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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 2-8 in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the flowcharts in Figures 3-4 are incomplete and do not state the steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allin et al. (US 2005/0112443 A1).
As to claim 4, Allin et al. teaches a method of producing a bipolar plate (abstract) comprising providing a plate comprising an electrically conductive plastics composite material (para 0015-0016), heating the plate to a first temperature (para 0026), heating a catalyst in powder form to a second temperature which is higher than the first temperature (para 0027-0028), and applying the catalyst to a structured side of the plate as broadly claimed.
As to claim 2, the composite material is as claimed in para 0015-0027.
As to claim 6, the powder is sprayed, or ‘blown’ in para 0027.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Modes et al. (US 4765874)
As to claim 4, Modes et al. teaches a method of producing a bipolar plate (abstract) comprising providing a plate comprising an electrically conductive plastics composite material (col 2 lines 39-60), heating the plate to a first temperature (Examples), heating a catalyst in powder form to a second temperature which is higher than the first temperature (Examples), and applying the catalyst to a structured side of the plate as broadly claimed.
As to claim 2, the composite material is as claimed in col 2 lines 39-60.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Modes et al. (EP 0169301, citations taken from attached translation document, hereafter Modes 2)
As to claim 4, Modes et al. teaches a method of producing a bipolar plate (abstract) comprising providing a plate comprising an electrically conductive plastics composite material (p3-4), heating the plate to a first temperature (Examples), heating a catalyst in powder form to a second temperature which is higher than the first temperature (Examples), and applying the catalyst to a structured side of the plate as broadly claimed.
As to claim 2, the composite material is as claimed in p3-4.
As to claim 7, the catalysts particles are pressed with another material/carrier particles acting as a carrier film, where the carrier is removed as broadly claimed in the abstract and Examples.
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allin et al.
As to Claim 3, Allin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for particle size. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed particle size, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 5, Allin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for particular temperatures. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed temperatures, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modes et al. or Modes 2
As to Claim 3, Modes et al. or Modes 2 discloses the claimed invention except for particle size. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed particle size, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 5, Modes et al. or Modes 2 discloses the claimed invention except for particular temperatures. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed temperatures, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allin et al., Modes et al. or Modes 2 in view of Bach et al. (US 2019/0393518 A1).
The references above do not teach injection molding. Bach et al. teaches a bipolar composite plate created by injection molding in para 0018. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the bipolar plate of Allin, Mode or Mode 2 by injection molding as Bach teaches the art recognized suitability of such.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights