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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “contact plane E” is described in the instant specification in [0062], but FIG. 5 does not describe “E”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 “compensating regions” should read “the compensating regions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plate plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the layer plane" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the transition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 the 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 comprising: at least two through-openings, which are adjacent to each other in the 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. 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. 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 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, the 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).
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)'.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/821,910 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 discloses a bipolar plate for an electrochemical system, comprising a first separator plate and a second separator plate, at least two through-openings, an active region, and a distribution or collection region (see claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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 12/31/2025
Prosecution Insights