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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 11 & 19 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-2 & 4-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomon (US 2020/0083551 A1) in view of Lim (KR 20100094907 A).
Regarding claim 1, Salomon teaches a bipolar plate assembly for a fuel cell comprising: a cathode sheet assembly including a first cathode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on top surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8), a second cathode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a first divider sheet (i.e top layer 20 in fig. 8), the first divider sheet being arranged between the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet, the first cathode sheet including a first cathode sheet outer surface opposite the first divider sheet configured to interact with a cathode gas diffusion layer (60) of the fuel cell, the second cathode sheet including a second cathode sheet outer surface opposite the first divider sheet (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070], [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]); and an anode sheet assembly including an anode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a second divider sheet (i.e bottom layer 20 in fig. 8), the anode sheet including an anode sheet outer surface and an anode sheet inner surface opposite the anode sheet outer surface, the anode sheet outer surface being configured to interact with an anode gas diffusion layer (60) of the fuel cell, the second divider sheet being arranged on the anode sheet inner surface (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070, [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]), wherein the second cathode sheet outer surface is arranged on the second divider sheet such that the anode sheet assembly and the cathode sheet assembly for a bipolar plate ([0118]), wherein the second cathode sheet includes at least one passage (34) formed therein in which a fluid flows (fig. 8; [0118]); wherein the first divider sheet and second divider sheet are each formed of metallic material and configured to prevent the fluid from permeating, respectively, through the first cathode sheet and reaching the first cathode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the cathode gas diffusion layer and through the anode sheet and reaching the anode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the anode gas diffusion layer (fig. 8; [0070] & [0109]). Salomon is silent as to the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet, and the second cathode sheet each being formed of a compression-molded polymer composite material, wherein the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet are compression molded on opposing sides of the divider sheet, and the anode sheet is compression molded on the second divided sheet. Lim teaches a fuel cell comprising a separator on which a polymer composite material is formed thereon by a compression molding or screen-printing method (pages 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form Salomon’s anode sheet, first cathode sheet and the second cathode by compression molding, as described in Lim, instead of the printing method disclosed in Salomon as a suitable means for forming a cathode sheet and anode sheet including a polymer composite material on a separator plate of a fuel cell. “Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment)”. See MPEP 2144.07. “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the newly incorporated limitation constitutes a product by process claim. “"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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. See MPEP 2113 I.
Regarding claim 2, Salomon teaches the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet being formed of a polymer composite material ([0096]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 4, Salomon teaches a polymer composite coating that is at least one arranged between and contacting the anode sheet and the second divider sheet, arranged between and contacting the first cathode sheet and the first divider sheet, or arranged between and contacting the second cathode sheet and the first divider sheet ([0109] & [0112]).
Regarding claim 6, Salomon teaches the at least one passage including a plurality of elongated grooved formed on the second cathode sheet outer surface of the second cathode sheet and opening outwardly away from the second sheet outer surface, wherein the second divider sheet of the anode sheet assembly is arranged on the second cathode sheet outer surface such that the second divider sheet encloses the plurality of elongated grooves, and wherein the fluid flowing through the plurality of elongated grooves is a coolant fluid (fig. 8; [0118]).
Regarding claim 7, Salomon teaches a bottom surface of each of the plurality of elongated grooves being spaced apart from the first divider sheet of the cathode sheet assembly (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Salomon teaches the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet, the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet being generally planar and parallel with each other (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Salomon teaches each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet having a length that is longer than a length of each of the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet such that at least a portion of a first end of each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet extends beyond a corresponding first end of each of the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet, and the second cathode sheet, and such that at least a portions of a second end of each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet opposite the first end extends beyond a corresponding second end of each of the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet, and the second cathode sheet (figs. 1, 3 & 8).
Regarding claim 11, Salomon teaches a bipolar plate assembly for a fuel cell comprising: a first bipolar sheet assembly including a first bipolar sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a first divider sheet (i.e bottom layer 20 in fig. 8), the first bipolar sheet including a first bipolar sheet outer surface and a first bipolar sheet inner surface opposite the anode sheet outer surface, the first divider sheet being arranged on the first bipolar sheet inner surface (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070, [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]); a second bipolar sheet assembly including a second bipolar sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on top surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8), a third bipolar sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a second divider sheet (i.e top layer 20 in fig. 8), the second divider sheet being arranged between the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet including a second bipolar sheet outer surface opposite the second divider sheet, the third bipolar sheet including a third bipolar sheet inner surface opposite the second divider sheet, the third bipolar sheet inner surface arranged on the first divider sheet such that the first bipolar sheet assembly and the second bipolar sheet assembly form the bipolar plate, the third bipolar sheet including at least one passage (34) formed therein in which a fluid flows (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070], [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]); and wherein the first divider sheet and second divider sheet are each formed of a metallic material and configured to prevent the fluid from permeating, respectively, through the first cathode sheet and reaching the first cathode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the cathode gas diffusion layer and through the anode sheet and reaching the anode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the anode gas diffusion layer (fig. 8; [0070] & [0109]). Salomon is silent as to the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet, and the second cathode sheet each being formed of a compression-molded polymer composite material, wherein the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet are compression molded on opposing sides of the divider sheet, and the anode sheet is compression molded on the second divided sheet. Lim teaches a fuel cell comprising a separator on which a polymer composite material is formed thereon by a compression molding or screen-printing method (pages 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form Salomon’s anode sheet, first cathode sheet and the second cathode by compression molding, as described in Lim, instead of the printing method disclosed in Salomon as a suitable means for forming a cathode sheet and anode sheet including a polymer composite material on a separator plate of a fuel cell. “Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment)”. See MPEP 2144.07. “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the newly incorporated limitation constitutes a product by process claim. “"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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. See MPEP 2113 I.
Regarding claim 12, Salomon teaches the first bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet being formed of a polymer composite material ([0096]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 13, Salomon teaches a polymer composite coating that is at least one arranged between and contacting the first bipolar sheet and the first divider sheet, arranged between and contacting the second bipolar sheet and the second divider sheet, or arranged between and contacting the third bipolar sheet and the second divider sheet ([0109] & [0112]).
Regarding claim 14, Salomon teaches the at least one passage including a plurality of elongated grooved formed on the third bipolar sheet inner surface of the third bipolar sheet and opening outwardly away from the third bipolar sheet inner surface, wherein the first divider sheet of the first bipolar sheet assembly is arranged on the third bipolar sheet inner surface such that the first divider sheet encloses the plurality of elongated grooves, and wherein the fluid flowing through the plurality of elongated grooves is a coolant fluid (fig. 8; [0118]).
Regarding claim 15, Salomon teaches a bottom surface of each of the plurality of elongated grooves being spaced apart from the second divider sheet of the second bipolar sheet assembly (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Salomon teaches the first bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet, the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet being generally planar and parallel with each other (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Salomon teaches each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet having a length that is longer than a length of each of the first bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet such that at least a portion of a first end of each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet extends beyond a corresponding first end of each of the first bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet, and such that at least a portion of a second end of each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet opposite the first end extends beyond a corresponding second end of each of the first bipolar sheet, the second bipolar sheet and the third bipolar sheet (figs. 1, 3 & 8).
Regarding claim 19, Salomon teaches a method of forming a bipolar plate assembly of a fuel cell, comprising: providing a first cathode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on top surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8), a second cathode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a first divider sheet (i.e top layer 20 in fig. 8); and arranging the first divider sheet between the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet, the first cathode sheet including a first cathode sheet outer surface opposite the first divider sheet configured to interact with a cathode gas diffusion layer (60) of the fuel cell, the second cathode sheet including a second cathode sheet outer surface opposite the first divider sheet (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070], [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]); and providing an anode sheet (i.e ink 30 patterned as ribs 31 on bottom surface of top layer 20 in fig. 8) and a second divider sheet (i.e bottom layer 20 in fig. 8), the anode sheet including an anode sheet outer surface and an anode sheet inner surface opposite the anode sheet outer surface, the anode sheet outer surface being configured to interact with an anode gas diffusion layer (60) of the fuel cell, and arranging the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0070, [0084]-[0095] & [0118]-[0120]), wherein the second cathode sheet outer surface is arranged on the second divider sheet such that the anode sheet assembly and the cathode sheet assembly for a bipolar plate ([0118]), wherein the second cathode sheet includes at least one passage (34) formed therein in which a fluid flows (fig. 8; [0118]); wherein the first divider sheet and second divider sheet are each formed of metallic material and configured to prevent the fluid from permeating, respectively, through the first cathode sheet and reaching the first cathode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the cathode gas diffusion layer and through the anode sheet and reaching the anode sheet outer surface such that the fluid cannot interact with the anode gas diffusion layer (fig. 8; [0070] & [0109]). Salomon is silent as to wherein arranging the first divider sheet between the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet comprises compression molding polymer composite material on opposing sides of the first divider sheet to form the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet, and wherein providing the anode sheet and arranging the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface comprises compression molding polymer composite material on the second divider sheet to form the anode sheet. Lim teaches a fuel cell comprising a separator on which a polymer composite material is formed thereon by a compression molding or screen-printing method (pages 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form Salomon’s anode sheet, first cathode sheet and the second cathode by compression molding, as described in Lim, instead of the printing method disclosed in Salomon as a suitable means for forming a cathode sheet and anode sheet including a polymer composite material on a separator plate of a fuel cell. “Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment)”. See MPEP 2144.07. “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the newly incorporated limitation constitutes a product by process claim. “"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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. See MPEP 2113 I.
Claims 5, 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomon (US 2020/0083551 A1) and Lim (KR 20100094907 A), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-17 & 19 above, and further in view of Okamura (US 2022/0246951 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Salomon as modified by Lim teaches the bipolar plate assembly of claim 4, wherein the fluid is a coolant fluid but is silent as to the coolant fluid including ethylene glycol. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use ethylene glycol as a well-known suitable coolant used for fuel cells as taught by Okamura ([0039]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 10 & 18, Salomon as modified by Lim teaches the bipolar plate assembly of claims 9 and 17, respectively, wherein the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet are joined by a method such as welding ([0011] & [0070]) but is silent as to the portion of the first end of the divider sheet being welded to the portion of the first end of the second divider sheet and the portion of the second end of the first divider sheet being welded to the portion of the second end of the divider sheet. However, welding outer peripheral ends of two metal plates is a well-known means of joining two metal plates in order to produce a bipolar plate assembly for fuel cells as taught by Okamura ([0042]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomon (US 2020/0083551 A1), as applied to 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-17 & 19 above, and further in view of Baeck (US 2013/0011760 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Salomon as modified by Lim teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the arranging of the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface includes adhering the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface ([0120]), but is silent as to, prior to adhering the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface, the method further including sanding a side of the second divider sheet to be arranged on the anode sheet inner surface to create surface roughness to increase adhesion between the second divider sheet on the anode sheet inner surface. Baech teaches a method of producing a bipolar plate for a fuel cell in which a sanding step is performed on a metallic bipolar plate in order to provide surface roughness for bonding adjacent metallic bipolar plates ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sand a side of the second divider sheet to be arranged on the anode sheet inner surface in order to provide surface roughness allowing stable contact portions having electrical conductivity to be formed by the bonding force between adjacent metallic plates as taught by Baeck ([0026]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomon (US 2020/0083551 A1), as applied to 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-17 & 19 above, and further in view of Obika (US 2009/0117431 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Salomon as modified by Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein polymer composite coating are disposed between the anode sheet and the second divider sheet, between the first cathode sheet and the first divider sheet, and between the second cathode sheet and the first divider sheet ([0109]), wherein that the polymer composite coatings do not extend beyond the terminal ends of the anode sheet, the first cathode sheet and the second cathode sheet such that first and second end portions of each of the first divider sheet and the second divider sheet are exposed and the first divider sheet can be welded to the second divider sheet (figs. 1, 8 & 13-14; [0011]) but is silent as the exposed first end portion of the first divider sheet being welded to the exposed first end portion of the second divider sheet and the exposed second end portion of the first divider sheet being welded to the exposed second end portion of the second divider sheet. However, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art to weld exposed end portions of first and second divider sheets (7a and 7c) in fuel cells through a weld joint (30) as a means for joining first and second divider sheets in a fuel cell as taught by Obika (figs. 3-4; [0030]-[0033] & [0048]-[0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 & 4-20 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. The amendment to claims 1, 11 & 19 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Lim reference. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2 & 4-21 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights