DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/16/2023 and 07/26/2023 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 07/28/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “same material”, and the claims also recites “preferably PEN” and (preferably of hot punch” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by DE102016121614 to Gallagher (Gallagher, machine translation)
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Gallagher discloses a bipolar plate (30, claim 5) for an electrochemical cell (fuel cell, claim 1), , wherein in that the bipolar plate (30) includes at least one polymeric connecting element (46) for connection to a membrane-electrode assembly (12, Fig. 1, 2, re claim 12). Therefore, the instant claim 1 anticipated by Gallagher.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gallagher discloses wherein characterized in that the connecting element is made of a thermoplastic material (claim 8, para 31, thermoplastic adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, Gallagher discloses and electrochemical cell (claim 1) having a bipolar plate (30) a membrane electrode assembly (12), wherein the membrane electrode assembly (12, Fig. 1, 2) comprises a film based frame structure (para 33), wherein the frame structure (16) comprises the film which is melted to the connecting element (para 31).
Regarding claim 8, Gallagher discloses wherein the film and the connecting element are made of the same material (thermoplastic polymer, para 5,6).
Regarding claim 10, Gallagher discloses a process for manufacturing an electrochemical cell wherein a bipolar plate (20) is connected to a membrane-electrode assembly (1), wherein the bipolar plate (20) comprises at least one polymeric connection element (46) for connection to the membrane-electrode assembly (1), wherein the membrane-electrode assembly (12) comprises the film based frame structure (46) with at least the following process steps: positioning the membrane-electrode assembly to the bipolar plate (Fig. 1 above) and melting the film to the connecting element (para 31, 33, 63).
Claims 1-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated US 2011/0294033 to Andrin (Andrin).
Regarding claim 1, Andrin discloses a bipolar plate (Fig. 7), ) for an electrochemical cell (Abstract), , wherein in that the bipolar plate (5) includes at least one polymeric connecting element (25, para 77) for connection to a membrane-electrode assembly (12, Fig. 7, re claim 12). Therefore, the instant claim 1 anticipated by Andrin.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Andrin discloses wherein characterized in that the connecting element is made of a thermoplastic material (para 77).
Regarding claim 3, Andrin discloses wherein the connecting element (25) is anchored in a recess (55) formed in a bipolar plate (5, Fig. 7, above).
Regarding claim 4, Andrin discloses wherein he connecting element (25) is a continuation of a sealing contour (55) applied to the bipolar plate (12, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Andrin discloses wherein the sealing contours (55) applied to opposite side (top and bottom or left or right) for the bipolar plate (Fig. 7).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).
Regarding claim 14, Andrin discloses wherein he connecting element (25) is anchored in a recess (55) formed in a bipolar plate (5) (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Andrin discloses wherein he connecting element (25) is a continuation of a sealing contour (55) applied to the bipolar plate (12, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Andrin discloses wherein the sealing contours (55) applied to opposite side (top and bottom or left or right) for the bipolar plate (Fig. 7).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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 6, 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0294033 to Andrin.
Regarding claim 6, Andrin discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 5 and incorporated therein. Andrin does not expressly disclose wherein he two sealing contours consist of different materials. However, Since the criticality of using different materials for sealing contours - a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Andrin it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed find suitable materials the same or different for the sealing contours an as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Andrin discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 7 and incorporated therein. Andrin does not expressly disclose wherein a sealing contour is arranged between the bipolar plate and the membrane-electrode assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place sealing contour is arranged between the bipolar plate and the membrane-electrode assembly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Alternatively, regarding claim 16, Andrin discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 17 and incorporated therein. Even if Andrin does not expressly disclose wherein the sealing contours applied to opposite side (top and bottom or left or right) for the bipolar plate (Fig. 7), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the sealing contour to opposite side (top and bottom or left or right) for the bipolar plate (Fig. 7, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 17, Andrin discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 16 and incorporated therein. Andrin does not expressly disclose wherein he two sealing contours consist of different materials. However, Since the criticality of using different materials for sealing contours - a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Andrin it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed find suitable materials the same or different for the sealing contours an as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016121614 to Gallagher .
Regarding claim 11, Gallagher discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 10 including step of melting and incorporated therein. Gallagher does not expressly disclose wherein the melting occurs using a hot punch. However,
since the criticality of using the hot punch -a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Gallagher, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the hot punch for melting to connecting element an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 11.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016121614 to Gallagher in view of US 20120034542 to Martin (Martin).
Regarding claim 13, Gallagher discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 12 and incorporated therein. Gallagher does not expressly disclose wherein the connecting element is made of PEN.
Martin teaches a fuel cells employing framed membrane electrode assemblies, wherein a frame based element comprising and adhesive comprising PEN (para 36). Therefore, such structural element is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make connecting element of Gallagher from PEN as taught by Martin, The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 18, Gallagher discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 12 and incorporated therein. Gallagher does not expressly disclose wherein the connecting element is made of PEN.
Martin teaches a fuel cells employing framed membrane electrode assemblies, wherein a frame based element comprising and adhesive comprise PEN (para 36). Therefore, such structural element is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make connecting element of Gallagher and film-based frame from PEN as taught by Martin, The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751