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
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-20 are rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) 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 1, Speidel discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system (see FIG. 1 describes “separator plates 2” & “electrochemical system 1”), comprising: at least one through-opening (see [0055] “individual plates 2a, 2b have mutually aligned through-openings, which form through-openings 11a-c of the separator plate 2”), having a border that delimits the through-opening, for the passage of a fluid (see [0059] “hollow space 19 respectively serves the guidance of a coolant through the separator plate 2” & see in FIG. 3 describes “19” & “2a” & “2b”); and at least one bead arrangement, which extends around the through-opening at a distance from the border at least in some portions (see FIG. 2 “sealing beads 12a-c” & see [0056] “sealing beads 12a-c that are each arranged around the passage openings 11a-c and that each completely surround the passage openings 11a-c”) and projects upwards out of a plate plane defined by the separator plate (see [0077] “receivable and pressable at least sectionally between the sealing beads 12b, 12c of the adjacent separator plates 2” which describes projects out of the plate plane) wherein an edge portion stretches between the at least one bead arrangement and the border (see FIG. 2 “12d perimeter bead”).
Regarding the limitations and the edge portion has recesses and projections starting from the border and alternating successively along a border contour in some portions & wherein the recesses project downwards out of the plate plane and the projections project upwards out of the plate plane, and wherein the projections and recesses are arranged at a distance from the closest bead arrangement to the border, Speidel does not explicitly disclose.
Kunz teaches recesses and projections in the separator plate (see FIG. 8B describes “100 separator plate arrangement” & see [0139] “embossed structure 32a of the first metal sheet 100a protrudes beyond a surface” & “embossed structure 32b” which describes recesses and projections; see [0127] describes “first metal sheet 100a”). Kunz teaches in [0133] “The large distances, for example between the embossed structures 32a, 33a of the first metal sheet 100a and between the embossed structures 32b, 33b of the second metal sheet 100b, make it possible to detect in a particularly easy manner, from just one surface, namely the surface facing towards the viewer in FIG. 4, an incorrect positioning of the first metal sheet 100a relative to the second metal sheet 100b, for example prior to connecting the two metal sheets 100a, 100b to one another by welding”.
Speidel and Kunz are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely separator plates for electrochemical system (see Kunz title).
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 recesses and projections in the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8B & [0127]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows for detection of misalignment and incorrect positioning of the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding the limitation wherein the separator plate is metallic, Speidel discloses (see [0050] “metallic separator plates”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the projections and recesses are molded into the separator plate, Speidel discloses injection molding process to form elevated and recessed portions (see [0021]), but does not explicitly disclose projections and recesses are molded into the separator plate.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 1, “projections and recesses are molded”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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). See MPEP § 2113.
Kunz teaches molding (see [0071] “embossing of a bead” & “injection moulding”).
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 that injection molding process, as disclosed by Speidel (see [0021]) may be used to form the recesses and projections in the separator plate, as suggested by Kunz (see [0071]) and to incorporate recesses and projections in the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8B & [0127]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows for detection of misalignment and incorrect positioning of the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 6, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the edge portion between the projections and recesses is located in the plate plane at least in some portions and/or is configured as a planar surface.
Kunz teaches edge portion (see FIG. 8A describes “outer edge region 22a”). Kunz teaches in [0133] “the large distances, for example between the embossed structures 32a, 33a of the first metal sheet 100a and between the embossed structures 32b, 33b of the second metal sheet 100b, make it possible to detect in a particularly easy manner, from just one surface, namely the surface facing towards the viewer in FIG. 4, an incorrect positioning of the first metal sheet 100a relative to the second metal sheet 100b, for example prior to connecting the two metal sheets 100a, 100b to one another by welding”.
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 an edge portion that is part of a planar surface and located in the plate plane, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8A “22b” & “100”) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so makes it possible to detect incorrect positioning of the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 14, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1 and further discloses a bipolar plate comprising two interconnected separator plates (see [0050] “plurality of metallic separator plates or bipolar plates 2 of the same construction” & “separator plates 2”), wherein the separator plates are formed such that: the through-openings are arranged in alignment with one another or so as to partly overlap (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).
Regarding claim 15, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the recesses of one separator plate are in contact with the projections of the other separator plate at least in some portions.
Kunz teaches recesses and projections in the metal sheet (see FIG. 8C describes “100 separator plate arrangement” & describes “32a embossed structure” & “32b embossed structure” & “100a” & “100b” & see [0142]). Kunz teaches (see [0029] “it may be advantageous if a cut edge of the third cutout is visible through the second cutout, and/or a cut edge of the fourth cutout is visible through the first cutout. By virtue of a double structure reciprocally arranged in this way, an optical detection of the first embossed structure or of the cut edge of the third cutout and/or of the second embossed structure or of the cut edge of the fourth cutout can take place through the second metal sheet or through the first metal sheet, respectively”.
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 recess of one separator in contact with projection of the other separator, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8C & [0142]) into the bipolar plate of Speidel because doing so allows for optical detection through the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose 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.
Kunz teaches edge portion (see FIG. 8A “22b” & FIG. 8B & FIG. 8C describes “100a” & “100b” describes the two separator plates).
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 edge portions of the separator plates in contact, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8A, FIG. 8B, FIG. 8C, see [0142]) into the bipolar plate of Speidel because doing so allows for optical detection through the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0029]).
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).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 20220131162 A1, “Kunz2”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the border is straight at least in some portions along its contour in the region of the projections and/or recesses.
Kunz2 teaches straight next to the projections (see [0094] “the stiffening structures 40 is substantially rectangular” & see FIG. 5 describes “40” is straight in the projections/recesses). Kunz2 teaches “the stiffening structures 40 may be configured to locally reduce a bending ability of the respective individual plate, in order thus to increase the stiffness” (see [0091]).
Speidel and Kunz2 are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical systems (see abstract).
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 rectangular stiffening structure, as suggested by Kunz2 (see [0094] & FIG. 5) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so improves the stiffness and reduces bending ability of the plate, as suggested by Kunz2 (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 4, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the projections and recesses are formed having different widths perpendicularly to the border.
Kunz2 teaches different sizes (see [0093] “opposing stiffening structures 40 of the individual plates 2a, 2b are of the same shape and the same size. Alternatively, they may also be of different shapes and/or different sizes.”). Kunz2 teaches “the stiffening structures 40 may be configured to locally reduce a bending ability of the respective individual plate, in order thus to increase the stiffness” (see [0091]).
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 different shapes and/or different sizes, as suggested by Kunz2 (see [0093]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so improves the stiffness and reduces a bending ability of the plate, as suggested by Kunz2 (see [0091]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”) 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, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the projections and recesses each have, on their side remote from the through-opening, a flection border which, in its longitudinal direction, extends in parallel with the 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]). Glueck teaches in [0090] “each separator plate 2a, 2b thus comprises at least one positioning opening 40, 50, with one projection 42, 52 and one collar 46, 56 being provided per positioning opening 40, 50”.
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”) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 20220131162 A1, “Kunz2”). Speidel et al. (US 20210328236 A1, “Speidel”) is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 7, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one bead arrangement has a bead top.
Kunz2 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). Kunz2 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 bead roof as suggested by Kunz2 (see FIG. 4 & [0080]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows the beads to clamp together and form contact faces, as suggested by Kunz2 (see [0080]).
Claims 8-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel et al. (CN 112567553 A, “Speidel”) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20210234237 A1, “Kunz”) 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 FIG. 1 describes “separator plates 2” & “electrochemical system 1”; see abstract “electrochemical systems having a first separator plate”; see [0055] “individual plates 2a, 2b have mutually aligned through-openings, which form through-openings 11a-c of the separator plate 2”; see [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; see FIG. 6A & [0056] describes border that delimits the through-openings). 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 9 limitation an edge portion, wherein the edge portion has recesses and projections, wherein the recesses are molded into the separator plate and project downwards out of the plate plane and the projections are molded into the separator and project upwards out of the plate plane, Speidel discloses in [0104] “pressing in a mold”, but does not explicitly disclose the separator has recesses and projections.
Kunz teaches recesses and projections in the separator plate (see FIG. 8B describes “100 separator plate arrangement” & see [0139] “embossed structure 32a of the first metal sheet 100a protrudes beyond a surface” & “embossed structure 32b” which describes recesses and projections; see [0127] describes “first metal sheet 100a”). Kunz teaches in [0133] “The large distances, for example between the embossed structures 32a, 33a of the first metal sheet 100a and between the embossed structures 32b, 33b of the second metal sheet 100b, make it possible to detect in a particularly easy manner, from just one surface, namely the surface facing towards the viewer in FIG. 4, an incorrect positioning of the first metal sheet 100a relative to the second metal sheet 100b, for example prior to connecting the two metal sheets 100a, 100b to one another by welding”.
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 recesses and projections in the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8B & [0127]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows for detection of misalignment and incorrect positioning of the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 9 limitation and wherein the separator plate is metallic, Speidel discloses (see [0050] “metallic separator plates”).
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, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the recesses are stamped into the separator plate.
Kunz teaches recesses and projections in the separator plate (see FIG. 8B describes “100 separator plate arrangement” & see [0139] “embossed structure 32a of the first metal sheet 100a protrudes beyond a surface” & “embossed structure 32b” which describes recesses and projections; see [0127] describes “first metal sheet 100a”). Kunz teaches in [0133] “The large distances, for example between the embossed structures 32a, 33a of the first metal sheet 100a and between the embossed structures 32b, 33b of the second metal sheet 100b, make it possible to detect in a particularly easy manner, from just one surface, namely the surface facing towards the viewer in FIG. 4, an incorrect positioning of the first metal sheet 100a relative to the second metal sheet 100b, for example prior to connecting the two metal sheets 100a, 100b to one another by welding”.
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 recesses and projections in the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8B & [0127]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows for detection of misalignment and incorrect positioning of the metal sheet, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 13, Speidel discloses the separator plate of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of the projections, a depth of the recesses are different.
Kunz teaches different height of the projections and recesses (see FIG. 8B). Kunz teaches “the large distances, for example between the embossed structures 32a, 33a of the first metal sheet 100a and between the embossed structures 32b, 33b of the second metal sheet 100b, make it possible to detect in a particularly easy manner, from just one surface, namely the surface facing towards the viewer in FIG. 4, an incorrect positioning of the first metal sheet 100a relative to the second metal sheet 100b, for example prior to connecting the two metal sheets 100a, 100b to one another by welding” (see [0133]).
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 differing heights, as suggested by Kunz (see FIG. 8B & [00133]) into the separator plate of Speidel because doing so allows for incorrect positioning to be determined, as suggested by Kunz (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 18, Speidel discloses the bipolar plate of claim 9, and further discloses 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights