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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 37, line 2: “a coating 8” appears to be a typo of “a coating 7”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New limitation in amended claim 1, “using a layer system that includes applying at least one further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating to subregions of the impermeable coating such that a height profile of the flow channel is formed on the surface of the carrier between elevations created by the further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating”, is directed to withdrawn Species Ic (Fig. 2(d), para. 38). The specification does not provide any support for forming a flow channel on the surface of the carrier prior to applying the coating and applying at least one further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating to subregions of the impermeable coating.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gago Rodriguez et al. (EP 3456866 A1, hereinafter Rodriguez, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Rodriguez teaches a method for manufacturing a bipolar plate (Fig. 1 & 2, item 12) for an electrochemical cell comprising: providing a fluid impermeable carrier (item 26), applying a fluid-impermeable coating (Fig. 2, bottom layer of item 32, P6) over at least one subregion of a surface of the carrier, and forming a flow channel (item 14) on the surface of the carrier prior to applying the coating (P4), wherein the coating is applied by at least one of cold gas spraying (P3), and wherein the coating includes at least one of niobium, tantalum, tin, vanadium, silicon, or at least one of an oxide or a carbide thereof (P4), and using a layer system that includes applying at least one further layer (Fig. 2, top layer of item 32, P6) of the fluid-impermeable coating to subregions of the impermeable coating (Fig. 1) such that a height profile of the flow channel is formed on the surface of the carrier between elevations created by the further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 2. Rodriguez teaches wherein the coating includes at least one of titanium, molybdenum, tungsten, or oxides or carbides thereof (P4).
Re Claim 3. Rodriguez teaches wherein the coating includes a titanium alloy, wherein the titanium alloy includes at least one of molybdenum, vanadium, or oxides or carbides thereof (P4).
Re Claim 4. Rodriguez teaches wherein the carrier is formed of an electrically conductive material (P5).
Re Claim 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein during the application of the coating, at least one of a composition of coating material applied to the surface is changed (P4).
Re Claim 6. Rodriguez teaches forming a plurality of flow channels on the surface of the carrier prior to applying the coating (Fig. 1, P4).
Re Claim 7. Rodriguez teaches wherein the coating is applied to elevations between the flow channels and depressions of the flow channels remain uncoated (Fig. 1, P4).
Re Claim 12. Rodriguez teaches applying particles (Fig. 2, item 32) to at least one of the surface of the carrier during applying the coating, wherein the particles include an electrically conductive material (P6) and reduce a contact resistance at the surface of the coated carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Rodriguez does not teach using a layer system that includes applying at least one further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating to subregions of the impermeable coating such that a height profile of the flow channel is formed on the surface of the carrier between elevations created by the further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating.
The examiner disagrees with this because Rodriguez explicitly teaches that the coating comprises at least two layers of the particles (Fig. 1 & 2, P6), which reads on applying at least one further layer of the fluid-impermeable coating to subregions of the impermeable coating.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights