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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 12-13
Claim 12 recites “comprising at least one of the electrodes according to claim 11 and at least one electrolyte.” However, claim 11 recites a single electrode. There is no prior recitation of more the one electrode. Accordingly, the claim lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 13 is rejected at least for its dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites “[a] fuel cell comprising at least one of the components according to claim 1 which comprises a flow field plate, and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane.” However, claim 1 recites a single component and does not previously introduce multiple components. Accordingly, the claim lacks antecedent basis. Further, the claim does clearly set forth if the component or the fuel cell comprises the recited flow field plate and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 recites “[a]n electrolyzer, comprising at least one of the components according to claim 1 which comprises a flow field plate or a fluid diffusion layer, and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane.” However, claim 1 recites a single component and does not previously introduce multiple components. Accordingly, the claim lacks antecedent basis. Further, the claim does clearly set forth if the component or the electrolyzer comprises the recited flow field plate or fluid diffusion layer, and the at least one polymer electrolyte membrane. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 recites “at least one second layer” without previously introducing or identifying a corresponding “first layer.” It is unclear whether the claimed layer system includes only the recited layer, whether an unrecited first layer is required, or what additional layers, if any, are present. Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claims 17-20
Claims 17-20 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 16.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2010-272429 A, Kobayashi et al.* (hereinafter “Kobayashi”).
*Cited in IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 16
Kobayashi teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a separator for a fuel cell) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and para. 0023], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (2) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and para. 0025];
a layer system (corresponding to diffusion layer 3a and first plating layer 3) which is at least partially formed onto the metal substrate (2) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and paras. 0026-0027 and 0032], the layer system comprising a first layer (corresponding to diffusion layer 3a) disposed on the metal substrate (2) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and para. 0032], and
at least one second layer (corresponding to first plating layer 3) disposed on the metal substrate (2) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and paras. 0026-0027],
the first layer (3a) being formed from copper or nickel (in the diffusion layer 3a, copper and tin coexist) [paras. 0032-0033] and the at least one second layer (3) being formed from an alloy comprising at least two of the elements tin, copper, nickel, silver, zinc, bismuth, antimony, cobalt, manganese, or tungsten (the first plating layer is made of tin or a tin alloy such as, for example, Sn-Ag, Sn-Bi, Sn-Cu, and Sn-Pb) [paras. 0026-0027], with non-metallic particles (corresponding to conductive filler 5) comprising electrically conductive particles (suitable fillers include graphite, carbon fibers, metal carbides, and metal borides) embedded in the alloy [Fig. 1(b), paras. 0034-0036].
PNG
media_image1.png
437
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1(a)-1(b)
The limitation “electroplated” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
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 in 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 product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Examiner notes that Kobayashi discloses a wet plating method such as electrolytic plating [paras. 0019 and 0047].
Regarding claims 3 and 18
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the alloy is formed from a copper-tin alloy or a tin-silver alloy or a tin-zinc alloy or a tin-bismuth alloy or a tin-antimony alloy or a tin-cobalt alloy or a nickel-tungsten alloy or a tin-manganese alloy (tin or a tin alloy such as, for example, Sn-Ag, Sn-Bi, Sn-Cu, and Sn-Pb) [para. 0026].
Regarding claims 4 and 19
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the non-metallic particles comprise a proportion of the electrically conductive particles which are formed from at least one material from the group comprising carbon, graphite, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, soot, graphene, graphene oxide, metal nitride, or metal carbide (suitable fillers include graphite, carbon fibers, metal carbides, and metal borides) [para. 0035].
Regarding claim 7
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the metal substrate (2) is formed from a material from the group comprising copper, a copper alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, or low-alloy carbon steel (copper or copper alloy) [para. 0024].
Regarding claim 9
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the at least one second layer (3) has a layer thickness of up to 30 µm (0.05 μm or more and 50 μm or less) [paras. 0026 and 0031].
Regarding claims 10 and 20
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above, wherein a surface of the at least one second layer (3) facing away from the metal substrate is anodized (the surface of the first plating layer (3) is coated with a tin oxide layer that improves corrosion resistance) [para. 0029].
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 in 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 product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Regarding claim 14
Kobayashi teaches a fuel cell [paras. 0001-0002] comprising the component as set forth in claim 1 above [see Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0025-0036], the fuel cell further comprising: a flow field plate (corresponding to anode and cathode electrodes) and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane (12) [Fig. 4 and para. 0002].
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.
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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of US 2018/0175401 A1, Yano et al.* (hereinafter “Yano”).
*Cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 5
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above.
Kobayashi teaches the non-metallic particles selected from graphite, carbon fibers, metal carbides, and metal borides [para. 0035].
Kobayashi does not teach the non-metallic particles further comprising a proportion of particles formed from at least one material from the group comprising metal sulfide, diamond, metal oxide, mica, or PTFE.
Yano, similar to Kobayashi, teaches a component comprising a layer (surface coating layer) comprising non-metallic particles comprising electrically conductive particles embedded in the alloy (carbon material), the carbon materials selected from graphite, diamond, amorphous carbon, diamond-like carbon, carbon black, fullerene, and carbon nanotube) [paras. 0068, 0070 and 0073].
Kobayashi and Yano are analogous inventions in the field of components for electrochemical cells. Because Yano teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable non-metallic conductive particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Yano teaches teaches that graphite, carbon nanotubes and diamond leads to the anticipated success, said particles are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious two combine the non-metallic conductive particles which are taught by Yano and Kobayashi to be useful for the same purpose (e.g., improve conductivity) with reasonable expectation of success. The court has held that “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) [see MPEP §2144.06]
Regarding claim 8
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above.
Kobayashi is silent to the first layer (3a) having a layer thickness of up to 5 µm.
Yano, similar to Kobayashi, teaches a component comprising a first layer (corresponding to strike layer) being formed of copper or nickel (the strike layer is preferably a metal layer of Ni, Cu, Ag, Au, or the like or an alloy layer containing at least one selected from these elements) [paras. 0053 and 0100] and a one second layer (surface coating layer) being formed from an alloy comprising at least two of the elements tin, copper, nickel, silver, zinc, bismuth, antimony, cobalt, manganese, or tungsten, with non-metallic particles comprising electrically conductive particles embedded in the alloy (the surface coating layer may comprise an alloy layer, a carbon material layer, or a mixed layer thereof, wherein the alloy layer comprises, for example, alloys of Ni-Sn, Cu-Sn, Sn-Ag, Sn-Co, Ni-W, etc., and the carbon material layer includes carbon materials such as graphite, diamond, amorphous carbon, diamond-like carbon, carbon black, fullerene, and carbon nanotube) [paras. 0068, 0070 and 0073].
Yano teaches the first layer (strike layer) having a thickness of 1.00 μm or less
Yano further recognizes the thickness of the first layer (strike layer) as a result effective variable. Yano discloses that when the coating ration (and therefore the thickness) of the first layer (strike layer) on the substrate is optimized to achieved the desired corrosion resistance [paras. 0043-0046]. Yano discloses that an uneven thickness (coating ratio) results in the strike layer being distributed in the form of islands thereby forming discontinuous portions that prevent degradation of the corrosion resistance more effectively [para. 0046]. Furthermore, optimization of the thickness of said layer (strike layer) leads to a rough interface between the metal substrate and the second layer (surface coating layer) thereby ensuring higher adhesive properties [para. 0046].
Kobayashi and Yano are analogous inventions in the field of components for electrochemical cells. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness of the first layer (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired corrosion resistant and adhesive properties between the substrate and the second layer [paras. 0043-0046]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 18-20 above.
Regarding claim 6
Kobayashi teaches the component as set forth above.
Kobayashi teaches that the metal substrate (2) comprises copper or a copper alloy [para. 0024].
Kobayashi further teaches that stainless steel and titanium alloys are metal materials known in the art to be used for such substrates [para. 0004-0003].
Therefore, because Kobayashi teaches a finite number of identified, predictable metal materials for use as said metal substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Kobayashi teaches that stainless steel and titanium leads to the anticipated success, said metallic materials are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of GB 2551191 A, Kucernak et al. (hereinafter “Kucernak”) with US 2019/0148741 A1 used as an English language equivalent.
Regarding claims 11-12
Kobayashi teaches an electrode comprising the component according to claim 1 above (the separator/component is adapted as an electrode) [paras. 0001 and 0023-0036].
Kobayashi teaches the electrode adapted for a fuel cell [Fig. 4 and para. 0001], wherein the layer system covers the metal substrate at least in a contact region with an electrolyte (thereby avoiding corrosion) [Fig. 4, paras. 0001-0002].
Kobayashi does not teach the electrode adapted for a redox flow cell.
Kucernak teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a corrosion protection coating for a fuel cell, electrolyser or redox-flow battery) [para. 0007], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (substrate, 100, comprising a metallic substrate) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0019, 0027 and 0049];
a layer system (corresponding to layers 101 and 102) which is at least partially electroplated onto the metal substrate (100) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), para. 0049], the layer system (101 and 102) comprising a first layer (corresponding to layer comprising tin 101) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074], and at least one second layer (corresponding to electrically conductive coating 102) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074].
Kucernak discloses that such components (corrosion-resistant electrically conductive components) are useful not only in fuel cells but also in redox flow cells (batteries) [paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Kobayashi and Kucernak are analogous inventions in the field of corrosion resistant coated metallic components for use in electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the component of Kobayashi in a redox-flow cell because Kucernak expressly teaches that such components are suitable for redox flow cells.
Regarding claim 15
Kobayashi teaches an electrochemical device comprising the component as set forth above, which comprises a flow field plate or a fluid diffusion layer (see anode and cathode portions), and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane (12) [Fig. 4 and para. 0002].
Kobayashi teaches the electrochemical device comprising a fuel cell [Fig. 4, paras. 0001-0002].
Kobayashi does not teach the electrode adapted for an electrolyzer.
Kucernak teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a corrosion protection coating for a fuel cell, electrolyser or redox-flow battery) [para. 0007], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (substrate, 100, comprising a metallic substrate) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0019, 0027 and 0049];
a layer system (corresponding to layers 101 and 102) which is at least partially electroplated onto the metal substrate (100) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), para. 0049], the layer system (101 and 102) comprising a first layer (corresponding to layer comprising tin 101) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074], and at least one second layer (corresponding to electrically conductive coating 102) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074].
Kucernak discloses that such components (corrosion-resistant electrically conductive components) are useful not only in fuel cells but also in electrolyzers [paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Kobayashi and Kucernak are analogous inventions in the field of corrosion resistant coated metallic components for use in electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the component of Kobayashi in an electrolyzer because Kucernak expressly teaches that such components are suitable for use in electrolyzers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kucernak, as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of US 2018/0366736 A1, Ichikawa et al.
Regarding claim 13
Modified Kobayashi teaches the redox flow cell as set for above, wherein the at least one of the electrodes comprises at least two of the electrodes (bipolar plates 1) [Kobayashi, para. 0002; Kucernak, paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Modified Kobayashi is silent to a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber, wherein each of the first and second reaction chambers is in contact with one of the electrodes and the first and second reaction chambers are separated from each other by an ion exchange membrane.
Ichikawa shows that a redox-flow cell structure includes a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber (corresponding to positive and negative electrode chambers), wherein each of the first and second reaction chambers is in contact with one of the electrodes and the first and second reaction chambers are separated from each other by an ion exchange membrane [para. 0085].
Modified Kobayashi and Ichikawa are analogous inventions in the field of redox-flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the redox-flow cell of modified Kobayashi to comprise a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber separated by an ion exchange membrane, as disclosed in Ichikawa, in order to provide the standard electrochemical architecture for operation of the redox-flow cell.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 1 and 16
Yano teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a separator of a fuel cell) [para. 0059], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (the substrate comprises a metal sheet) [para. 0064];
a layer system (corresponding to a strike layer and a surface coating layer formed on the surface of the substrate) and which is at least partially electroplated onto the metal substrate (the strike layer and the surface coating layer may be formed by electroplating) [paras. 0068, 0079, 0084 and 0106],
the layer system comprising a first layer (corresponding to the strike layer) disposed on the metal substrate [para. 0068], and at least one second layer (corresponding to the surface coating layer) disposed on the metal substrate [para. 0084],
the first layer (strike layer) being formed from copper or nickel (the strike layer is preferably a metal layer of Ni, Cu, Ag, Au, or the like or an alloy layer containing at least one selected from these elements) [paras. 0053 and 0100] and the at least one second layer (surface coating layer) being formed from an alloy comprising at least two of the elements tin, copper, nickel, silver, zinc, bismuth, antimony, cobalt, manganese, or tungsten, with non-metallic particles comprising electrically conductive particles embedded in the alloy (the surface coating layer may comprise an alloy layer, a carbon material layer, or a mixed layer thereof, wherein the alloy layer comprises, for example, alloys of Ni-Sn, Cu-Sn, Sn-Ag, Sn-Co, Ni-W, etc., and the carbon material layer includes carbon materials such as graphite, diamond, amorphous carbon, diamond-like carbon, carbon black, fullerene, and carbon nanotube) [paras. 0068, 0070 and 0073].
As further clarification regarding the non-metallic particles comprising electrically conductive particles being embedded in the alloy, Kobayashi is cited below.
Kobayashi teaches a component (corresponding to a separator for a fuel cell) comprising a metal substrate (substrate 2 comprising pure copper or a copper alloy), a first layer (corresponding to diffusion layer 3a) and a second layer (corresponding to first plating layer 3) comprising an alloy (first plating layer 3 is made of a tin alloy) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0024, 0026-0027 and 0032], wherein non-metallic particles (corresponding to conductive filler 5) comprising electrically conductive particles (suitable fillers include graphite, carbon fibers, metal carbides, and metal borides) are embedded in the alloy of the second layer (3) for improving conductivity [paras. 0034-0035].
Yano and Kobayashi are analogous inventions in the field of components for electrochemical cells, both directed to separators for fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second layer of Yano to comprise non-metallic particles comprising electrically conductive particles embedded in the alloy, as disclosed in Kobayashi, for the purpose of improving the conductivity of the component.
Although disclosed in the art, the limitation “electroplated” is considered a product-by-process limitation. 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 in 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 product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claims 2 and 17
Modified Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the alloy is formed from a tin-nickel alloy [Yano, para. 0070], wherein the nickel content is in a range of 20 to 30 wt% (the tin-nickel alloy comprises Ni3Sn4, which comprises a nickel content of 27.1 wt. %) [para. 0070].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Molecular weight = (3 x 58.694) + (4 x 118.710) = 413.5002
Nickel is present in an amount of: 3 * 58.6934 = 176.0802
Ni wt. % = (176.0802/650.9202) x 100 = 27.1%
Regarding claims 3 and 18
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the alloy is formed from a copper-tin alloy or a tin-silver alloy or a tin-zinc alloy or a tin-bismuth alloy or a tin-antimony alloy or a tin-cobalt alloy or a nickel-tungsten alloy or a tin-manganese alloy (alloys of Ni-Sn, Cu-Sn, Sn-Ag, Sn-Co, Ni-W) [para. 0070].
Regarding claims 4 and 19
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the non-metallic particles comprise a proportion of the electrically conductive particles which are formed from at least one material from the group comprising carbon, graphite, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, soot, graphene, graphene oxide, metal nitride, or metal carbide (carbon materials such as graphite, diamond, amorphous carbon, diamond-like carbon, carbon black, fullerene, and carbon nanotube) [para. 0073].
Regarding claim 5
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the non-metallic particles further comprise a proportion of particles formed from at least one material from the group comprising metal sulfide, diamond, metal oxide, mica, or PTFE (the mixed layer may comprise, for example, carbon materials such as diamond) [para. 0073]. Examiner notes that the mixed layer may also include metal oxides [paras. 0068 and 0071].
Regarding claim 6
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the metal substrate is formed from a material from the group comprising stainless steel, titanium, a titanium alloy, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or an alloy predominantly containing tin (stainless steel sheet (ferritic stainless-steel sheet, austenitic stainless-steel sheet, dual-phase stainless steel sheet), a titanium sheet, a titanium alloy sheet, and the like) [para. 0064].
Regarding claim 7
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the metal substrate is formed from a material from the group comprising a stainless-steel sheet, a titanium sheet, a titanium alloy sheet, and the like [para. 0064].
