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 (claims 16-23) in the reply filed on July 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Trabold does not teach the limitation “the first area annularly surrounds the channel structure”. Applicant appears to allege that the flow channels of Trabold “are open at one side, i.e. they have a shape of a half-pipe or half-tube” and that “accordingly, the hydrophobic portion 20 extends only along a lower portion of each channel”.
This argument is not persuasive. Trabold teaches the process of making the bipolar plate including a step of: “the masks could be removed and the fuel cell plate 10 dipped in a hydrophobic material up to the desired interface 24 adjacent the outlet apertures 14”. The ordinary artisan would recognize that the dipping process results in the hydrophobic annularly surrounding the channel entrance (outlet aperture).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 1, 2026.
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 16-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trabold (US 2009/0286133 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Trabold teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell or a flow battery comprising:
a substrate (10, Fig. 2)
a channel running inside the substrate and running from a channel entrance at a surface of the substrate into an interior of the substrate (one of the elements 16, Fig. 2)
a surface of the substrate being more hydrophobic in a first area inside the channel adjacent to the channel entrance (20, Fig. 2) than in a second area (18, Fig. 2)
the first area annularly surrounding the channel structure ([0033], “the masks could be removed and the fuel cell plate 10 dipped in a hydrophobic material up to the desired interface 24 adjacent the outlet apertures 14”). The ordinary artisan would recognize that the dipping process results in the hydrophobic annularly surrounding the channel entrance (outlet aperture).
Regarding claim 17, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold further teaches the first area comprising parts of the surface of the substrate inside the channel that are in gas communication with the channel entrance (Fig. 2, the channel entrances (apertures 12, 14) distribute gases and the channels are in fluid communication with the apertures [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold further teaches the substrate of the bipolar plate being composed of two plate-staped sub-substrates (pair of unipolar plates, Trabold [28]) and the two sub-substrates being bonded together across a bonding surface (the surface they are in contact is the bonding surface, it is noted that the claim does not limit how the bonding is achieved, the bonding dimensions, or bonding location). Trabold further teaches an overflow channel running adjacent to the bonding surface (one of the other channels 16, Trabold Fig. 2), the first area running at least along parts of the overflow channel (20, Trabold Fig 2), and the second area running at least along parts of the bonding surface (18, Trabold Fig. 2). It is noted that “running along” does not require physical contact.
Regarding claim 23, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold further teaches the bipolar plate being formed with a graphite-containing material (graphite, Trabold [0029]).
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 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabold, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Vyas (US 2006/0275642 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold further teaches the channel being partially filled with a hydrophilic material (Trabold [31]), the first area forming a portion of the surface inside the channel of the substrate where the hydrophilic material is not in contact with the substrate (20, Trabold Fig. 2), and the second area of the substrate forming a portion of the surface inside the channel of the substrate where the adhesive is in contact with the substrate (18, Trabold Fig. 2).
Trabold further teaches that the configuration of the hydrophobic and hydrophilic portions facilitate water transport away from the flow channels (Trabold [17]). Trabold does not teach the hydrophilic material being a flowably processable adhesive.
Vyas teaches that “fuel cell operation involves water transport from the cathode to prevent water from building up and blocking flow channels” (Vyas [2]). Vyas further teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell, as taught in Trabold, comprising a hydrophilic polymer coating that aids in water transport (Vyas [14]). Vyas teaches that it is known and suitable to have the surface of a bipolar plate be polymeric and then add a coating comprising a flowably processable adhesive to channels (hydrophilic polymer coating that adheres to the polymeric surface, Vyas claim 1, Fig. 2).
Since Trabold and Vyas both teach bipolar plates for fuel cells that have channels comprising a hydrophilic coating to aid in water transport and Vyas teaches that a flowably processable adhesive is a suitable hydrophilic coating, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bipolar plate of Trabold to have a polymeric surface, as taught by Vyas, and substitute the hydrophilic coating of Trabold for the hydrophilic polymer coating of Vyas in order to achieve the predictable solution of a bipolar plate comprising a channel coating that aids in water transport during fuel cell operation.
Regarding claim 20, Trabold in view of Vyas teaches all features of claims 16 and 19, as described above. Modified Trabold further teaches the first area running inside the channel along an entire surface of the substrate where the adhesive is not in contact with the substrate (18, Trabold Fig. 2).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabold, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Schade (Schade, M. et al. Laser Patterning of Silanized Carbon/Polymer Bipolar Plates with Tailored Wettability for Fuel Cell Applications. Laser Surface Modification and Adhesion. Chapter 7. October 3, 2014).
Regarding claim 21, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold teaches that the first area (hydrophobic portion) can be “formed by other methods such as surface treatment” (Trabold [32]). Trabold teaches that the first area “militates against the flow of water from the outlet manifold into the flow channels” (Trabold [40]). Trabold does not expressly teach the first area being locally treated by a laser to provide a local increase in hydrophobicity.
Schade teaches that the wettability of a material is “determined by its chemical surface termination and its surface roughness” (Schade section 7.1.2). Schade further teaches that the wettability of channels in a bipolar plate for a fuel cell can be tuned by fabricating tailored wettability patterns, which can be achieved by combining silanization and laser processing (Schade section 7.1).
Since Trabold teaches that the first area is a hydrophobic region that prevents water flow into the flow channels and Schade teaches that the wettability of bipolar plate channels can be tuned by fabricating patterns in bipolar plate channels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the wettability pattern of the first area of Trabold by subjecting the bipolar plate to silanization and laser processing, as taught by Schade, in order to achieve a hydrophobicity suitable for militating against the flow of water from the outlet into the flow channels during fuel cell operation.
It is noted that claim 21 is a product-by-process claim (“locally treated by means of a laser”). It is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 22, Trabold teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Trabold teaches that the hydrophobic portion can be “formed by other methods such as surface treatment” (Trabold [32]). Trabold teaches that the first area “militates against the flow of water from the outlet manifold into the flow channels” (Trabold [40]). Trabold does not expressly teach the first area having a surface texture creating a lotus effect.
Schade teaches that the lotus effect is characterized by high hydrophobicity evidenced by higher water contact angle values (Schade Table 7.1, pg. 267). Schade teaches that the wettability of a material is “determined by its chemical surface termination and its surface roughness” (Schade section 7.1.2). Schade further teaches that the wettability of channels in a bipolar plate for a fuel cell can be tuned by fabricating tailored wettability patterns, which can be achieved by combining silanization and laser processing (Schade section 7.1).
Since Trabold teaches that the first area is a hydrophobic region that prevents water flow into the flow channels and Schade teaches that the lotus effect is characterized by high hydrophobicity (high contact angle) and that the wettability of bipolar plate channels can be tuned by fabricating patterns in bipolar plate channels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the wettability pattern of the first area of Trabold by subjecting the bipolar plate to silanization and laser processing, as taught by Schade, in order to achieve a high hydrophobicity, including a hydrophobicity degree that results in the lotus effect, suitable for militating against the flow of water from the outlet into the flow channels during fuel cell operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farrington (US 2007/0117001 A1): appears to disclose flow field plates for fuel cells comprising a substrate, channels, and a coating resin (abstract, Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights