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 .
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 6 & 15 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.
With respect to claim 6, it is how “one or more protective layers” can be “a single protective layer”. An appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim language will be interpreted as “one or more single protective layers”
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the limitation " the flakes of graphene" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lynn et al. GB 2581213A.
With respect to claim 1, Lynn teaches a substrate (metal substrate is coated with a tiecoat; See the Abstract); and one or more protective layers adjacent to the substrate (tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract), wherein the one or more protective layers contain a number of graphyne molecules (tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract). With respect to each graphyne-containing layer being configured to lower hydrogen adsorption into the substrate when compared to a substrate region free from the protective layers is an inherent feature of the prior art set forth, as “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to the structure being a fuel cell bipolar plate, the limitation is an intended use. Intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. "[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed, Cir. 1999). See also MPEP 2111.02. Here, although the limitations have been considered they are not given patentable weight, as they do not differentiate the claimed coated substrate that is capable of performing as a bipolar plate.
With respect to claim 6, the one or more protective layers is a single protective layer (the coated metal structure is a single layer; See the Abstract).
With respect to claim 7, the substrate being formed from stainless steel, a titanium-based metallic compounds, a composite, or a combination thereof (metal substrate is coated with a tiecoat; Examiners note: two distinct layers is a composite & the metal substrate is steel; See the Abstract & the Description);
Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by Lynn.
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.
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of Chen CN 114220929A.
Lynn teaches a bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: graphyne is gamma-graphyne (claim 2); the gamma-graphyne is stacked in a ABC configuration (claim 3).
Chen teaches a that it is well known in the art to employ: graphyne is gamma-graphyne (gamma-graphyne formed on electrodes; See Equivalent Abstract, claim 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the gamma-graphyne of Chen, as the graphyne material of Lynn,. The skilled artisan recognizes the use of graphyne materials for conductivity and durability properties. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297.
With respect to the gamma-graphyne is stacked in a ABC configuration (claim 3); it would have been obvious to employ as the configuration of Lynn in view of Chen, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of Ho et al. US-20230138359-A1.
Lynn teaches a bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: the one or more protective layers include a binder material (claim 4).
Ho teaches a that it is well known in the art to employ: the one or more protective layers include a binder material (binder containing coating corrosion protection on metal substrate; [0072]; claim 4).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the binder of Ho, as the protective coating of Lynn, to increase corrosion protection.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A.
Lynn teaches a bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 5 millimeters (claim 5).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 5 millimeters as the thickness of the plate of Lynn, to improve corrosion protection of the metal substrate, commensurate with the stated purpose set forth in the Abstract. Lynn teaches
a dry film thickness of the prepared coatings were in the range of 50-60 microns for single coat samples and 150-160 microns for multi coat samples. See “THREE COAT SYSTEMS”, paragraph 19. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of ABDUL JABBAR et al. US Pub. 2023/0096327.
Lynn teaches a bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: the one or more protective layers is limited to a flow passage (claim 8).
ABDUL JABBAR teaches a that it is well known in the art to employ bipolar plates with flow passages (Fig. 1; claim 8).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the flow passages of ABDUL JABBAR, in the plate of Lynn, in order to transfer reactants to electrodes in fuel cell applications. The skilled artisan recognizes anticorrosive plates are beneficial in harsh feel cell environments.
With respect to the one or more protective layers being limited to a flow passage; it would have been obvious on the plate of Lynn in view of ABDUL JABBAR, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The Courts have held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); See also MPEP §§2114 and 2173.05(g). Furthermore, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, because the structure of the bipolar plate of Lynn in view of ABDUL JABBAR teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, one of ordinary skills in the art can use the bipolar plate of Lynn in view of ABDUL JABBAR to operate it in the manner disclosed by the Applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of Chen CN 114220929A.
Lynn teaches a substrate having first and second surfaces (metal substrate is coated with a tiecoat; See the Abstract); and one or more protective layers adjacent to at least one of the first and/or second surfaces (tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract), wherein the one or more protective layers contain a number of graphyne molecules (tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract). With respect to each graphyne-containing layer being configured to lower hydrogen adsorption into the substrate when compared to a substrate region free from the protective layers is a feature of the prior art set forth, as “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.With respect to the structure being a fuel cell bipolar plate, the limitation is an intended use. Intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. "[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed, Cir. 1999). See also MPEP 2111.02. Here, although the limitations have been considered they are not given patentable weight, as they do not differentiate the claimed coated substrate that is capable of performing as a bipolar plate. With respect to claim 10, the substrate is formed from stainless steel, a titanium-based metallic compounds or a combination thereof (metal substrate is coated with a tiecoat; Examiners note: two distinct layers is a composite & the metal substrate is steel; See the Abstract & the Description). With respect to claim 11, the one or more protective layers comprised of a plurality of layers (the coated metal structure is a single layer; See the Abstract).
Lynn does not teach or suggest: graphyne is gamma-graphyne molecules (claim 9); a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 5 millimeters (claim 12); the gamma-graphyne is stacked in a ABC configuration (claim 13); the graphyne molecules are flakes of graphyne (claim 14); the flakes of graphene are overlapping (claim 15).
Chen teaches a that it is well known in the art to employ: graphyne is gamma-graphyne (gamma-graphyne formed on electrodes; See Equivalent Abstract, claim 9).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the gamma-graphyne of Chen, as the graphyne material of Lynn. The skilled artisan recognizes the use of graphyne materials for conductivity and durability properties. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297.
With respect to a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 5 millimeters (claim 12); it would have been obvious as the thickness of the plate of Lynn in view of Chen, to improve corrosion protection of the metal substrate, commensurate with the stated purpose set forth in the Abstract of Lynn. Lynn teaches a dry film thickness of the prepared coatings were in the range of 50-60 microns for single coat samples and 150-160 microns for multi coat samples. See “THREE COAT SYSTEMS”, paragraph 19. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the gamma-graphyne is stacked in a ABC configuration (claim 13); it would have been obvious to employ as the configuration of Lynn in view of Chen, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the graphyne molecules are flakes of graphyne (claim 14); the flakes of graphene are overlapping (claim 15); it would have been obvious as the shape of Lynn in view of Chen, as changes in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Also, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB GV 2581213A in view of ALINGER et al., EP-2136427-A1.
With respect claim 16, Lynn teaches a one or more protective layers adjacent to a body (metal substrate is coated with a tiecoat; See the Abstract; tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract), wherein the one or more protective layers contain a graphdiyne material (tiecoat comprises a carrier and a material that uses a barrier mechanism to inhibit corrosion, wherein the barrier material is graphyne; See the Abstract). With respect to the structure being a fuel cell bipolar plate, the limitation is an intended use. Intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. "[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed, Cir. 1999). See also MPEP 2111.02. Here, although the limitations have been considered they are not given patentable weight, as they do not differentiate the claimed coated substrate that is capable of performing as a bipolar plate.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: a body including a bulk region (claim 16); one or more protective layers bring configured to lower hydrogen adsorption into the bulk region when compared to a bulk region free from the protective layers (claim 16);
a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 1 millimeter (claim 20).
ALINGER teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a body including a bulk region (cathode interconnect (22) is formed of a material comprising ferritic stainless steel, and includes an underlying bulk region; teaching clam 9; claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the body including a bulk region of ALINGER, as the configuration of the bipolar plate of Lynn, in order to separate fluid or improve structural integrity of the plate. With respect to one or more protective layers bring configured to lower hydrogen adsorption into the bulk region when compared to a bulk region free from the protective layers (claim 16); it is an feature of the prior art set forth, as “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect a total thickness of the one or more protective layers form a thin film of 0.6 nanometers to 1 millimeter (claim 20); it would have been obvious as the thickness of the plate of Lynn in view of ALINGER, to improve corrosion protection of the metal substrate, commensurate with the stated purpose set forth in the Abstract of Lynn. Lynn teaches a dry film thickness of the prepared coatings were in the range of 50-60 microns for single coat samples and 150-160 microns for multi coat samples. See “THREE COAT SYSTEMS”, paragraph 19. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of ALINGER et al., EP-2136427-A1, and further in view of Ho et al. KR-2014071539-A.
Lynn in view of ALINGER teach a fuel cell bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: the graphdiyne material including a calcium-doped graphdiyne material (claim 17).
Ho teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the graphdiyne material including a calcium-doped graphdiyne material (Calcium ions are eccentrically positioned from the center of the hexagonal lattice plane of alpha -graphyne; Equivalent Abstract; claim 17). The material is a thermodynamically stable, stores large-amounts of hydrogen (up to 7 wt.%) in a reversible manner at room temperature. See the ADVANTAGE section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a calcium-doped graphdiyne material of Ho, in the graphdiyne of Lynn in view of ALINGER, in order to provide a thermodynamically stable, stores large-amounts of hydrogen (up to 7 wt.%) in a reversible manner at room temperature.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. GB 2581213A in view of ALINGER et al., EP-2136427-A1, and further in view of XU et al. CN-115434141-A.
Lynn in view of ALINGER teach a fuel cell bipolar plate as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lynn does not teach or suggest: the graphdiyne material includes a heteroatom-doped graphdiyne material (claim 18); the heteroatom-doped graphdiyne material is doped with N, S, F, and/or Cl (claim 19).
XU teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the graphdiyne material includes a heteroatom-doped graphdiyne material (nitrogen co-doped graphdiyne; Abstract; claim 18); the heteroatom-doped graphdiyne material is doped with N, S, F, and/or Cl (nitrogen co-doped graphdiyne; Abstract; claim 19). The graphite alkyne modified fibre fabric has enhanced flexibility, mechanical property and electro-catalysis performance. See the ADVANTAGE section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ heteroatom-doped graphdiyne material of XU, in the graphdiyne of Lynn in view of ALINGER, in order to provide a structural 8integrity of the plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights