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 .
Election/Restriction
As previously noted in the non-final action mailed on 02 June 2026, Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words and contains legal phraseology (e.g. “in particular,” “said”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0007] as filed, on line 1, the word "is" is missing between "cells" and "known."
At [0014], on line 3, the word “past” should be removed.
At [0020], on line 10, “According to the embodiment” should read “According to an embodiment.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 2 June 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, line 1 - p. 10, line 2, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1, as previously attached) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1) as evidenced by Lunt et al. (US 2015/0376800 A1, as previously cited in an IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Yanai teaches a metal sheet (Fig. 16, element 30; [0014]: as metal plate) having a rectangular profile with two long sides and two narrow sides including an outer, frame-like connecting region (32; [0030]) and a profiled region lying in the frame-like connecting region (comprising 40, 43, 55, 56), the profiled region having a rectangular, non-square basic shape forming an active area, a flow channel delimited by a surface of the profiled region (55: channels across the surface of the profiled region), a longitudinal direction of the flow channel extending parallel to the long sides of the metal sheet (57, 58 labeled with direction of air flow), and the metal sheet including an embossed pattern provided successively at least three times in a longitudinal direction of the profiled region (three instances of 43 shown in Fig. 16, as five-pointed zig-zags; [0061]: “…formed on the metal plate 30 by printing, stamping, extruding, etc.” reads on “embossed”), each embossed pattern including at least three individual embossed patterns positioned adjacent to one another (instances of 55 are adjacent in the narrow direction), extending in the longitudinal direction of the profiled region in a zigzag or undulating shape, and wherein successive embossed patterns are separated from one another by a strip-like intermediate section having intermediate profilings (56; [0075]: as “gas pressure equalization groove” by broadest reasonable interpretation), each strip-like intermediate section being arranged to run parallel to the narrow sides of the rectangular profile. As further shown in Fig. 16, the three sections of patterns may be considered as sub-clusters, differing from other subclusters across the longitudinal direction ([0075]: “the width W of the flow channel groove is narrowed in stages from the gas inlet side to the outlet side…”). The frame-like connecting region (32) includes a plurality of openings for the passage of media (62A-B: labeled as “Air”).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), although the disclosure of Yanai is directed to a fuel cell gas supply diffusion layer, the Examiner notes that the intended use of a claimed apparatus, as “an electrolysis plate,” does not distinguish it from the prior art when the underlying structure is taught. See MPEP §§ 2111.02(II) and 2114(II).
In the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, fuel cells are an obvious variant of electrolysis cells, as evidenced by Lunt ([0002]-[0003]: disclosure directed to flow fields of electrochemical cells, including electrolysis and fuel cells; [0005]: “an electrolysis cell represents a fuel cell operated in reverse.”). It is therefore obvious for one skilled in the art to apply teachings relevant to fuel cell flow fields/plates to those of electrolysis cells, as both are electrochemical cells and no features specific to electrolysis cells are claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yanai does not explicitly teach providing the embossed pattern of the metal sheet successively at least four times in the longitudinal direction. However, embodiments are shown with one, two, and three embossed patterns (Figs. 11-17; also [0034]: “one or more gas pressure equalization grooves”). In addition, increasing the number of “gas pressure equalization grooves” which form the strip-like intermediate sections is said to improve the uniformity of fuel cell gas supplied across the width direction ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the metal sheet of Yanai to include the embossed pattern successively at least four times in the longitudinal direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would make this modification in order to increase the number of intermediate sections, with the same expected result of improved reactant fluid flow across the electrolysis plate.
Regarding claim 5, Yanai teaches all inherited limitations from claim 1 on which it depends, but does not teach “a ratio of a length of an intermediate section in the longitudinal direction of the profiled region and a length of an embossed pattern in the longitudinal direction of the profiled region” in the range from 1/30 to 1/50. However, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art to find the optimal embossed pattern length and other dimensions of the electrolysis plate, and therefore the ratios of these dimensions, because Yanai shows intermediate profilings substantially shorter in the longitudinal direction than the five-pointed patterns (Fig. 16: compare up-down length of elements 56 to 43(40)). It is not inventive to discover the optimal or workable range by routine experimentation, and therefore the claimed range of 1/30 to 1/50 is obvious in view of the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2007/0178359 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yanai does not teach wherein the intermediate profilings include discrete elevations which are circular, oval, rectangular, or triangular, or are formed from combinations or groups of such identical or different elevations.
However, Peng teaches that in a bipolar plate for a fuel cell which includes flow channels (Abstract), the strip-like intermediate sections ([0043]: as a “mixed space 114 between a first section 111 and a second section 112,” Figs. 6, 7) may comprise profilings which are discrete elevations (Fig. 6, 7: el. 150, 160). These profilings may be triangular in shape (Fig. 6, el. 150; [0043]: “obstacles”); or round/cylindrical (Fig. 7, el. 160; [0045]: “disturbers;” Peng claim 7). These discrete elevations serve to improve the mixing of fluid as it passes over the plate ([0043], [0045]) and/or increase the flow rate through the downstream channels ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use intermediate profilings comprising circular or triangular elevations in the strip-like intermediate sections of the electrolysis plate taught by Yanai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the mixing and flow of fluid as it flows over the plate as taught by Peng, because the art is analogous as previously evidenced by Lunt and applied in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 to the subject matter of claim 4 is Wuillemin (EP 2675006 A1, as previously attached), Peng et al. (US 2007/0178359 A1), and Yanai et al. (WO 2019/207811 A1). However, none of these references, alone or in combination, teach wherein the intermediate profilings overlap in the longitudinal direction of the profiled region having at least one of the two adjacent embossed patterns, nor any motivation to do so. See Wuillemin Fig. 4 (also shown below), Peng Figs. 6-7 (as cited in the rejection of claim 3), and Yanai Figs. 12-16 – all showing intermediate profilings adjacent to, but not overlapping the patterned regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is 571-272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights