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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5 and 10-15) in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 4, 11, 12 and 15 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.
In claims 4, 11 and 12, Applicant claims that the mixture is sprayed or brushed on, and then states “in particular brushed on by using a squeegee”. It is not clear if this limitation is occurring in the claim which renders the claim indefinite. Using the phrase “in particular” raises a question on whether or not this limitation actually occurs or if it is an exemplary limitation which does not further limit the claim. For purposes of examination, this phrase will be treated as being optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobata (US 2019/0097197) in view of Tanno (US 2015/0340713).
Regarding claim 1, Nobata discloses a method for coating bipolar plates (fuel cell separator), characterized by at least the following steps:
applying an epoxy resin-carbon mixture (see paragraph 29 which discloses mixing a carbon powder and a thermosetting resin, such as epoxy resin (see paragraph 27) and the applying the mixture onto core member/plate 3a) at least to regions of at least one side that is to be coated of a bipolar plate (it is coated on both sides);
placing a die onto the side coated with epoxy resin-carbon mixture of the bipolar plate and fixing the die relative to the bipolar plate with a fixed distance between bipolar plate and die (see Fig. 4 which illustrates a die placed at a fixed distance from the bipolar plate);
curing the epoxy resin-carbon mixture (the resin mixture is cured in the hot-press step, see paragraph 36), and removing the die (as will occur as the fuel cell is not made with a die attached to the separator).
Nobata teaches the manufacture of a bipolar plate separator for a fuel cell, but is silent regarding a roughing/hydrophilizing step. More specifically, Nobata does not teach:
roughening at least regions of the cured epoxy resin-carbon mixture coating;
hydrophilizing at least the roughened regions of the epoxy resin-carbon mixture coating by exposing at least the roughened regions to a low-pressure plasma.
Tanno also discloses a process for manufacturing a bipolar plate/fuel cell separator (see abstract).
Tanno, like Nobata, teaches an epoxy/carbon mixture that is on the exterior of the bipolar plate (see abstract which discloses a bipolar plate made of epoxy resin and carbon powder). Tanno goes on to teach that this bipolar plate is subject to roughening and hydrophilizing steps which allows water that is produced in the fuel cell to be easily discharged (see abstract). Tanno first teaches a roughening step that roughens at least a region of the epoxy/resin mixture (see paragraph 40). Tanno then teaches a hydrophilizing step that is accomplished by a vacuum plasma treatment (see paragraph 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the roughening and hydrophilizing steps of Tanno to the bipolar plate manufacturing process of Nobata in order to allow for water discharge in the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 5, Nobata, as modified by Tanno, further discloses the cured epoxy resin-carbon mixture is roughened by irradiation with a laser beam or with an abrasive beam, in particular a glass bead beam (see layer roughening, as described in paragraphs 40-42 of Tanno).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobata (US 2019/0097197) in view of Tanno (US 2015/0340713) and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2008117653 A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Nobata, as modified above, teaches curing an epoxy thermosetting resin via a thermal treatment, but does not teach curing via UV radiation through a transparent die.
Yamamoto also discloses an epoxy resin curing process (see abstract).
Yamamoto teaches an epoxy thermosetting resin that can be cured via UV radiation (lines 253-255) through a transparent die (lines 612-617). Yamamoto teaches utilizing UV light instead of heat to cure the thermosetting resin in order to avoid thermal damage of an associated structure (lines 497-500).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the heating curing step of Nobata with the UV curing step of Yamamoto in order to avoid high temperatures that could damage associated structures. Furthermore, such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known epoxy curing method for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Nobata, as modified by Tanno, further discloses the cured epoxy resin-carbon mixture is roughened by irradiation with a laser beam or with an abrasive beam, in particular a glass bead beam (see layer roughening, as described in paragraphs 40-42 of Tanno).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobata (US 2019/0097197) in view of Tanno (US 2015/0340713) and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2008117653 A with references made to the machine translation) and Saito (US 2002/0034672).
Regarding claim 12, Nobata teaches coating an epoxy/carbon mixture onto a bipolar plate but does not go into specifics regarding the mechanism to do this. More specifically, Nobata does not teach:
the epoxy resin-carbon mixture is sprayed or brushed onto the side to be coated.
Saito also discloses an epoxy/carbon coating layer (paragraphs 21-24).
Saito teaches a method of coating a carbon/epoxy mixture onto a surface of a fuel cell separator which can then be cured (paragraph 40), similar to that of Nobata. Saito teaches that such a step can be accomplished by spraying/brushing (paragraph 38 which discloses spraying or brushing/screen printing can be used).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the epoxy/carbon layer application via brushing or spraying, as taught by Saito to the process of modified Nobata in order to effectively coat a bipolar plate and allow it to be cured into the desired shape.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobata (US 2019/0097197) in view of Tanno (US 2015/0340713) and further in view of Saito (US 2002/0034672).
Regarding claim 4, Nobata teaches coating an epoxy/carbon mixture onto a bipolar plate but does not go into specifics regarding the mechanism to do this. More specifically, Nobata does not teach:
the epoxy resin-carbon mixture is sprayed or brushed onto the side to be coated.
Saito also discloses an epoxy/carbon coating layer (paragraphs 21-24).
Saito teaches a method of coating a carbon/epoxy mixture onto a surface of a fuel cell separator which can then be cured (paragraph 40), similar to that of Nobata. Saito teaches that such a step can be accomplished by spraying/brushing (paragraph 38 which discloses spraying or brushing/screen printing can be used).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the epoxy/carbon layer application via brushing or spraying, as taught by Saito to the process of modified Nobata in order to effectively coat a bipolar plate and allow it to be cured into the desired shape.
Regarding claim 15, Nobata, as modified by Tanno, further discloses the cured epoxy resin-carbon mixture is roughened by irradiation with a laser beam or with an abrasive beam, in particular a glass bead beam (see layer roughening, as described in paragraphs 40-42 of Tanno).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Tanno, teaches a method of manufacturing a separator, but does not teach the partial coating/uncoating limitations in relation to the claimed depression and elevation. The prior art neither teaches nor suggests a motivation to modify Tanno to arrive at such a process step.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2010/0035091 – Discloses a fuel cell separator/bipolar plate that comprises elevations and troughs in a corrugated plate (612) and teaches coating only a portion of the bipolar plate (614, in the troughs), but is silent regarding hydrophilizing a portion of the elevations and leaving a portion of the trough untreated, as claimed.
US 2007/0141439 - Discloses a bipolar plate coating technique that includes roughening of the surface to increase the hydrophilic nature of the bipolar plate, similar to that of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights