DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “Klug's processing station, which the Office cites as disclosing the claimed calendering rollers, itself contains a heating unit … Klug fails to disclose a "system [that] does not comprise any heating units disposed between the one or more calendering rollers and the one or more processing rollers[.]"”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because in Klug heating occurs before calendering, not between calendering and processing as alleged by Applicant.
In Klug, the calendering occurs in station 24 as illustrated by examiner modified Fig 1 of Klug below. Klug requires station 24 to provide heating and calendaring.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Two portions of Klug’s description demonstrate that drying (heating) occurs before calendering:
First, see claim 6, which describes drying as step a2 and calendering as step a3. A person in the art would interpret step 2 to occur before step 3.
Second, Klug explains that the purpose of drying is to remove tack from the sheet before calendering (“resin is thereafter preferably dried, reducing the tack… thereafter processed to change the void condition of the sheet… accomplished by the application of pressure to the sheet… for instance in a calender mill or platen press”). In particular, the underlined occurrence of “thereafter” means that the void reduction which can occur through calendering occurs after drying. That is, in Klug drying occurs before calendering.
The claim requires that there are not heating units between the calendering rollers and the processing rollers. This means that heating units cannot be located after calendering rollers and before the processing rollers.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 7182898 B2).
In reference to claim 1, Klug discloses a multi-roll method of preparing a processed web having a bipolar plate structure (abstract; “expanded graphite, e.g. webs” [C2L38]), the method comprising:
providing a multi-roll calender system comprising one or more calendering rollers and one or more processing rollers, wherein the system does not comprise any heating units disposed between the calendering rollers and embossing rollers; (Fig 1 and description thereof; processing roll 30/32 and calender roll in station 24)
outputting an unprocessed web from the calendering rollers; and (Fig 1)
inputting the unprocessed web to the processing rollers to prepare the processed web having a bipolar plate structure; (Fig 1 and see Figs 12-14)
wherein, the one or more processing rollers comprise one or more cutting rollers, one or more embossing rollers, and/or one or more combination rollers (Fig 1).
King describes the sheets as being calendered in station 24, but does not illustrate calender rolls in station 24. King, however, illustrates pre-calendering rollers, and explains that densification of graphite webs occurs using calender rollers or a press (C9L64). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the calendering in station 24 included calender rollers as claimed.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Klug does not disclose heating, thus it is obvious that the web would be substantially the same temperature.
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Klug further discloses cooling the unprocessed web after it is output from the calendering rollers and before it is input into the processing rollers (station 24 in Fig 1 is described as “a station 24 at which the mat is impregnated, dried and calendered”; the process of drying is disclosed as “graphite sheet is exposed to heat to vaporize and thereby remove some or all of the solvent” [C10L28-29]. Thus, it would be obvious that the sheet would cool between the calendar roll(s) and processing roll(s)).
In reference to claim 4-5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Klug discloses the web is graphite (abstract)
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Fig 8 of Klug and description thereof (“support roller 32 will have a complementary negative pattern 52 defined therein to receive the material displaced by the positive embossing pattern 50”).
In reference to claim 8 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Fig 1 of Klug. The processing roller 32 is next to station 24 which comprises calendar roller(s).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 7182898 B2) in view of Davis (US 20020102321 A1).
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Fig 8 of Klug and description thereof (“support roller 32 will have a complementary negative pattern 52 defined therein to receive the material displaced by the positive embossing pattern 50”).
Klug further describes that “Flexible graphite sheet can also be provided with channels, which are preferably smooth-sided, and which pass between the parallel” (C3L46-48). Klug appears to disclose the identical structure as disclosed by Applicant (the rollers of Klug are identical to the rollers illustrated by Applicant), however, Klug does not explicitly describe their rollers as cutting rollers.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, graphite processing, Davis discloses a similar process (calendaring) for preparing similar materials (graphite sheet) for similar applications (fuel cells) and explains that it may be useful to cut graphite sheet with rollers (P0020-0022) in order to form flow channels therein in order to enable the sheets to be useful in fuel cells and the like (Background section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the invention such that the embossing pattern was replaced with a cutting patterns in order to enable the sheets to be useful in fuel cells and the like (Background section).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744