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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words and contains legal phraseology (“…said electrode plate…” and “…said frame region…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 15 December 2023 as originally filed, such that both now read “The electrode plate according to claim, wherein the embossed elements…” This appears to be a typographical error rather than an intentional removal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims are directed to the electrolysis system of claims 11 and 12, respectively, but claims 11 and 12 are both directed to an electrode plate. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 and/or 15 be found allowable, claims 19 (corresponding to 14) and/or 20 (corresponding to 15) will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant case, claim 14 is identical to claim 19, and claim 15 is identical to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The text of claim 17 recites the text of claim 12 verbatim except wherein claim 12 refers to claim 11, claim 17 refers to claim 12. As such, claim 17 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 12. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warszawski et al. (US 3,764,391 A), as evidenced by Chapman et al. (US 2007/0105000 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Warszawski teaches an electrode plate for a fuel cell (col. 1, lines 39-45) made of a metallic sheet material (col. 3, lines 1-6). The plate comprises a frame region which surrounds an active field and which, like the active field, has a rectangular basic shape; the frame region is designed in a base plane of the undeformed metal sheet (Fig. 7: square shape reading on rectangular). The active field has an embossed structure in the form of individual embossed elements that are raised and recessed from the base plane (col. 2, lines 54-58), including a plurality of linear embossed strips which are positioned in an arrangement of rows and columns in such a manner that raised linear embossed strips and recessed linear embossed strips are formed in an alternating manner in the direction of the rows (col. 2, lines 58-72: depressions and projections as straight, continuous ridges; parallel bands and arrays of ridges read on rows and columns, see also Figs. 1 and 7). Although Fig. 7 shows the ridges as non-continuous, it is within the teachings to utilize continuous ridges as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 4, lines 11-21). The linear embossed strips of a given row are inclined in an identical manner relative to the longitudinal sides of the active field and a flow direction parallel thereto, and the linear embossed strips of the next line have the equal and opposite inclination (col. 3, lines 9-14; Fig. 7 shows inclinations of rows 17, 18, 19, etc.). The framed region may include a plurality of openings (col. 4, lines 22-24: as fluid ducts, which are further detailed in col. 1, lines 57-66). Electrolyte flows along the longitudinal direction of the plate’s active field during operation (Abstract: electrolyte washes over the face of the electrode).
Warszawski does not directly teach that the projections and depressions alternate across the direction of the columns, only across rows. However, Warszawski suggests arranging the depressions and projections such that average fluid flow is direct and transverse across the face of the electrodes (col. 2, lines 54-58), and so that adjacent electrodes do not nest when stacked (col. 3, lines 23-34). It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to try an arrangement of alternating raised and recessed linear embossed strips across both rows and columns, as claimed. One would be motivated to make this modification expecting to improve average fluid flow and/or nesting of adjacent plates in a stack, as alternating the raised and recessed features across columns is an obvious variant of alternating these features across rows.
Warszawski also does not teach the use of the claimed electrode plate in an electrolysis system for hydrogen production, as the disclosure is directed to a fuel cell stack. However, the intended use of the apparatus as recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 16 does not distinguish it from the prior art when the underlying structure is taught. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, one skilled in the art will recognize that the electrolyzer stack as claimed is an obvious variant of a fuel cell, differing in that the operation of the stack is reversed and electricity is supplied rather than generated, as evidenced by Chapman ([0001]-[0003]: “an electrolyzer is effectively a fuel cell in reverse”).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 19, Warszawski Fig. 7 shows at least eight rows of embossed strips, reading on the claim of at least four sub-clusters (of two rows each) arranged in series on the electrode plate. These rows each contain more than three raised and recessed features (col. 4, lines 42-47: recessed features not shown in figure but present).
Regarding claim 3, Warszawski further teaches that the sub-clusters as defined by claim 2 are separated by a gap (Fig. 7, element 32) on “the order of a millimeter, several millimeters, or with no gap;” the projected length of the groups is “somewhat over 1 cm wide” (col. 4, lines 64-72). When claimed ranges, amounts, or proportions overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I). The ratio of the distance between subclusters and the projected length of the embossed strips of “at least 1/20 and at most 1/10” is therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Warszawski further teaches that the embossed structure’s first and last rows may contain raised linear embossed strips of the full length, or linear embossed strips of a shortened length in the inlet and outlet regions of the active field: “the shape of the outer projections may differ from those within the projection of an array, to direct and assist in distribution of electrolyte flow” (col. 4, lines 14-21, emphasis added). Additionally, Figs. 3 and 4 show shortened linear embossed strips (elements 6 and 7). It is therefore within the teachings for one skilled in the art to try the claimed combination of shortened and full-length linear embossed strips in the first and last rows of the frame region, in order to achieve optimal flow of electrolyte along the plate.
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 20, Warszawski further teaches that the height of the raised linear embossed strips differs from the height of the recessed linear embossed strips starting from the base plane by more than the sheet thickness of the electrode plate (col. 4-5, lines 69-1: sheet is tens of microns thick and extent of projections/depressions is tenths of a millimeter).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 12, and 17, Warszawski further teaches that at least some or all embossed elements bordering the frame region, i.e. flanking the arrangement of linear embossed strips, may be in the same direction, or in different shapes, such as embossed points (Warszawski col. 4, lines 11-21: various types of arrays on the electrode possible, including on outer edges, and “projections… may be in the form of individual peaks”).
Regarding claim 10, Warszawski further teaches that the electrode plate of claim 1 is formed by an embossed sheet (Warszawski col. 3, lines 1-6), necessitating the process of “producing by forming” as claimed and as would be understood by one skilled in the art. The combination of raised and recessed features results in protrusions of different distances from the base plane. Furthermore, the arrangement of the embossed elements (Fig. 1) reads on a “herringbone pattern of linear embossed strips” in the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by one skilled in the art.
Claims 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warszawski et al. (US 3,764,391 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gibb (US 2002/0064702 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 18, Warszawski teaches all inherited limitations from claims 1, 11, and 12 on which they depend; as 6/1, 13/11, 18/12/11; and further teaches that the inclination of the linear embossed strips is 45° with respect to the edges of the electrode, which is geometrically equivalent to 45° with respect to the direction of fluid flow (col. 2, lines 66-72). Warszawski does not teach the trapezoidal profile in the longitudinal and transverse direction of all or at least some of the linear embossed strips.
However, Gibb teaches that fluid flow plates for fuel cells ([0002]) may have their flow channels shaped in a number of different cross sections (Figs. 2A-2D). In particular, trapezoidal flow channels having a flat base and sloped side walls as shown in Figs. 2C and 2D are considered advantageous, because the sloped walls are easier to form by embossing methods ([0096]). Although the disclosure is directed to channels which span the length of the flow plate, one skilled in the art would also realize this benefit in the manufacture of shorter linear embossed strips which define the active region of a fluid flow plate.
It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to form the linear embossed strips of Warszawski as contoured in a trapezoidal manner in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the strips. One would be motivated to make this modification to improve the ease of manufacturing the plate by embossing methods as taught by Gibb.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warszawski et al. (US 3,764,391 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sommer et al. (US 2007/0207366 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Warszawski teaches all inherited limitations from claim 7 on which it depends. Warszawski does not teach wherein the embossed elements bordering the frame region, differing from the other embossed elements, describe a V-shape in the manner of an open-angle or closed-angle bracket symbol.
However, Sommer teaches bipolar plates containing flow fields for use in electrochemical systems (Abstract). The flow fields of the plates comprise discrete projections for the distribution of media which may be formed by embossing ([0015]-[0016]). One of the possible shapes of these projections is a V shape, also reading on a bracket symbol ([0034]: “projections in a plan view of the plane of the plate…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use V-shaped embossed elements bordering the frame region, because Sommer teaches that this is a possible shape of embossed feature for use in a flow plate and Warszawski teaches that the elements bordering the frame region may be different from the others, as previously cited and applied to claim 7. One would be motivated to make this modification with the reasonably expected outcome of further improving the flow characteristics of electrolyte (Warszawski col. 4, lines 19-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 3,814,631 A to Warszawski et al. teaches a framed electrode containing a fluid distribution area, with the area containing a plurality of spaced projections. US 4,988,583 A to Watkins et al. teaches trapezoidal cross-sections of fluid flow channels in a fluid flow field plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights