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 07/31/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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, 3, 4, 7,8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2008/0143061 to Steinbach (Steinbach).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Steinbach discloses a bipolar plate (flow field plates 360, 361 are configured as monopolar flow field plates, para 62, Fig. 3 ) for an electrochemical cell (fuel cell, claim 1, re claim 7), comprising a first gasket layer (311), a second gasket layer (315) and adhesive layers (312) to form membrane electrode assembly (MEA, reads on configured to connect to a membrane electrode assembly). A combination of elements (311, 315 and 312) is interpreted as insert (See Fig. 3A below and Fig. 3B. As such instant claim 1 is anticipated by Steinbach.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Steinbach discloses the insert is a polymeric insert (para 51-53).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Steinbach discloses a roughened surface on a surface connecting to the insert (311, Fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Steinbach discloses a frame (para 15) and a film (315, Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 10, Steinbach discloses a frame (para 15) and a film (315, Fig. 3D). Regarding a limitation “the film fused with insert”: In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. inset cell does not depend on its method of production, i.e. fusing of the film. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 5,6 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2008/0143061 to Steinbach (Steinbach).
Regarding claim 5, Steinbach discloses the inventions as discussed above as applied to claim 4 and incorporated therein. In addition, Steinbach teaches that the first and the second gaskets can be made from polymeric materials (para 97, para 67). Steinbach does not expressly disclose wherein the film and the insert are made of the same material. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the film and the insert from the same polymeric material in order to simplify process of manufacturing of electrochemical cells.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the film and the insert from the same polymeric material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Steinbach discloses as discussed above as applied to claim 4 and incorporated therein. In addition, Steinbach teaches a process for manufacturing the electrochemical cell comprising steps of heat/pressure processable material toward insert (first gasket) and step application of heat and pressure, forming a second gasket (film 514, Fig. 5A, para 74). Steinbach does not expressly disclose the heat/pressure processable material as a film. However, since the criticality of using the film as heat/pressure processable material - 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 Steinbach, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use heat/pressure processable material in form of film as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 6. Similarly, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a hot punch in the step of application of heat and pressure as an obvious design choice (para 74)
Regarding claim 11, Steinbach discloses the inventions as discussed above as applied to claim 10 and incorporated therein. In addition, Steinbach teaches that the first gasket can be made from PEN and second gasket from polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second gasket from the same polymeric material. I. e. in order to simplify process of manufacturing of fuel cells.
Regarding claim 12, Steinbach discloses as discussed above as applied to claim 11 and incorporated therein. In addition, Steinbach teaches a process for manufacturing of the fuel cell comprising steps of heat/pressure processable material toward insert (first gasket) and step application of heat and pressure, forming a second gasket (film 514, Fig. 5A, para 74). Steinbach does not expressly disclose the heat/pressure processable material as a film. However, since the criticality of using the film as heat/pressure processable material - 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 Steinbach, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use heat/pressure processable material in form of film as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 12. Similarly, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a hot punch in the step of application of heat and pressure as an obvious design choice (para 74)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20070065705, US 20050058878.
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