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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 October 2023 and 3 June 2026 were considered by the examiner.
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, 5, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bloehs (US20220149395A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Bloehs teaches a method for producing a bipolar plate (Claim 1) including uncoiling a first sheet metal foil from a first sheet metal foil coil, and uncoiling a second sheet metal foil from a second sheet metal coil foil (FIG. 2, [0057]). The rolls 128 and 130 are the first and second sheet metal foils, respectively, in a coiled form, and they are provided at an unwinding device, which uncoils the rolls [0057].
Following, the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil are formed ([0057, “embossed”). The first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil are allocated based on formed structures of the first metal sheet foil and the second metal sheet foil (FIG. 2, [0058]). The first and second metal sheet foils are allocated, corresponding the embossed structures performed previously, before being oriented to a pair of rollers (106). The two unipolar plate strands converge at an inlet angle with respect to the rolling gap [0058].
Bloehs also teaches laser welding the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal transversely (“laterally”, [0060]) to a feed direction (“transport direction”, [0060]) of the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil in a first joining station (108, laser device, and 106, roller in combination create a joining station). The first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil are mutually pressed together at the first joining station [0019]. Finally, removing the bipolar plates from the connected first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil [0063] occurs via a cutting device (126).
Regarding Claim 5, Bloehs teaches a plurality of laser scanners is used for the laser welding in the first joining station [0013] that would be used during the laser welding step, or step D).
Regarding Claim 10, Bloehs teaches the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil being embossed [0018-0019].
Regarding Claim 11, Bloehs teaches wherein during the forming step the forming takes place in a plurality of successive steps [0018-0019]. The reference is stating that the forming (“embossing”) happens by an embossing means (114, 116) and then could happen by the pressing action of the rollers (106) afterward. The stamped pieces are moved forward still in the metal sheet foil and removed at the end of the assembly process, which is consistent with the instant application’s specification describing the successive nature of the forming process [0038].
Regarding Claim 15, Bloehs teaches a device for carrying out a method as claimed in claim 1 [0006, 0032, 0045].
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 2-4, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloehs (US20220149395A1) in view of Bhatt et al. (US20050242471A1, hereafter Bhatt).
Regarding Claim 2, Bloehs teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 but is silent to the laser welding being carried out through openings of a first mask of the first joining station, wherein the first mask mutually compresses the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil.
However, Bhatt teaches a method for forming a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (Claim 1) where a mask may be positioned between the polymer composite (sheet metal foil, then eventual plate) and the laser [0041], and the mask has predetermined cutout patterns where the laser passes through [0041]. The reference teaches a shaping station being comprised of a laser machining apparatus, a hot stamping apparatus, rollers or a combination thereof (Abstract), which would effectively combine the laser (welding) process with a mutually compressing mechanism of the mask, since the mask is used during the lasering process and the lasering process can be combined with some compression mechanism (hot stamping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser welding step of Bloehs with the mask and combination of hot stamping outlined in Bhatt.
One would have been motivated to modify the laser welding step of Bloehs to include a mask because the openings (“predetermined cut out patterns”) of the mask allow a portion of the laser to pass through only that section of the mask while other portions of the laser are blocked from contacting the plate allowing only the portion of the laser beam corresponding with the opening to etch the predetermined pattern into the surface of the plate easily with minimal error [0041]. One would have been motivated to combine the laser welding of Bloehs modified by Bhatt with a mechanism where the mask mutually compresses the first metal sheet foil and second metal sheet foil because the hot stamp can contact the sheet foil (“extruded portion”) and stamp a desired pattern into one or more surfaces of the sheet foil [0044-0045]. As was stated earlier, the lasering process was said to be able to be combined with the hot stamping process/apparatus in the abstract of the reference, so the laser welding of Bloehs could reasonably be used with a mask and coupled with a compressing mechanism (“hot stamping”).
Regarding Claim 3, Bloehs and Bhatt teach all the limitations of Claim 2, and Bhatt further teaches in the first joining station, a second laser machining station can be positioned toward the second surface (opposite the first, FIG. 4, [0040]), which would mean that the lasering process is performed from opposite sides through a first and second mask. Bhatt does not specifically teach a second mask being used, but it would have been obvious to include a second mask if a first mask was used for the first lasering process and apparatus. It was held that the duplication of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser welding process of Bloehs with the second laser and mask of Bhatt. The second laser, positioned oppositely to the first laser, would be operating through an opening in the mask just as was the case in Claim 2, where the mask is also mutually compressing the two sheet metal foils, and the motivation to do so is the same as in Claim 2 (Abstract, Claim 1, [0041]).
One would have been motivated to combine and modify the inventions in this way because the plurality of laser machining apparatuses (400, laser machining station, 404, laser beam, 406, mirrors, 410, second surface, 408, desired portion) can be positioned such that the laser is able to be directed along only a desired portion of the surface of the sheet foil (408) [0040], which is well known in the art to provide dynamic stitch and spot welding, protect optical elements from the back-reflected laser and ensures edge control over the laser beam.
Regarding Claim 4, Bloehs and Bhatt teach all the limitations of claim 3, but they do not specifically teach the laser welding being performed through the openings of a second mask. Bhatt teaches the lasering process being perform through a mask [0041]. However, Bhatt does teach a second laser being opposite the first laser [0040], so it is reasonable to assume that Bhatt would use a mask for the second laser to obtain the same advantages of the first lasering process [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser welding process of Bloehs with a second mask. One would have been motivated to combine and modify the inventions in this way because the mask allows the only a portion of the laser to contact the sheet metal foil at a desired position to etch in a predetermined pattern into the plate [0041]. It was held that the duplication of parts (laser welding masks, in this case) was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 6, Bloehes teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not specifically teach the laser welding of the first sheet metal foil to the second sheet metal foil being performed by a second joining station.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser welding process of Bloehs to include a second joining station. One would have been motivated firstly because the duplication of parts was held to be unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), and secondly, Bhatt teaches a second laser machining station [0040], which would allow the laser beam to be directed along only a desired portion of the surface (408) of the sheet foil. It is also well known in the art that utilizing multiple joining stations is advantageous because it reduces the amount of idle time to ensure more efficient production of the apparatus and having multiple joining stations for laser welding allows for the plates to cool between segments when they are welded, and having multiple welding sessions allows for the plates to be controlled and locked in place so then other welding sessions can take place posterior for a more balanced procedure, which ultimately mitigates internal stress.
Regarding Claim 7, Bloehs and Bhatt teach all the limitations of Claim 6, but they do not teach wherein a second joining station, there is a third mask that is used to mutually compress the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil, wherein the laser welding is performed through the openings of the third mask.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser welding process of Bloehs in view of Bhatt to include a second joining station. It is well known in the art to utilize multiple joining stations in a sequential manner to perform laser welding. Having multiple joining stations for laser welding allows for the plates to cool between segments when they are welded, and having multiple welding sessions allows for the plates to be controlled and locked in place so then other welding sessions can take place posterior for a more balanced procedure, which ultimately mitigates internal stress. Having a plurality of joining stations also reduces the workload for each station, which increases cycle life and reduces, or even eliminates, time when any individual station is not welding (i.e. “dead time”). Further, it was held that the duplication of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). One could be motivated to include any number of joining stations in the laser welding process since the successive stations would be operating identically to the joining station described in Bloehs and further modified by Bhatt in Claims 2 and 3, which subsequently means the number of masks could be increased without a new or unexpected result coming about.
Regarding Claim 8, Bloehs and Bhatt teach all the limitations of claim 6 but do not specifically teach the first and second joining stations to be of an identical configuration.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the second joining station to be identical to the first joining station of Bloehs modified by Bhatt. One would have been motivated to have the configurations of the first and second joining stations be identical because they would both only allow a desired portion of the laser to interact with a desired portion of the sheet foil to etch at a predetermined area [0041]. It is well known in the art to have multiple stations with identical configurations because the processes of this kind produce many identical products (bipolar plates), so having identical machine elements help with scaling efficiency and reproducibility. It was also held that the duplication of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 12, Bloehs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein a scrap skeleton created in the bipolar plate removal step is crushed.
However, Bhatt teaches a grinder (114) that crushes or grinds unused extruded composite in composite particles [0023, 0051]. The reference teaches that the metal sheet foil can be cut or stamped to remove the shaped portion of the composite web (metal sheet foil) in order to be packaged, and the grinder (114) is used to recycle the unused parts of the composite, which would be a skeleton (i.e. the web/foil with the plates cut out).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify and combine the method of Bloehs with the grinder element of Bhatt. One would have been motivated to modify the method of Bloehs with this element because this grinder allows unused product to be recycled back into an extruder (102) to be used again to create more plates [0023, 0051], which would consequently reduce waste and manufacturing cost.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloehs (US20220149395A1) in view of Beyer et al. (DE102018219056A1, cited on IDS, Machine Translation from EPO, hereafter Beyer).
Regarding Claim 13, Bloehs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but is silent to an automated quality control of step D) (laser welding step) being carried out.
However, Beyer teaches a method relating to the manufacturing of bipolar plates where there may be intermediate steps for quality assurance [0005]. This step would occur during or closely after the laser welding step because this intermediate step is said to happen near or following the stacking of the BIP (bipolar plate) and MEA (membrane electrode assembly), which would mean that the unipolar plates would already have had to be welded together, as is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Bloehs with a quality assurance step. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because this quality assurance step(s) would allow the ability to test the tightness of individual cells and ultimately the entirety of the cell stack to ensure proper structure and function [0005].
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloehs (US20220149395A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Bloehs teaches wherein the allocating of the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil in step C) (allocating step) is carried out by a pair of rollers (106) that are provided with rolling structures (112, [0058]) wherein the first roller and the second roller connect the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil in a form-fitting manner in portions ([0058-0059], 112 are rolling structures, straight edges on rollers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pair of rollers so their cross-sections were polygonal.
It would have been obvious to try to modify the rollers of Bloehs to be polygonal because the rollers would be able to perform the same function as the configuration already disclosed in the reference, for the roller contains straight-edged structures on its exterior (FIG. 2, 106, 112). To achieve this effect, the roller could only reasonably adopt the reference’s original configuration or a roller that has a polygonal cross-section instead of a cross-section that includes arced portions as the reference presently teaches. It is also well known in the art rollers with a polygonal cross-section can be used to perform incremental roll forming, which is a process that is widely used to manufacture elongated or patterned sheet-metals continuously while also reducing mechanical and material stress, and this process could also be used to create bipolar sheets.
Regarding Claim 14, Bloehs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but is silent to wherein the first sheet metal foil and the second sheet metal foil are guided so as to extend vertically at least in step D) (laser welding step).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Bloehs so that the orientation of the first and second metal sheet foils were vertical at least during the laser welding step. It is well known in the art that orienting the sheet vertically helps to reduce sagging of the foil sheets, for the vertical orientation keeps tension through the metal so it is taut when being welded. This reduces folding, wrinkling and creasing, which in turn mitigates damage done to the surface and decreases the chance of tearing. Further, it was held that the rearrangement (orientation) of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights