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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections made in the previous Office Action mailed on 9/22/2025 and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 1/21/2026.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krassowski et al. (US 2008/0131756) [hereinafter Krassowski].
Regarding claim 22, Krassowski discloses a micro-textured flexible graphite material comprising an array of features (40 or 42) formed on at least a portion of at least one major surface thereof (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0011-0013]), wherein at least one dimension (depth) of the array of features is less than 100 µm (0.1 mm), since the depth is about 0.1 mm (paragraph [0042]), wherein the micro-textured flexible graphite material comprises a flow field plate comprising flow channels (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0024-0025]), and wherein the array of features is within the flow channels (Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. (US 2008/0131756) [hereinafter Krassowski].
Regarding claim 21, Krassowski discloses a micro-textured flexible graphite material comprising an array of features (40 or 42) formed on at least a portion of at least one major surface thereof (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0011-0013]), wherein the micro-textured flexible graphite material is formed into a component of a fuel cell and comprises a flow field plate comprising flow channels (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0024-0025]), and wherein the array of features is within the flow channels (Figs. 1-2), and wherein at least one dimension (depth) of the array of features is less than 100 µm (0.1 mm), since the depth is about 0.1 mm (paragraph [0042]).
Krassowski fails to specifically teach the spacing between the array of features being less than 100 µm.
Krassowski teaches the dimensions and separation of the features (grooves and ridges) can depend on many factors, and are primarily based on the engineering of the fuel cell plate is destined to be used in (paragraph [0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the array of features in Krassowski to be less than 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
It is to be pointed out that claim 21 defines the product by how the product was made. The limitations “said method comprising embossing" and “using a roller embosser patterned with the array of features or die patterned with the array of features” are deemed process limitations. Thus, claim 21 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming an array of patterned features on a surface of a flexible graphite material. As shown above, Krassowski suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 23, Krassowski teaches a lateral dimension (depth) of the array of features being less than 100 µm (0.1 mm), since the depth is about 0.1 mm (paragraph [0042]). However, Krassowski fails to specifically teach the spacing between the array of features being less than 100 µm. Krassowski teaches the dimensions and separation of the features (grooves and ridges) can depend on many factors, and are primarily based on the engineering of the fuel cell plate is destined to be used in (paragraph [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the array of features in Krassowski to be less than 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 24, Krassowski teaches at least one dimension (depth) of the array of features being in a range between and inclusive of about 10 µm to about 100 µm, since the depth is about 0.1 mm (paragraph [0042]). However, Krassowski fails to specifically teach the spacing between the array of features being between and inclusive of about 10 µm to about 100 µm. Krassowski teaches the dimensions and separation of the features (grooves and ridges) can depend on many factors, and are primarily based on the engineering of the fuel cell plate is destined to be used in (paragraph [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the array of features in Krassowski to be between and inclusive of about 10 µm to about 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 25, Krassowski fails to specifically teach the depth of the array of features being in the range between and inclusive of about 15 µm to about 50 µm, and the spacing between the array of features being in the range between and inclusive of about 15 µm to about 25 µm. Krassowski teaches the dimensions and separation of the features (grooves and ridges) can depend on many factors, and are primarily based on the engineering of the fuel cell plate is destined to be used in (paragraph [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the array of features in Krassowski to be between and inclusive of about 15 µm to about 25 µm and to modify the depth of the array of features in Krassowski to be in the range between and inclusive of about 15 µm to about 50 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to claims 21-25 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights