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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons already stated in the previous restriction requirement. The position is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 is 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 15 contains the trademark/trade name “E130i”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe liquid crystal polymer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farrington (US 2015/0111125 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Farrington discloses alignment features and method for alignment in fuel cell stacks (title), including bipolar plates (abstract).
Farrington depicts in Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c several different embodiments of alignment features that are suitable for use in circular common datum openings ([0045]) and teaches they are preferably non-electrically conductive (i.e. insulating) ([0017]).
Farrington depicts a circular (i.e. annular) insert with flanges such that the body is located between the flanges (Figs. 3a and 3b).
Fig. 4 depicts alignment feature 40 away from the peripheral edge.
As to claim 3, Farrington teaches some flexibility may be desirable ([0045]).
As to claims 5-9, Farrington depicts in Fig. 3a recessed portions (3) and remaining portions (4,5) and in Fig. 3b the flanges contacting the remaining portions. Farrington also teaches the alignment features “lie within the planes” with respect to the bipolar plates ([0039]), which reads on the flange being level with said remaining portion.
As to claim 14, Farrington teaches it relates to alignment features for aligning bipolar plates and optionally membrane electrode assemblies and the plates within bipolar plates ([0002]).
As to claim 15, Farrington teaches the alignment features are non-electrically conductive and can be liquid crystal polymers, inter alia ([0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrington.
Farrington is applied as in the 102 rejection above.
As to claim 4, Farrington does not expressly teach one flange extending further in a radial direction than the second flange.
However, Farrington does teach that the alignment feature would be appropriately shaped to engage common datum openings ([0051]).
In view of this teaching, making one flange longer than the other flange is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
As to claims 10-13, Farrington does not expressly teach a beveled edge.
However, Farrington does teach frame 3 is trapped (via snap fit preferably) in peripheral slot 23 of tapered alignment feature 20 ([0048; See Figs. 3a and 3b).
Considering the level of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner considers snap fit to be substantially similar or at least render obvious (obvious variant) the claimed beveled edge configured to permit insertion and stopping edge to inhibit removal. The other features claimed in claim 11-13 are either depicted in Figs. 3a and 3b or are rendered obvious by the rationale above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746