Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 states “a multitude of first channels and a multitude of second channels”, wherein the “first channels” of claim 4 are not required to be the “a first channel” of claim 2 since claim 4 does not depend from claim 2.
Claim 6 states “wherein the surface lines in the region of the channel base continuation have an essentially equal length.” “Essentially equal length” is treated with broad interpretation where, “essentially equal” does not necessarily mean exactly equal but includes lengths more equal than not, allowing for variations.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the phrase, “essentially flat” (lines 7 and 3, respectively) includes relative terminology that renders the claim indefinite because based on [0065] of the original instant specification, the line between essentially flat and curved is unclear and no other special definition was provided. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims with regard to “essentially flat” cannot be determined.
Claims 3-18 are similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “especially non-embossed” (line 3) includes exemplary language that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “non-embossed” is part of the claimed invention and further limits the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this office action, the claim limitation has been interpreted as reading, “the transition region forms an end section of the channel and adjoins an essentially flat and non-embossed region of the separator plate.”
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “at least a first channel” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “at least a first channel” is one from the “multitude of mutually parallel and adjacent channels” of claim 1, or if it is one from “at least one of the channels” of claim 1, or if it is a completely separate from those two previously established categories of channels. For the purpose of this office action, “at least a first channel” is interpreted to be one from “the multitude of mutually parallel and adjacent channels” of claim 1 and is not required to meet the conditions applied to the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1.
This further results in additional indefiniteness regarding “the transition region” (line 2) as it is unclear whether it is meant to be “a transition region” or if it is referring back to the transition region of the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1. For the purpose of this office action, “the transition region” is interpreted to be “a transition region” as is reasonable in light of Fig. 8 and [0071] of the instant specification.
The phrase “the channel” (line 2) renders the claim limitation indefinite because it is unclear whether “the channel” refers to one of the “multitude of mutually and adjacent channels” of claim 1, the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1, or “at least a first channel” established in claim 2. For the purpose of this office action, the claim limitation has been interpreted as reading, “end section of the first channel”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “at least a second channel” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “at least a second channel” is one from the “multitude of mutually parallel and adjacent channels” of claim 1, or if it is one from “at least one of the channels” of claim 1, or if it is a completely separate from those two previously established categories of channels. For the purpose of this office action, “at least a second channel” is interpreted to be one from “the multitude of mutually parallel and adjacent channels” of claim 1 and is not required to meet the conditions applied to the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1.
This further results in additional indefiniteness regarding “the transition region” (line 2) as it is unclear whether it is meant to be “a transition region” or if it is referring back to the transition region of the at least one of the channels of claim 1. For the purpose of this office action, “the transition region” is interpreted to be “a transition region” as is reasonable in light of Fig. 8 and [0071] and [0082] of the instant specification, wherein the first and second channels have distinct transition regions.
The phrase “the channel” (lines 2, 4 and 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the channel” refers to one of the “multitude of mutually and adjacent channels” of claim 1, the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1, or “at least a second channel” established in claim 3. For the purpose of this office action, the “the channel” is interpreted to be the “at least a second channel.”
The phrase “the first region” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the first region” (line 3) is “the first region” of the “at least one of the channels,” or “a first region” of the “at least a second channel.” For the purpose of this office action, “the first region” (line 3) is interpreted to be “a first region” of the “at least a second channel” of claim 3.
Similarly, the phrase “the first region” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the first region” is of the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1, or of “at least a second channel” of claim 3. For the purpose of this office action, “the first region” (line 3) is interpreted to be “the first region” of the “at least a second channel” of claim 3, where antecedent basis is established in line 3, “a first region”.
The phrase “the depth” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether it is “the depth” of “at least one of the channels,” or “a depth” of the “at least a second channel.” For the purpose of this office, “the depth” is interpreted as “a depth” of the “at least a second channel” as is reasonable in light of Fig. 8 and [0072] and [0080] of the instant specification wherein the depth of the first and second regions of the second channel are not necessarily the “essentially constant” depth of the “at least one of the channels” of claim 1.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 as set forth above, the phrase “multitude of second channels” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the second channels are inclusive of or separate from the “at least a second channel” of claim 3. For the purpose of this office action, “second channels” is interpreted to be inclusive of the “at least a second channel” of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “especially at least 0.1 mm” (line 3) includes exemplary language that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “at least 0.1 mm” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this office action, the claim limitation has been interpreted as reading, “a radius of curvature of the channel base continuation is at least 0.1 mm.”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “essentially constant” (line 2) includes relative terminology that renders the claim indefinite because based on [0068] of the original instant specification, the line between an “essentially constant depth” and a decrease in depth in the transition region is unclear. No other special definition was provided and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “especially each” (line 6) includes exemplary language that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “each” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this office action, the claim limitation has been interpreted as reading, “the surface lines diverge in the region of side wall continuations and each have a different length.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “wherein the channel base continuation in the transition region has a length projected into the plane of the plate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “into” is in a parallel or perpendicular direction with respect to the plane of the plate. For the purpose of this office action, the length is projected in a perpendicular direction with respect to the plane of the plate.
The Examiner notes that in the interest of furthering compact prosecution, the claims have been fully examined despite the numerous stacking indefiniteness issues that required at least some amount of speculation on the part of the examiner to interpret the claims reasonably in light of the specification. Please note that if considerable speculation by the examiner is required, further examination of the merits of the claims may be precluded (MPEP 2143.03 I citing In re Steele).
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraft et al. (US 20170170489 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Kraft discloses a separator plate (i.e. flow element, [0002]) for an electrochemical system (i.e. component of bipolar plate in electrochemical devices, [0002]), comprising a multitude of mutually parallel and adjacent channels (Figure 1) that are designed to guide a fluid ([0010];[0022]) at least along a region of the separator plate ([0004], Figure 1) wherein the channels each have a depth ([0072]), a longitudinal extent (Figure 1), a channel base (Figure 1, 140), and two sidewalls (i.e. flanks, [0066], Figure 4-6, 138), wherein the following conditions apply to at least one of the channels:
the depth of the channel in a first region of the channel is essentially constant along the longitudinal extent (i.e. normal level difference, NN-, Fig. 2)
the depth of the channel in the first region of the channel is essentially flat (see annotated Kraft Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 8
the depth of the channel in a transition region of the channel that adjoins the first region decreases along the longitudinal extent (i.e. normal depth NN and reduced depth NR [0004-0005]), as a result of which a channel base continuation in the transition region is curved (see annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
775
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
606
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
wherein the channel base continuation in the transition region is curved in such a way that, when surface lines of the channel base that are mutually parallel to one another along the longitudinal extent of the channel and in the first region are continued in the region of the channel base continuation, the surface lines likewise run essentially parallel to one another in the region of the channel base continuation, as shown in Annotated Kraft Fig. 3 below.
Furthermore, as shown in Annotated Kraft Fig. 3 below, Kraft discloses the separator plate wherein the surface lines in the region of the channel base continuation have an essentially equal length, thus meeting claim 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
690
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 3
Furthermore, as shown in Annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below, Kraft discloses the channel base continuation in the transition region is curved in only one direction, and is curved in the direction of the longitudinal extent of the channel, of claims 5 and 7 respectively.
PNG
media_image5.png
624
868
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
Regarding claim 2, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kraft discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Kraft further discloses a first channel where a transition region forms an end section of the first channel and adjoins an essentially flat and non-embossed, region of the separator plate (see annotated Kraft Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
744
667
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 2
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft discloses sidewall continuations of the sidewalls in the transition region of the channel are each curved in at least two directions at least in sections, as shown in Annotated Kraft Fig.9 below, thus meeting claim 9.
PNG
media_image7.png
671
895
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
Kraft further discloses wherein each sidewall in the first region has a first curved region which, in a transverse extent of the channel, adjoins the channel base transverse to the longitudinal extent of the channel and is curved in traverse extent of the channel, as claimed in claim 10, and as shown in Annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below.
PNG
media_image8.png
597
857
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
Furthermore, as seen in Annotated Kraft Fig. 3 below, Kraft discloses when surface lines that are mutually parallel along the longitudinal extent of the channel and in the first curved region are continued in the region of the sidewall continuations, the surface lines diverge in the region of the sidewall continuations, the surface lines diverge in the region of the sidewall continuation and each have a different length, thus meeting the claim limitation of claim 10.
PNG
media_image9.png
690
711
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 3
Regarding claim 14, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft further discloses a channel that has a straight or curved profile at least in sections along its longitudinal extent in the first and/or in the transition region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kraft discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Kraft discloses a circumferential line of the channel having a straight section in the region of the channel base continuation, as shown Annotated Kraft Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image10.png
654
315
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 3
Regarding claims 13, and 16-18, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft further discloses a separator plate wherein the channels are formed into the separator plate (i.e. plate like main body that is formed a shaped sheet metal product, Abstract), thus meeting claim 13. Kraft further discloses a separator plate (i.e. flow element) is to be used as a component of a bipolar plate in electrochemical devices where the bipolar plate comprises of two flow elements ([0022], [0070], Figures 10 and 11), thus meeting claims 16-18.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US 20170170489 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft further discloses the channel depth to be preferably 0.5 mm and channel width to be approximately 1 mm ([0071-0072]). Kraft discloses a desire to reduce material expansion, undesirable material thickness, and tearing of the main body through the use of parallel and curvature expansion regions ([0131-133]). A skilled artisan would recognize the curvature expansion region of Kraft, in possessing a gentle curve, rather than sharp angles, is able to prevent tearing in the material of the main body, and that Kraft desires such characteristics throughout the flow field.
Kraft further discloses in having regions with different depths, undesirable material expansion can be avoided and the flow element is able to attain high stability and permit efficient flow guiding ([0156]).
Kraft further discloses a curvature of the channel base continuation is essentially constant and the channel base continuation necessarily possesses a radius of curvature (see Annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image11.png
671
895
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
While Kraft does not explicitly disclose a desired radius of curvature for the channel base continuation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed constant curvature and radius of curvature of at least 0.1 mm for the channel base continuation of Kraft with reasonable expectation of success of attaining a satisfactory separator plate, as the claimed range of at least 0.1 mm is well within the same order of magnitude of the dimensions of Kraft’s flow element. It would have been further obvious to skilled artisan to try, based on the dimensions and design disclosed by Kraft in Fig. 9, to achieve such a radius of curvature in order to reduce risk of material expansion, undesirable material thickness, and tearing of the main body, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft further discloses the channel depth to be preferably 0.5 mm and channel width to be approximately 1 mm ([0071-0072]). Kraft discloses a desire to reduce material expansion, undesirable material thickness, and tearing of the main body through the use of parallel and curvature expansion regions ([0131-133]). Kraft further discloses the channel base continuation in the transition region has a length projected into the plane of the plate but is not explicit about whether the projected length is at least 0.1 mm (see Annotated Fig. 9 below), noting that the drawings may not be to scale.
PNG
media_image12.png
344
456
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed length projected into the plane of the plate of at least 0.1 mm for the channel base continuation in the transition region of Kraft with reasonable expectation of success of attaining a satisfactory separator plate, since 0.1 mm is well within the order of magnitude of the dimensions disclosed by Kraft.
Regarding claim 12, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft discloses sidewall continuations in the transition region curved in at least two directions, in sections, as shown annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below, but is not explicit regarding the radius of curvature of one of the sidewall continuations in the direction of the longitudinal extent of the channel is at least 0.1 mm, wherein a radius of curvature of the sidewall continuation in the direction of the transverse extent is at least 0.1 mm.
Kraft further discloses the widening and/or flattening of the sidewalls (i.e. flanks) in order to keep a flow cross-section as constant as possible along the direction of flow ([0066]).
However, a skilled artisan would recognize Kraft’s separator plate necessarily possesses a radius of curvature in the direction of the longitudinal extent of the channel, and in the direction of the transverse extent of the channel (see annotated Kraft Fig. 9 below), noting that the drawings may not be to scale. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize Kraft’s lack of sharp angles to avoid easy tearing of the material and in an effort to do the same, would choose greater radius of curvature for the sidewall continuations in the longitudinal and transverse extent of the channel.
PNG
media_image13.png
671
895
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
671
895
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 9
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived within the claimed scopes of the radius of curvature of the sidewall continuation of at least 0.1 mm in both the longitudinal and transverse extent of the channel with reasonable expectation of success as such measurements are within the order of magnitude of the dimensions disclosed by Kraft. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to skilled artisan to try, based on the dimensions and design disclosed by Kraft in Fig. 9, to achieve such a radius of curvature in order to reduce risk of material expansion, undesirable material thickness, and tearing of the main body, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a satisfactory separator plate.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US 20170170489 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 114725423 A).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Kraft discloses at least a second channel wherein a transition region adjoins a second region of the “at least a second channel”, is disposed between a first region of the “at least a second channel” and the second region and connects the two fluidically to one another (see Annotated Kraft Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image15.png
477
591
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 1
Kraft further suggests when the channels have reduced depth at certain locations, this enables in a reduction in excessive expansion and tearing of the main body ([0004-0005], [0115]), as well as providing the flow element with high stability and efficient flow guiding ([0156]).
While a skilled artisan would recognize the first and second region of the “at least a channel” necessarily possess a depth, it is not explicit as to whether a depth of the second region of the “at least a second channel” is lower than a depth of the first region of the “at least a second channel”.
Wang teaches flow channels including a half-depth section, and full-depth section connected in sequence, with a transition region between the sections ([60], Fig. 2, Fig. 4). Wang further teaches that in implementing such changes in depth, issues with poor mass transfer performance, reactants not being transported to the electrochemical reaction surface of the electrode in time, and resulting poor battery performance can be addressed ([59-60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided at least Kraft’s first and second region of the “at least a second channel” the changes in depth as taught by Wang such that a depth of the “at least a second channel” in the second region is lower than a depth of the “at least a second channel” in the first region (since each region possesses multiple depths as modified) in order to improve mass transfer performance and in turn, improve battery performance, as suggested by Kraft and as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the 112(b) rejection, modified Kraft discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kim discloses a multitude of first channels and a multitude of second channels wherein at least two mutually closes second channels are separated from one another by at least a first channel, as denoted annotated Kraft Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image16.png
769
1060
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kraft Fig. 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/5/2026