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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oruc et al (CN 112789753 A, US 20220006105 A1 used for citations).
Claim 1: Oruc discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system (see e.g. abstract), the separator plate comprising:
a separator plate plane (see e.g. Fig 5; [0057]: “A plane in which a planar, non-deformed portion of the first plate 11 makes contact with a planar, non-deformed portion of the second plate 12 during the formation of a separator plate 10 is referred to hereafter as the plate plane of the separator plate 10”),
a first individual plate (see e.g. #11 on Fig 5) and a second individual plate (see e.g. #12 on Fig 5) which are connected to each other and form at an outer edge of the separator plate (see e.g. [0057]: “The separator plates 10 each comprise a first 11 and a second 12 metallic plate (see FIG. 11, for example), which are integrally joined to one another, for example”), and
a holding structure (see e.g. #13 on Fig 5) for holding a connector pin (see e.g. #14 on Fig 5; [0066]: “A pin-shaped connector (connector pin) can be inserted into such a receptacle 13”),
wherein the individual plates are spaced apart from each other in the region of the holding structure, so that the connector pin can be inserted into the holding structure along a direction of insertion (see e.g. #11, #12, #13 on Fig 5),
wherein the holding structure has a clamping region (see e.g. #11b on Fig 7) and a receiving region (see e.g. #11a on Fig 7), wherein in the clamping region the connector pin can be clamped between the individual plates (see e.g. [0067]: “includes an indentation 11 b that is directed toward the second plate 12 located therebeneath for fixing a connector pin in the receptacle 13 in a force-fit and/or form-locked manner”),
wherein the receiving region starts from the outer edge and is arranged upstream of the clamping region in the direction of insertion (see e.g. #11a and #11b on Fig 7), and
wherein at least in a non-compressed state of the separator plate, at least the first individual plate extends in a concave manner along the direction of insertion in the receiving region, so that an edge of the first individual plate is directed towards the separator plate plane in the receiving region (see e.g. #11 on Fig 4, Fig 5, and Fig 7).
Claim 2: Oruc discloses that at least in a non-compressed state of the separator plate, the second individual plate extends in a concave manner along the direction of insertion in the receiving region so that an edge of the second individual plate is directed towards the separator plate plane in the receiving region (see e.g. #12 on Fig 4, Fig 5, and Fig 7).
Claim 3: Oruc discloses that the individual plates are spaced further apart from each other, in a direction perpendicular to the separator plate plane, in the receiving region than in the clamping region (see e.g. #11 and #12 on Fig 4, Fig 5, and Fig 7).
Claim 6: Oruc discloses that in an orthogonal projection of the first individual plate onto the separator plate plane, the receiving region has at least in part a substantially funnel-shaped (see e.g. #11a on Fig 5 and Fig 7).
Claim 7: Oruc discloses that in an orthogonal projection of the first individual plate onto the separator plate plane, the clamping region has at least in part a substantially rectangular outline (see e.g. #11c on Fig 8).
Claim 8: Oruc discloses that the direction of insertion extends substantially perpendicular to a course of the outer edge in the region of the holding structure (see e.g. #13 on Fig 4 and Fig 5).
Claim 11: Oruc discloses that the holding structure has a top in the receiving region, wherein surface lines that extend perpendicular to the direction of insertion on the top extend in a rectilinear manner and/or parallel to the separator plate plane (see e.g. #13 on Fig 5).
Claim 12: Oruc discloses that the individual plates come into contact with each other on both sides of the holding structure and along the outer edge (see e.g. #11 and #12 on Fig 5).
Claim 13: Oruc discloses that the individual plates form at least one further holding structure for holding a connector pin (see e.g. #13 on Fig 5).
Claim 14: Oruc discloses an embossed structure which connects at least two holding structures to each other (see e.g. [0024]: “The first, second and/or third sealing structures can be embossed into the first or second plate, or be designed as sealing beads that are embossed into the first and second plates”).
Claim 15: Oruc discloses that the directions of insertion of at least two holding structures extend parallel to each other (see e.g. #13 on Fig 5).
Claim 18: Oruc discloses that the individual plates each have, on both surfaces, a guide structure for guiding reaction medium and/or coolant (see e.g. #15 on Fig 3A; [0060]), and the individual plates have substantially the same surface area (see e.g. #10 on Fig 1).
Claim 19: Oruc discloses that the first individual plate has, on both surfaces, a guide structure for guiding reaction medium (see e.g. #15 on Fig 3A; [0060]), and at least or only the region of a holding structure has at least a second individual plate (see e.g. #11 and #12 on Fig 3).
Claim 20: Oruc discloses an assembly for an electrochemical system (see e.g. [0057]), comprising a separator plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (see e.g. [0057]) which is arranged parallel to the separator plate plane of the separator plate (see e.g. #2a and #2b on Fig 1; [0077]), wherein the MEA comes into contact with the separator plate in the region of the holding structure, wherein the edge of the first individual plate and the edge of the second individual plate are spaced apart from the MEA in the region of the holding structure in a compressed state of the assembly (see e.g. [0077]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oruc.
Claim 4: Oruc does not explicitly teach that a ratio between a maximum width of the receiving region and a maximum width of the clamping region is greater than 1, wherein a width direction is defined perpendicular to the direction of insertion and parallel to the separator plate plane. However, Oruc teaches that the clamping region is a narrow region designed to apply a pressure force onto the pin (see e.g. [0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the relative dimensions of the receiving region and the clamping region so that the width of the receiving region is sufficient for receiving the pin and the clamping region width is sufficient for applying enough pressure to retain the pain.
Claim 5: Oruc discloses that the receiving region has a transition portion which adjoins the clamping region and in which the receiving region tapers, so that the receiving region merges into the clamping region (see e.g. slopped portion of #11b on Fig 9).
Claim 9: Oruc does not explicitly teach that a ratio between the maximum extent of the clamping region in the direction of insertion and the maximum extent of the clamping region in a direction perpendicular to the direction of insertion and parallel to the separator plate plane is greater than 1. However, Oruc teaches that the clamping region is a narrow region designed to apply a pressure force onto the pin (see e.g. [0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the relative dimensions of the receiving region and the clamping region so that the extent of the receiving region is sufficient for receiving the pin and the clamping region extent is sufficient for applying enough pressure to retain the pain.
Claim 10: Oruc does not explicitly teach that a ratio between the maximum extent of the receiving region in the direction of insertion and the maximum extent of the receiving region in a direction perpendicular to the direction of insertion and parallel to the separator plate plane is less than 1. However, Oruc teaches that the clamping region is a narrow region designed to apply a pressure force onto the pin (see e.g. [0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the relative dimensions of the receiving region and the clamping region so that the extent of the receiving region is sufficient for receiving the pin and the clamping region extent is sufficient for applying enough pressure to retain the pain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 16 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the receiving regions of at least two holding structures merge into each other at a connecting structure along the outer edge”. Oruc is the closest prior art. However, Oruc does not disclose the above limitation and there is no reason to modify Oruc to have that structure without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Claim 17: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 17 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the clamping regions of at least two holding structures are connected to each other at a distance from the outer edge by a supporting structure”. Oruc is the closest prior art. However, Oruc does not disclose the above limitation and there is no reason to modify Oruc to have that structure without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights