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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speidel et al. (US 20220093941 A1, “Speidel”).
Regarding claim 1, Speidel discloses a bipolar plate for an electrochemical system (see title), comprising a first separator plate and a second separator plate, which are arranged adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to a plate plane of the first separator plate (see FIG. 2 describes “first individual plate 2a” & “second individual plate 2b” & describes arranged adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the plate plane of the first separator plate), wherein the first and the second separator plate each comprise: at least two through-openings, which are adjacent to each other in a layer plane, for passing a reaction medium through the separator plate (see FIG. 2 “11a-c” & see [0069] “the through-openings 11a-c” & FIG. 2 describes the plates are adjacent to each other in the layer plane; see [0068] “the through-openings 11b, 11c may be designed to supply fuel and reaction gas to the electrochemical cells of the fuel cell stack of the system 1 and to discharge the rection products from the stack”); an active region with structures for guiding a reaction medium along a flat side of the separator plate (see FIG. 2 & [0071] “active region 18” & see FIG. 4 & [0070] describes 18 & “structures for guiding a reaction medium along the front side of the separator plate 2a”); and a distribution or collection region with structures for guiding a reaction medium between one of the through-openings and the active region (see [0070] & FIG. 2 describes “distribution or collection region 20 comprises structures which are designed to distribute over the flow field 17 a medium that is introduced into the distribution or collection region 20 from a first of the two through-openings 11b”), wherein the structures for guiding the reaction medium in the distribution or collection region comprise flow channels for the respective reaction medium, said flow channels being separated from each other by webs (see [0070] “the distributing structures of the distribution or collection region 20 are likewise defined by webs and channels 29 extending between the webs and delimited by the webs”), and wherein, the at least two through-openings are adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the plate plane (see FIG. 2 describes “through-openings 11a-c” & describes “11a” & “11b” are adjacent to each other), wherein, adjacent to the first through-opening, the separator plates bear directly against each other in a contact plane (see [0068] & FIG. 2 describes “2a, 2b have through-openings, which are aligned with one another and form through-openings 11a-c of the bipolar plate 2”), wherein the distribution or collection region of the first separator plate have at least one compensating region (see FIG. 2 “17” & “20”; see FIG. 7B describes “48 & 49 spring sealing elements”; see [0078] describes “spring element 48 may be provided, which adjoins the end plate 52 and which supports the first separator plate 31 against the end plate 52”), and wherein in the unassembled state of the bipolar plate, the rear side of the channel bottoms of the flow channels that faces towards the respectively adjacent separator plate is arranged space apart from the contact plane in the at least one compensating region, as viewed from the adjacent separator plate (see FIG. 2 “17” & “20”; see FIG. 7B describes “end plate 52” & 48 & 49 spring sealing elements & describes arranged spaced apart from the contact plane & see [0079] describes “plate plane E”).
Regarding claim 2, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the compensating regions are arranged in both separator plates (see FIG. 7B describes 48 & 49 spring sealing elements & see [0078] describes “spring element 48” & “supports the first separator plate 31” & “second separator plate comprising a sealing element 49”), said compensating regions being arranged in a pairwise fashion in mutually adjacent separator plates and being adjacent each other perpendicular to the plate plane and being arranged in at least partially overlapping manner (see FIG. 7B describes “48” & “49” are arranged in a pairwise fashion in mutually adjacent separator plates (31 & 32) & describes perpendicular to the plate plane “plate plane E” & FIG. 7B describes at least partially overlapping manner).
Regarding claim 3, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, in one, of the compensating regions, the rear sides of the channel bottoms that face towards the respectively adjacent separator plate are arranged at least partially at the respectively lowest regions of the channel bottoms in a channel bottom rear side plane (see FIG. 7B describes “48” & “49” & describes bottom of 49 is arranged at least partially at the respectively lowest regions of the channel bottoms; see FIG. 5B describes 49 faces adjacent separator plate “bipolar plates 2”), which in the unassembled state of the bipolar plate extends parallel to an spaced apart from the contact plane, as viewed from the adjacent separator plate (see FIG. 7B describes “49” extends parallel to and spaced apart from the contact plane “plate plane E”; see FIG. 5B describes adjacent separator plate “2”).
Regarding claim 4, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein for one, of the compensating regions of the first separator plate, the compensating regions extend over one of the flow channels of the distribution or collection regions (see FIG. 2 describes “distribution or collection region 20”; see FIG. 4 describes bottom of “2b” extends over to “20”).
Regarding claim 6, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, for one of the compensating regions of the first separator plate, a transition from the contact plane to the channel bottom rear side plane takes place directly adjacent to a sealing structure which directly surrounds the through opening (see FIG. 7B describes “end plate 52”, 48 & 49 spring sealing elements; see FIG. 7B describes “plate plane E” & “49” & “through-openings 11b”; see [0024] “seal, which seals the first through-opening with respect to the surrounding environment” & see [0072] “sealing beads 12b” & see FIG. 5B “49” & “coating 28” & see [0078] “coating 28 for micro-sealing”).
Regarding claim 7, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, for one of the compensating regions of the first separator plate, the flow channels in the compensating region are less deep than the outer flank of both the two outermost flow channels (see FIG. 7B describes “end plate 52”, 48 & 49 spring sealing elements; see FIG. 4 describes flow channels in “transition region 21” are less deep than the outer flank of the outermost flow channels in “20 distribution or collection region” & “18 active region”).
Regarding claim 8, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 7 and further discloses wherein for one of the compensating regions of the first separator plate, one of the flow channels in the compensating region are at least partially less deep than the height of the outer flank of both of the two outermost webs of the distribution or collection region (see FIG. 7B describes “end plate 52” & 48 & 49 spring sealing elements; see FIG. 4 describes “21 transition region” & describes flow channels in “21” are at least partially less deep than the height of the outer flank of the two outermost webs of “20 distribution or collection region” & FIG. 4 & [0070] describes “webs and channels 29”; see [0088] “bead flank 34”).
Regarding claim 9, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first separator plate has a sealing structure surrounding the through-opening (see FIG. 7B describes “end plate 52” & “48 & 49 spring sealing elements”; see [0024] “seal, which seals the first through-opening with respect to the surrounding environment”; see FIG. 2 describes “through-openings 11b”; see [0088] describes “passages 33 which are formed on the one hand between the separator plates 31, 32 and on the other hand in a bead flank 34 of the second separator plate 32”), wherein in the case where both the first and the second separator plate have a sealing structure surrounding the through-opening, the two sealing structures are arranged adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the plate plane (see FIG. 2 describes “11b through-openings” goes through “first individual plate 2a” & “second individual plate 2b”; see [0037] describes “second separator plate has a second sealing element, which surrounds the second through-opening”; see FIG. 2 & [0072] describes “12b sealing beads” surrounds “through-openings 11b”; see FIG. 4 & [0075] describes “the second separator plate 32 may have the same through-openings 11a-c”).
Regarding claim 11, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 8 and further discloses wherein, for the first separator plate, the sealing structure is formed by an elastomeric seal which is arranged on the outer surface of the separator plate and by a bead which is integrally formed in the separator plate and projects beyond the outer surface of the separator plate (see [0090] “instead of a bead embossed into the respective separator plate in a manner comparable to the bead arrangements 12a-12c, the spring element 48 and/or the sealing element 49 may be alternatively formed of elastomeric material, for example as an O-ring”; see [0078] “spring element 48 may have the same bead-like structure as the bead arrangements 12a-12c”).
Regarding claim 12, Speidel discloses at least two bipolar plates of claim 1 and further discloses an assembly of bipolar plates (see FIG. 2 & [0067] describes an assembly of bipolar plates “two adjacent separator plates 2a, 2b or bipolar plates of an electrochemical system” & see abstract “plate assembly”), wherein the two bipolar plates are arranged adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the plate plane (see FIG. 2 describes the plate arrangement), with the interposition of a reinforcing edge of a membrane electrode assembly (see [0006] describes “MEAs each have a frame-like reinforcing layer, which surrounds the electrochemically active region of the MEA and is typically made of an electrically insulating material” and frame reads on edge).
Regarding claim 14, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising a sealing structure surrounding the through-opening, wherein the distribution or collection region is positioned between the sealing structure and the active region (see FIG. 2 & see [0070] “distribution or collection region 20 comprises structures which are designed to distribute over the flow field 17 a medium that is introduced into the distribution or collection region 20 from a first of the two through-openings 11b”).
Regarding claim 15, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the at least one compensating region is positioned within the distribution or collection region and outside of the sealing structure (see FIG. 2 & see [0070] “distribution or collection region 20 comprises structures which are designed to distribute over the flow field 17 a medium that is introduced into the distribution or collection region 20 from a first of the two through-openings 11b”).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (US 20220093941 A1, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”).
Regarding claim 5, discloses the bipolar plate of claim 1. Speidel does not explicitly discloses wherein for one of the compensating regions of the first separator plate, the compensating region for one of the flow channels extends over a length L, where L ≥ 50% of the length of the respective flow channel.
Kunz teaches “21 transition area” (see FIG. 2). Kunz teaches in FIG. 3 “14” & in [0116] “the membrane 14 of the MEA 10 extends in each case at least across the active area 18 of the abutting separator plates 2, where it enables a proton transfer via or through the membrane 14. Moreover, the membrane 14 extends at least partially into the transition area 21, but not into the distribution or collection area 20.” Kunz teaches “each of the MEA 10 comprises a membrane 14, e.g. an electrolyte membrane, and an edge section 15 connected to the membrane 14, which is composed of two edge seals 15a, 15b” (see [0115]). Kunz teaches “gas diffusion layer 16 may be additional be arranged in the active area 18. The gas diffusion layers 16 allow incident flow of the membrane 14 across as large an area of the surface of the membrane 14 as possible and may thus improve the proton transfer via the membrane 14” (see [0118]). Kunz teaches “active area 18” & “gas diffusion layers 16” and describes in FIG. 3 16 extend over length more than half of “18 active area”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “membrane 14 across as large an area of the surface of the membrane 14 as possible” (see Kunz FIG. 3 & [0118] which reads on extends over a length L) into the bipolar plate of Speidel because doing so “improve[s] the proton transfer via the membrane 14” (see Kunz [0118]).
Claim 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (US 20220093941 A1, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenzel et al. (US 20210202963 A1, “Wenzel”).
Regarding claim 10, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 9 and further discloses height & rubber seal (see [0010]) and FIG. 4 describes “12 sealing beads”. Speidel does not explicitly disclose wherein, for the first and/or second separator plate, the sealing structure of the respective separator plate has a height HD relative to the outward-facing surface of the separator plate in the regions adjacent to the sealing structure, where 400 μm ≤ HD ≤ 600 μm in the unassembled state of the bipolar plate.
Wenzel teaches height (see FIG. 3b “h”) and in [0071] “height h of the bead 12d in normal operation of the system can assume a value e.g. of between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm”.
Wenzel teaches a range of between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm (equivalent to 300 µm to 600 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 400 µm ≤ HD ≤ 600 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 13, Speidel discloses the assembly of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the two bipolar plates have a sealing structure surrounding the through-opening, said sealing structures being arranged adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the plate plane and sealing between the two bipolar plates (see FIG. 2 describes “2a” & “2b” & “12b” & “11b”), wherein the two sealing structures of the mutually facing separator plates of the first and second bipolar plate together have a total height HG (see [0010] describes height & rubber seal; & see FIG. 4 describes “12b sealing beads” which inherently have a total height; see [0025] “pressure differences inside and/or outside the plate assembly”; see [0073] “the bipolar plates 2” & “thermal expansion”). Speidel does not explicitly disclose where 660 µm ≤ HG ≤ 1140 µm in the state compressed under the final assembly pressure.
Wenzel teaches “height h of the bead 12d in normal operation of the system 1 can assume a value e.g. of between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm”; see [0060] “the height h of the perimeter beads 12d which are embossed into the individual plates 10a, 10b is larger than a maximal height, defined along the z-direction 6, or the structures 17 which are likewise embedded into the individual plates 10a, 10b, of the active regions 8 of the electrochemical cells”. Wenzel teaches “the elastic port beads 12a-c of two adjacent separator plates 10 of the stack 32 are each supported against one another via the frame 18 and seal those through-openings 11a-c, around which they run, to the outside and to the inside of the stack 32” (see [0058]). Wenzel teaches in FIG. 3a and in [0059] “height h of the perimeter beads 12d of individual plates 10a, 10b which face one another, of adjacent separator plates 10, said height being defined along the z-direction, and by the thickness ΔM of the respective frame 18 of the membrane 15 which is sealingly received between the perimeter beads 12d, so that zo= 2+ΔM. Furthermore, the value of zo is usually dependent on the mentioned prestressing of the stack 32 and possibly on the operating temperature of the stack 32”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate height, suggested by Wenzel (see FIG. 3a & [0071]) into the assembly of Speidel because Wenzel teaches a value for the seal bead between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm (equivalent to 300 µm and 600 µm) and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a total height is h*2 which describes 600 to 1200 µm which overlaps the claimed range.
Wenzel teaches a range of between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm (equivalent to 300 µm to 600 µm) and doubled is equivalent to 600 to 1200 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 660 µm ≤ HG ≤ 1140 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on P12 par 2 “whether or not the spring element 48 and sealing element 49 could reasonably be considered a “compensating region” in other contexts, such elements do not meet the limitations of claim 1 because the claimed compensating region is specifically defined as part of the distribution or collection region, which is a completely different part of the separator plate, with a different structure and different purpose” & on P12-P13 “whether or not the spring element 48 and sealing element 49 of Speidel are part of the plate, it is unreasonable to interpret the entire plate as the claimed compensating region, and is internally inconsistent for the office to cite two different, separately described components of Speidel as the same claimed element” is not persuasive because Speidel discloses “flow field 17” (see FIG. 2 & [0070]) read on distribution region and spring elements “48 & 49” in FIG. 7B reads on compensating regions.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on P13 par 2, “the compensating region and the sealing structure are distinct elements defined to be in different parts of the separator plate, and therefore cannot reasonably be mapped to the same structure in the prior art” is unpersuasive because Speidel discloses a sealing structure (see [0024] “seal”).
Regarding applicant’s arguments on P14 par 1 “the “channel bottoms” of claim 3, then should not be considered in a vacuum, but rather in the context of how the elements were defined, which relates specifically to flow channels of the distribution or collection region” is unpersuasive because Speidel discloses “48 & 49” which reads on compensating regions and FIG. 7B describes the bottom of “49” because FIG. 7B describes (C-C) and in the z direction & FIG. 1 describes plane C in the negative z direction reads on rear side.
In response to applicant’s arguments on P14 “not sufficiently established that the combination of references result in the approach as claimed” & P15 “Speidel address a different problem…”, & in response to applicant's argument that Speidel is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Speidel is analogous to the current invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor, namely bipolar plates (see Title),
In response to applicant's argument that Kunz is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, in response to P15 par 3, Kunz is analogous to the current invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor, namely bipolar plates (see [0003]).
In response to applicant's argument that Wenzel is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, in response to P15 par 4, Wenzel is analogous to the current invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor, namely bipolar plate (see [0052]).
Regarding applicant’s arguments on P15-P17 regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights