferably" (line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hacker et al. (DE 102007042985 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hacker discloses a flow field plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, bipolar plate 1 with flow fields 3/3’; Paragraph 0030, line 1 and Paragraph 0034, lines 1-2), characterized by two open channels running along the lateral zone of a surface of the flow field plate (see e.g. Fig. 1, channels for water supply 6 and gas discharge 7on lateral sides of the bipolar plate; Paragraph 0030, line 12), by a series of troughs and ridges that run along the central zone of the surface of the flow field plate (see e.g. Fig. 2, flow channels 4 with ridges therebetween in central area of both sides of bipolar plate 1; Paragraph 0034, lines 1-2), communicating with both channels, allowing the flow of fluids between the said channels (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, water supplied from supply 6, and gas discharged from discharge 7 flow through the flow channels 4, thereby being in communication with them; Paragraph 0030, line 12, and Paragraph 0034), by one slot running around a surface perpendicular to the surface of the flow field plate, and by an elastic gasket housed in the slot (see e.g. Fig. 2, sealing groove on perpendicular internal wall of bipolar plate housing sealing ring 24; Paragraph 0036, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 2, Hacker discloses the gasket having a near circular cross-section (see e.g. Fig. 2, sealing ring 24 shown with near circular cross-section).
Regarding claim 3, Hacker discloses the flow field plate being made of a material that does not conduct electricity (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 4-5, base material of the plate being not conductive).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isono et al. (JP H10289722 A) discloses a separator plate with a plurality of ribs and a peripheral cut out portion accommodating a seal member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795