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, species A(ii) and B(i), claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-15, in the reply filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to establish the requisite serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because it can be established that the support structure geometry of claim 1 is known, and thus, there is a reason for a restriction a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 5, 8 (species), 16 (product), 17 (apparatus) and 18 (device) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 22, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
I. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “sup-port” should be amended to the word -- support -- in line 8. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
II. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
page 2, [0009], please amend the word “embossingsuch” to the words -- embossing such --.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2
line 2, please insert a -- : -- (colon) after the word “comprises”.
Claim 4
line 3, please amend the word “portion” to the word -- portions --.
Claim 11
line 1, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “flow”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis
for the claim terminology.
Claim 12
line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “flow”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-15 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.
• Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by
introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 1
line 8, “the respective support structure” lacks antecedent basis. See also claim 2, line 5;
and claim 4, line 2.
Claim 3
lines 3-4, “the diameter of the third circular arc-shaped portion” lacks antecedent
basis.
Claim 4
lines 1-2, “the outer contour of the respective support structure”1 lacks antecedent basis. See also claim 4, lines 3-4.
line 2, “the first joining portion” lacks antecedent basis.
line 4, “the second joining portion” lacks antecedent basis.
line 5, “the third circular arc-shaped portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6
line 2, “the first joining portion and/or second joining portion” lacks antecedent basis.
line 3, “the … third circular arc-shaped portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7
lines 4-5, “the circular arc center point of the third circular arc-shaped portion” lacks antecedent basis.
line 6, “the … third circular arc-shaped portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9
lines 2-3, “the original sheet metal thickness” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10
line 2, the phrase “in such a way that” is indefinite.
line 3, “support structure” is indefinite. Is this further limiting the support structures recited in claim 1, line 3, or is this the same as the respective support structure recited in claim 1, line 8?
Claim 12
line 2, the phrase “in such a way that” is indefinite.
Claim 13
line 2, the phrase “in such a way that” is indefinite.
Claim 14
line 2, the phrase “in such a way that” is indefinite.
Claim 15
lines 1-2, “the first support structures” lack antecedent basis.
line 3, “the second support structures” lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noppanun (Wavy Geometric Pattern Vector Image (Aug. 2016), p. 1).
Regarding claim 1, Noppanun teaches a flow area for guiding media2 along a first flat
side (=
PNG
media_image1.png
362
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) [Image],
the flow area having a plurality of integrally formed support structures (=
PNG
media_image2.png
102
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [Image] in order to form flow channels,3
wherein an outer contour of the support structures in each case comprises:
۰ a first circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image3.png
106
122
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) [Image] and
۰ a second circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image4.png
107
122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) [Image],
wherein
۰ a circular arc center point of the first circular arc-shaped portion and a circular arc center point of the second circular arc-shaped portion are arranged at a distance from each
other on a longitudinal axis of the respective support structure (=
PNG
media_image5.png
109
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) [Image], and
۰ a joining portion which joins together the first circular arc-shaped portion and the second circular arc-shaped portion, wherein a width of the joining portion is smaller than a diameter of the first and/or second circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image6.png
107
226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Noppanun do not explicitly teach the following:
a A separator plate for an electrochemical system.4
b. A first flat side of the separator plate.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Noppanun teaches all of the parts of the separator plate as presently claimed. Thus, the structure of Noppanun would have been capable of being a separator plate.
Furthermore, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed
does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art
apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 3, Noppanun teaches wherein the diameter of the first circular arc-shaped portion is substantially equal to the diameter of the second circular arc-shaped portion
and/or substantially equal to the diameter of the third circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image7.png
106
237
media_image7.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Regarding claim 4, Noppanun teaches wherein the outer contour of the respective support structure tapers symmetrically in the first joining portion between the first and the second circular arc-shaped portion, and/or in that the outer contour of the respective support structure tapers symmetrically in the second joining portion between the second and the third circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image8.png
158
226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Regarding claim 6, Noppanun teaches a minimum width of the first joining portion and/or second joining portion is less than the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion (= (=
PNG
media_image8.png
158
226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Noppanun does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum width is less than 80% of the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum width taught by Noppanun
with wherein the minimum width is less than 80% of the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering that Noppanun is silent as to
the specific minimum width, and hence could vary in a wide range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the minimum width through routine experimentation for best results.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “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 in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Regarding claim 7, Noppanun teaches a minimum distance between the circular arc center point of the first circular arc-shaped portion and the circular arc center point of the second circular arc-shaped portion and/or a minimum distance between the circular arc center point of the second circular arc-shaped portion and the circular arc center point of the third circular arc-shaped portion is greater than the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion (=
PNG
media_image9.png
114
227
media_image9.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Noppanun does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum distance is greater than 130%
of the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum distance taught by Noppanun with wherein the minimum distance is greater than 130% of the diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc-shaped portion. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering that Noppanun is silent as to the specific minimum distance, and hence could vary in a wide range, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the minimum distance through routine experimentation for best results.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “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 in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Regarding claim 10, Noppanun teaches wherein the support structures are arranged in such a way that, in the flow area, a radius of a maximum circular surface area formed between the support structures and in which no support structure is arranged (=
PNG
media_image10.png
131
127
media_image10.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Noppanun does not explicitly teach wherein the radius is arranged has at least 0.8 mm
and/or is at most 1.3 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius taught by Noppanun with wherein the radius is arranged has at least 0.8 mm and/or is at most 1.3 mm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because considering that Noppanun is silent as to the specific radius, and hence could vary in a wide range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the radius through routine experimentation for best results.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states that “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 in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Regarding claim 13, Noppanun teaches wherein the support structures in the flow area are arranged in such a way that multiple support structures are arranged at a distance from each other in a row substantially on a common longitudinal axis (=
PNG
media_image11.png
234
514
media_image11.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Regarding claim 14, Noppanun teaches wherein the support structures in the flow area
are arranged in such a way that multiple support structures are arranged at a distance from
each other in a row on substantially parallel longitudinal axes (=
PNG
media_image12.png
234
400
media_image12.png
Greyscale
) [Image].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the separator plate according to claim 1, wherein the outer contour of at least one of the support structures comprises a third circular arc-shaped portion, the
circular arc center point of which is arranged at a distance from the first circular arc center point and at a distance from the second circular arc center point on the longitudinal axis of the respective support structure, and a second joining portion which joins the second circular arc-shaped portion to the third circular arc-shaped portion, wherein a width of the second joining portion is smaller than a diameter of the first and/or second and/or third circular arc portion.
Claim 9 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the separator plate according to claim 1, wherein the support structures have at their most tapered point a wall thickness of at least 30% of the original sheet metal thickness.
Claim 11 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the separator plate according to claim 1, wherein flow
channels formed by the support structures have a depth of at least 0.2 mm and/or have a depth of at most 0.9 mm.
Claim 12 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the separator plate according to claim 1, wherein the support structures are arranged in such a way that flow channels formed by the support structures at the ground of the flow channels have a width of at least 0.5 mm and/or have a width of at most 2.4 mm.
Claim 15 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the separator plate according to claim 1, wherein the first
support structures arranged on a first longitudinal axis and forming a first row are arranged offset from the second support structures arranged on a second longitudinal axis and forming a
second row, said second longitudinal axis extending parallel to the first longitudinal axis.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claims 2, 9, 11-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citations
Voyager (Vector Pattern (June 22, 2016), p. 1) does not teach a separator plate. Voyager
teaches a vector pattern of:
PNG
media_image13.png
818
740
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(p. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 See claim 1, line 4.
2 The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115.
3 The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114.
4 A preamble is not necessarily accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Prosecution Insights