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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 7-10 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 11-14 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 10/29/2020. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the application, DE10 2020 213 591.6, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on or before 02/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7, “in the first region in the contact regions” should read “in the first region, in the contact regions,”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6 and 12-14 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 2 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected for dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “each surface” refers to the previously recites “surfaces” of claim 1 or to another surface. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 4, 5 and 12-14 are rejected for dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for dependence on claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pattern in the second region" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for dependence on claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the direction of a closest main duct" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for dependence on claim 4.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a direction of a closest main duct” in line 17 refers back to "the direction of a closest main duct" in line 16 or refers to another direction. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for dependence on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the third region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the secondary ducts in the second region" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the secondary ducts" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “secondary ducts () having a hydrophobic secondary duct surface ()” refers the previously recited secondary ducts of claims 3 and 5 or to other ducts. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “secondary ducts () having a hydrophilic secondary duct surface ()” refers the previously recited secondary ducts of claims 3 and 5 or to other ducts. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (US 20210296660 A1).
Embodiment I
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a distributor plate (Fig. 8; 100) for an electrochemical cell (“fuel cell”; [0121]), wherein the distributor plate (100) has a structure (Fig. 8; structure of 100) comprising connecting portions (Fig. 8; 104, 105) with surfaces (Fig. 8; surfaces of 104 and 105; “S”), and main ducts (Fig. 8; 102, 103) having floor surfaces (Fig. 8; surface of 102 and 103), wherein the surfaces (S) are provided with a pattern (Fig. 8; pattern of 104 and 105; “P”), and wherein the distributor plate (100) has at least two regions (annotated Fig. 8; 1R, 2R, 3R) in which the patterns (P) on the surfaces (S) differ from one another (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses wherein the distributor plate (100) has an inlet region (annotated Fig. 8; IR) and an outlet region (annotated Fig. 8; OR), each with a port structure (annotated Fig. 8; PS), and the at least two regions (1R, 2R, 3R) are arranged one behind the other between the inlet region (IR) and the outlet region (OR).
PNG
media_image2.png
337
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses wherein a number of secondary ducts (Fig. 8; 105) for each surface (S) increases in a direction (Fig. 9; a) from the inlet region (IR) to the outlet region (OR).
Regarding claim 11, Hu discloses further comprising secondary ducts (Fig. 8; 105) having floor surfaces (Fig. 8; surface of 105) also having the pattern (P).
Embodiment II
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a distributor plate (Fig. 14; 100) for an electrochemical cell (“fuel cell”; [0121]), wherein the distributor plate (100) has a structure (Fig. 14; structure of 100) comprising connecting portions (Fig. 14; 104, 105) with surfaces (Fig. 14; surfaces of 104 and 105; “S”), and main ducts (Fig. 14; 102, 103) having floor surfaces (Fig. 14; surface of 102 and 103), wherein the surfaces (S) are provided with a pattern (Fig. 14; pattern of 104 and 105; “P”), and wherein the distributor plate (100) has at least two regions (annotated Fig. 14; 1R, 2R, 3R) in which the patterns (P) on the surfaces (S) differ from one another (Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
306
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses wherein the distributor plate (100) has an inlet region (annotated Fig. 14; IR) and an outlet region (annotated Fig. 14; OR), each with a port structure (annotated Fig. 14; PS), and the at least two regions (1R, 2R, 3R) are arranged one behind the other between the inlet region (IR) and the outlet region (OR).
PNG
media_image4.png
286
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses wherein a number of secondary ducts (Fig. 13, annotated Fig. 14; O) for each surface (S) increases in a direction (Fig. 14; a) from the inlet region (IR) to the outlet region (OR).
PNG
media_image5.png
244
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
306
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses wherein at least a first region (annotated Fig. 14; 1R), a second region (annotated Fig. 14; 2R), and a third region (annotated Fig. 14; 3R) are arranged one behind the other (Fig. 14) in the direction (a) from the inlet region (IR) to the outlet region (OR),
PNG
media_image7.png
252
226
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein in the first region (1R) at least one of the secondary ducts (O) opens into an end structure (Fig. 13; 710, 720), wherein the at least one secondary duct (O) in the end structure (710, 720) branches into (Fig. 13) at least two sub-ducts (Fig. 13; 710, 720), the pattern (P) in the second region (2R) additionally having distributor ducts (annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 14; 105), wherein the distributor ducts (105) have a respective larger diameter (annotated Fig. 13; D1) than the secondary ducts (annotated Fig. 13; D2)
Regarding claim 11, Hu discloses further comprising secondary ducts (Fig. 14; 105) having floor surfaces (Fig. 14; surface of 105) also having the pattern (P).
PNG
media_image8.png
252
226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses wherein the at least two sub-ducts (710, 720) have a respective smaller diameter (Fig. 13; diameter of 710 and 720) than the at least one secondary duct (annotated Fig. 13; D2).
Regarding claim 13, Hu discloses wherein the pattern (P) additionally comprises the distributor ducts (annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 14; 105).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20210296660 A1) as applied to claim 3, embodiment I, above in view of Owejan (US-20090191351-A1) and Vyas (US 20060216571 A1).
PNG
media_image9.png
267
353
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses wherein at least the first region (1R), the second region (2R), and the third region (3R) are arranged one behind the other (Fig. 8) in the direction (a) from the inlet region (IR) to the outlet region (OR),wherein the surfaces (S) of the connecting portions (104, 105) have contact regions (annotated Fig. 8; CR) and lateral surfaces (annotated Fig. 8; LS), and
Hu fails to disclose wherein in the first region in the contact regions the secondary ducts have hydrophobic secondary duct surfaces and, on the lateral surfaces and the floor surfaces , there are at least partially hydrophilic surface properties ,the secondary ducts in the second region partially having a hydrophobic secondary duct surface and partially having a hydrophilic secondary duct surface , and/or in the third region there are more secondary ducts with a hydrophilic secondary duct surface than secondary ducts with a hydrophobic secondary duct surface .
Owejan discloses contact regions (“lands”; [0022]) having hydrophobic ([0022]) surfaces and, on lateral surfaces (“sidewalls”; [0022]) and floor surfaces (“channel bottom”; [0022]) , there are at least partially hydrophilic surface properties (“super-hydrophilic”; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hu by adding a hydrophilic property to Hu’s lateral surface and floor surfaces and a hydrophobic property to Hu’s contact regions as taught by Owejan such that in the first region in the contact regions the secondary ducts have hydrophobic secondary duct surfaces and, on the lateral surfaces and the floor surfaces , there are at least partially hydrophilic surface properties and the secondary ducts in the second region at least partially having a hydrophobic secondary duct surface in order to maximize water transport without adding electrical resistance as taught by Owejan ([0022]).
Hu in view of Owejan fails to disclose the secondary ducts in the second region partially having a hydrophilic secondary duct surface , and/or in the third region there are more secondary ducts with a hydrophilic secondary duct surface than secondary ducts with a hydrophobic secondary duct surface .
Vyas discloses contact regions (Fig. 2; 64) partially having a hydrophilic surface (Fig. 2; 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hu in view of Owejan by adding the partial hydrophilic surface of Vyas to the contact regions of Hu in view of Owejan, such that the secondary ducts in the second region partially have a hydrophobic (Owejan) secondary duct surface and partially have a hydrophilic (Vyas) secondary duct surface, in order to simultaneously provide hydrophilicity to improve water transport ([0014]) and conductivity to distributor plate ([0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Hu in view of Owejan and Vyas discloses wherein, in the second region (2R), secondary ducts (annotated Fig. 8; SD1 modified by Owejan and Vyas) having a hydrophobic (Owejan) secondary duct surface (annotated Fig. 8; surface of SD1 which is modified by Owejan and Vyas) and secondary ducts (annotated Fig. 8; SD2 modified by Owejan and Vyas) having a hydrophilic (Vyas) secondary duct surface (annotated Fig. 8; surface of SD2 which is modified by Owejan and Vyas) are arranged in alternation (annotated Fig. 8; SD1 and SD2).
PNG
media_image10.png
382
480
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the present claim language does not require that secondary ducts have only hydrophobic or hydrophilic secondary duct surfaces. Thus, the combination of Hu in view of Owejan and Vyas, which has secondary duct surfaces having a hydrophobic surface (and a hydrophilic surface) arranged in alternation with secondary duct surfaces having a hydrophilic surface (and a hydrophobic surface) satisfies the claim language.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20210296660 A1) as applied to claim 1, embodiment I, above in view of Carlstrom (US 20210005904 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hu fails to disclose wherein the secondary ducts have a respective width and/or a depth in a range from 1 um to 150 um.
Carlstrom discloses wherein secondary ducts (Fig. 7; 440) have a respective width ([0032]) and/or a depth ([0032]) in a range from 1 um to 150 um (“0.0005″ to 0.015″”; [0032] which is 12.7 um to 381 um).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hu by substituting the undisclosed width and/or depth of Hu’s secondary ducts for the width and/or depth of Carlstrom’s secondary ducts, such that the width and/or depth ranged from 12.7 um to 150 um in order to predictably allow water removal as taught by Carlstrom ([0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights