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: in [00106] describes “59a, 59b” which are not in the drawings. 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 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 1-2, 4, 6, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Speidel discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system, comprising at least one through-opening, having a border that delimits the through-opening, for the passage of a fluid (see abstract “electrochemical systems having a first separator plate”; see [0055] “through-openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 6A & [0056] describes border that delimits the through-openings 11a-c & [0055] describes “coolant can e.g. be introduced into the stack or drained out of the stack via the lines formed by the passage openings 11a” & coolant reads on fluid) and at least one bead arrangement, which extends around the through-opening at a distance from the border at least in some portions and projects upwards out of a plate plane defined by the separator plate (see [0056] describes “sealing beads 12a-c” & “first single plate 2a has respective sealing arrangements in the form of sealing beads 12a-c that are each arranged around the passage openings 11a-c and that each completely surround the passage openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 6C & [0080] describes “elevated portions or recessed portions 25a, 25b” which describes projects upwards out of a plate plane), wherein an edge portion stretches between the at least one bead arrangement and the border (see abstract “edge portion has at least one elevation and/or depression”; see FIG. 6A), and the edge portion has recesses and projections starting from the border (see FIG. 6C & [0080] describes “elevated portions or recessed portions 25a, 25b” which reads on projects out of a plate plane) and alternating successively along a border contour in some portions (see FIG. 6A & FIG. 6C around “11a” & “11b”), wherein the recesses project downwards out of the plate plane and the projections project upwards out of the plate plane (see FIG. 6C & [0080] describes “elevated portions or recessed portions 25a, 25b” & see FIG. 6C describes 25a projects upwards and 25b projects downwards & 2 describes the separator plate).
Regarding claim 2, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projections and the recesses are arranged at a distance from the closest bead arrangement to the border (see FIG. 6A describes 11b and “sealing bead 12b” & describes projections and recesses arranged at a distance from the bead “12b” & border of 11b in FIG. 6A; see FIG. 6C describes projections and recesses).
Regarding claim 4, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projections are formed having different widths perpendicularly to the border (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the edge portion between the projections and recesses is located in the plate plane at least in some portions (see abstract “edge portion has a least one elevation and/or depression”; see FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, FIG. 6C describes “elevated portions 25a, 25b” & “2 separator plate”; see [0079] “the elevated portions 25a, 25b in accordance with FIGS. 6B-C are formed in one piece with the marginal section 15 and are shaped, e.g. stamped, in the film material of the marginal section 15”).
Regarding claim 14, Speidel discloses a bipolar plate comprising two interconnected separator plates, each according to claim 1, wherein the separator plates are formed such that: the through-openings are arranged in alignment with one another (see [0050] “plurality of metallic separator plates or bipolar plates 2 of the same construction” & “separator plates 2”; see [0055] “through-openings 11a-c”), and the bead arrangements of the separator plates point away from one another (see [0056] describes “sealing beads 12a-c” & “first single plate 2a has respective sealing arrangements in the form of sealing beads 12a-c that are each arranged around the passage openings 11a-c and that each completely surround the passage openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 2 describes the bead arrangements “12c” of 2a and 2b point away from one another).
Regarding claim 15, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the recess of one separator plate are in contact with the projections of the other separator plate at least in some portions (see [0082] “FIG. 6B, the elevated portions 25a and the recessed portions 25b are alternately arranged along a first grid direction and along a second grid direction, with the first grid direction and the second grid direction standing perpendicular on one another”).
Regarding claim 16, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the edge portion of one separator plate is in contact with the edge portion of the other separator plate at least in some portions (see abstract “an edge portion connected to the membrane and comprising a film material for positioning and/or fastening the membrane between the separator plates” & “edge portion has at least one elevation and/or depression”; see FIG. 6A).
Regarding claim 17, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 16 and further discloses wherein the edge portions of the two separator plates are interconnected by means of at least one weld (see [0054] “individual plates 2a, 2b may be made of sheet metal, such as stainless steel sheet. The individual plates 2a, 2b may, e.g., be welded together, e.g., by laser welded connections”).
Regarding claim 19, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses an electrochemical cell comprising two separator plates (see abstract “electrochemical cell” & “first separator plate” & “second separator plate”) and a membrane electrode assembly arranged between the separator plates (see abstract “a membrane electrode unit (MEA) arranged between the separator plates”), wherein the through-openings are arranged in alignment with one another (see [0055] “individual plates 2a, 2b have mutually aligned through-openings, which form through-openings 11a-c of the separator plate 2”).
Regarding claim 20, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses the electrochemical system (see abstract “electrochemical systems”) comprising a multiplicity of stacked separator plates (see FIG. 1 describes “stack” of separator plates).
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 8-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenzel et al. (US 20210202963 A1, “Wenzel”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 9, Speidel discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system, comprising at least one through-opening, having a border delimiting the through-opening, for the passage of a fluid (see abstract “electrochemical systems having a first separator plate”; see [0055] “through-openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 6A & [0056] describes border that delimits the through-openings 11a-c & [0055] describes “coolant can e.g. be introduced into the stack or drained out of the stack via the lines formed by the passage openings 11a” & coolant reads on fluid). Regarding the limitation at least one bead arrangement, which extends around the through-opening at a distance from the border at least in some portions and projects upwards out of a plate plane defined by the separator plate, Speidel discloses in [0056] “sealing beads 12a-c” & “first single plate 2a has respective sealing arrangements in the form of sealing beads 12a-c that are each arranged around the passage openings 11a-c and that each completely surround the passage openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 6C & [0080] describes “elevated portions or recessed portions 25a, 25b” reads on projects upwards out of a plate plane.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1. Speidel does not explicitly disclose comprising at least one strain-relief bead, spaced apart from the at least one bead arrangement, for relieving the strain on the at least one bead arrangement when the separator plate is in a compressed state, wherein the border has a curved portion at least in a corner region of the through-opening, and the strain-relief bead adjoins the curved portion of the border, wherein the border has a curved portion at least in a corner region of the through-opening.
Wenzel teaches curved portion of the border (see FIG. 2 describes curved portion of 22; see [0057] “the structures of the flow fields 17 serve for leading reaction media on the outer sides of the separator plates 10 and for leading a coolant through the interiors 22 of the separator plates 10 are enclosed by the individual plates 10a, 10b” & “11c through-opening”). Wenzel further teaches “through-opening 11c or the conduit through the stack 32, said conduit being formed by the through-opening 11c, is in fluid connection with an interior 22 which is enclosed or encompassed by the individual plates 10a, 10b and which is designed for leading a coolant through the separator plate 10” in [0053].
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 a curved portion (see FIG. 2 “22”) into to separator plate of Speidel because Wenzel teaches doing so “is designed for leading a coolant through the separator plate” (see [0053]).
Regarding the limitation of claim 8 and claim 9 and at least one strain-relief bead, spaced apart from the at least one bead arrangement, for relieving the strain on the at least one bead arrangement when the separator plate is in a compressed state, wherein the strain-relief bead adjoins the curved portion of the border, Speidel does not explicitly disclose.
Wenzel teaches strain-relief bead (see [0094] “support elements 19c, 19d”; see [0059] “the beads 12a-d are usually already slightly elastically compressed along the z-direction 6 on normal operation due to a prestressing (biasing) which is introduced into the stack 32”; see FIG. 5a describes “19c” adjoins the curved portion of the border; see [0094] “outer wall 25”). Wenzel teaches “support elements 19a, 19b serve for the purpose of protecting the beads 12a-d of the separator plates 10 of the stack 32 from irreversible plastic deformation. Such irreversible plastic deformation of the beads 12a-d can occur if strong mechanical forces act upon the stack 32, e.g. along the z-direction 6 perpendicularly to the plate planes of the separator plates 10” in [0061].
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 strain-relief bead (see [0059] “12a-d” & support elements in [0061]) in order to protect the beads from irreversible plastic deformation, as suggested by Wenzel (see [0061] & FIG. 5a).
Regarding claim 10, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 9. Speidel does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one strain-relief bead is arranged such that a straight line extending in a longitudinal direction of the strain-relief bead intersects the curved portion of the border.
Wenzel teaches strain-relief bead (see [0094] “support elements 19c, 19d”; see [0059] “the beads 12a-d are usually already slightly elastically compressed along the z-direction 6 on normal operation due to a prestressing (biasing) which is introduced into the stack 32”; see FIG. 5a describes “19c” intersects the curved portion of the border; see [0094] “outer wall 25”). Wenzel teaches “support elements 19a, 19b serve for the purpose of protecting the beads 12a-d of the separator plates 10 of the stack 32 from irreversible plastic deformation. Such irreversible plastic deformation of the beads 12a-d can occur if strong mechanical forces act upon the stack 32, e.g. along the z-direction 6 perpendicularly to the plate planes of the separator plates 10” in [0061].
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 strain-relief bead (see [0059] “12a-d” & support elements in [0061]) in order to protect the beads from irreversible plastic deformation, as suggested by Wenzel (see [0061] & FIG. 5a).
Regarding claim 11, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 9 and further discloses wherein at least one strain-relief bead has a cut-out at least in one of its end regions, which cut-out connects the edge region to the raised region of the strain-relief bead, wherein the cut-out is spaced apart from the at least one bead arrangement (see [0069] “cutouts 22a-c and a central cutout 23” & “recesses 51 as lateral positioning aids” in [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the recesses are stamped into the separator plate (see [0023] “the at least one recessed portion of the marginal section of the MEA can be implemented by a variation of a thickness of the film material of the marginal section of the MEA, for example by means of thermostamping, that is stamping under the effect of heat”).
Regarding claim 13, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 9 and further discloses wherein a height of the projections, a depth of the recesses are less than a height of the at least one bead arrangement (see [0081] “The marginal section 15 of the MEA 60 is thus deformed by the elevated portions 25a and recessed portions 25b” & “If an unusually high pressing occurs, such as on a rear-end collision, the elevated portions 25a and recessed portions 25b are plastically pressed, at times permanently, without an unwanted plastic deformation of the adjacent distributor channels in the separator plate occurring” which describes height & see [0091] “The recesses 25b of the marginal section 15 of the MEA 70 can correspondingly be at least partially arranged in a region between the sealing beads 12c and 12d of the adjacent separator plate 2” which describes recesses & bead arrangement & see FIG. 6C describes height of “25aa & “25b” & “2 separator plate” & FIG. 6A describes “12b” sealing bead & see [0090] describes “sealing beads 12b and 12d” & spacing and “recesses 25b” & “spacing between the sealing beads 12b and 12d is at a minimum”).
Regarding claim 18, Speidel discloses a bipolar plate comprising two interconnected separator plates, each according to claim 9, wherein the separator plates are formed such that: the through-openings are arranged in alignment with one another (see [0055] “individual plates 2a, 2b have mutually aligned through-openings, which form through-openings 11a-c of the separator plate 2”; see [0055] “through-openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 2) and the bead arrangements of the separator plates point away from one another (see [0056] describes “sealing beads 12a-c” & “first single plate 2a has respective sealing arrangements in the form of sealing beads 12a-c that are each arranged around the passage openings 11a-c and that each completely surround the passage openings 11a-c”; see FIG. 2 describes the bead arrangements “12c” of 2a and 2b point away from one another).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses the border is straight (see FIG. 6C). Speidel does not explicitly disclose the border is straight at least in some portions along its contour in the region of the projections.
Kunz teaches border is straight along its contour (see FIG. 13 describes “11a through opening”; see [0163] “As an alternative to the substantially rectangular plate assembly shown in FIGS. 13 to 15b, other basic shapes may also be used, for example, with laterally protruding regions, i.e. in the width direction, in particular in the region through the openings 11a to 11c. In this case, the width of the isolation plate may also be defined as the width obtained across the entire width of the metal layer in the active region.”) Kunz teaches in FIG. 12 & [0150] “The first metal sheet 100a has a cutout 30a in the form of a substantially rectangular, elongated through-opening, as well as ring-shaped embossed structures 32a of identical size which are arranged on each side of the elongated cutout 30a”. Kunz further teaches “the embossed structures 32a of the first metal sheet 100a are designed and arranged such that, when viewed in the positive z-direction 7, they are visible through the cutout 30b of the second metal sheet 100b, and the embossed structures 32b of the second metal sheet 100b are designed and arranged such that, when viewed in the negative z-direction 7, they are visible through the cutout 30a of the first metal sheet 100a”.
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 border is straight along its contour in the region of the projections, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 13 & FIG. 12) into the separator of Speidel because doing so allows for the first sheet to be viewed through the cutout of the second sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0151]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glueck et al. (US 20210313593 A1, “Glueck”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 5, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projections and recesses each have, on their side remote from the through-opening (see FIG. 6 & [0080] “elevated portions or recessed portions 25a, 25b”; see [0056] “sealing arrangements”). Speidel does not explicitly disclose a flection border.
Glueck teaches projection and extends (see [0090] “projections 52” & “collar 46” & see FIG. 6 describes in its longitudinal direction, extends in parallel with the border). Glueck teaches “the separator plates 2a, 2b are form-fittingly fixed in place at least in some portions by the first collar 46 engaging in the second collar 56. As a result, further measures for fixing the two separator plates 2a, 2b in place relative to one another can be omitted.” (see [0109]).
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 the collar 46 engaging in the second collar, as suggested by Glueck (see [0090] & [0109]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so omits further measures for fixing the two separator plates, as suggested by Glueck (see [0109]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 20220131162 A1, “Kunz”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 7, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the at least one bead arrangement (see [0056] “sealing beads 12a-c” & [0077] “sealing beads 12b, 12c that run around the passage openings 11b, 11c”). Speidel does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one bead arrangement has a bead top.
Kunz teaches bead roof (see FIG. 4b describes “12d perimeter bead” & see [0080] “the respective perimeter bead 12d may have a curved bead roof which merges directly into likewise-dished flanks”). Kunz teaches “the perimeter beads 12d of adjacent bipolar plates 2, 2′ are pressed together. In concrete terms, the bead roofs of adjacent bipolar plates 2, 2′ in the stack 6 face each other, with typically at least a part of the MEA 10 being clamped between the bead roofs” (see [0080]).
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 the bead roof as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 4 & [0080]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows the beads to clamp together and form contact faces (see [0080]).
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 01/16/2026