Yano does not disclose the metal substrate formed from a material from the group comprising copper, a copper alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, or low-alloy carbon steel.
Kobayashi teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a separator for a fuel cell) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and para. 0023], wherein a metal substrate formed from copper or a copper alloy enables miniaturization (copper and copper alloys are stronger than aluminum alloys and therefore allow for thinner separator materials), weight reduction, and cost reduction (compared to more expensive materials such as stainless steel and titanium alloys) [paras. 0003-0004 and 0024].
Yano and Kobayashi are analogous inventions in the field of components for electrochemical cells, both directed to separators for fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the metal substrate of Yano to comprise copper or a copper alloy, as disclosed in Kobayashi, for the purpose of miniaturization, weight reduction, and cost reduction.
Furthermore, because Kobayashi teaches a finite number of identified, predictable metal materials for use as said metal substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Kobayashi teaches that copper and copper alloys lead to the anticipated success, said metallic materials are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 8
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the first layer (Strike layer) has a layer thickness of up to 5 µm (1 μm or less) [para. 0097].
Furthermore, Yano recognizes the thickness of the first layer (strike layer) as a result effective variable. Yano discloses that when the coating ration (and therefore the thickness) of the first layer (strike layer) on the substrate is optimized to achieved the desired corrosion resistance [paras. 0043-0046]. Yano discloses that an uneven thickness (coating ratio) results in the strike layer being distributed in the form of islands thereby forming discontinuous portions that prevent degradation of the corrosion resistance more effectively [para. 0046]. Furthermore, optimization of the thickness of said layer (strike layer) leads to a rough interface between the metal substrate and the second layer (surface coating layer) thereby ensuring higher adhesive properties [para. 0046].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness of the first layer (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired corrosion resistant and adhesive properties between the substrate and the second layer [paras. 0043-0046]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 9
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein the at least one second layer (Surface coating layer) has a layer thickness of up to 30 µm (0.1 μm or more and 5.0 μm or less) [para. 0079; see also paras. 0080-0082].
Regarding claims 10 and 20
Yano teaches the component as set forth above, wherein a surface of the at least one second layer (surface coating layer) facing away from the metal substrate is anodized (the Sn alloy layer is coated with a Sn-containing oxide layer to improve the corrosion resistance) [para. 0112].
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 in 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 product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 14
Kobayashi teaches a fuel cell [paras. 0001, 0003, 0038 and 0053] comprising the component as set forth in claim 1 above [paras. 0053, 0064, 0068 and 0083], the fuel cell further comprising: a flow field plate (corresponding to bipolar plates) and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane [Fig. 1, paras. 0009, 0053, 0064, 0068 and 0083].
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano in view of Kobayashi, as applied to claims 1-10, 14 and 16-20 above, and further in view of GB 2551191 A, Kucernak et al. (hereinafter “Kucernak”) with US 2019/0148741 A1 used as an English language equivalent.
Regarding claims 11-12
Modified Yano teaches an electrode comprising the component according to claim 1 above (the separator/component is adapted as a bipolar plate) [Yano, Fig. 1, para. 0009].
Modified Yano teaches the electrode adapted for a fuel cell [Yano, Fig. 1, paras. 0009 and 0059], wherein the layer system covers the metal substrate at least in a contact region with an electrolyte (bipolar plate/separators avoid corrosion of the metal substrate) [Yano, paras. 0031, 0035-0036, 0038, 0068 and 0122].
Modified Yano does not teach the electrode adapted for a redox flow cell.
Kucernak teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a corrosion protection coating for a fuel cell, electrolyser or redox-flow battery) [para. 0007], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (substrate, 100, comprising a metallic substrate) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0019, 0027 and 0049];
a layer system (corresponding to layers 101 and 102) which is at least partially electroplated onto the metal substrate (100) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), para. 0049], the layer system (101 and 102) comprising a first layer (corresponding to layer comprising tin 101) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074], and at least one second layer (corresponding to electrically conductive coating 102) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074].
Kucernak discloses that such components (corrosion-resistant electrically conductive components) are useful not only in fuel cells but also in redox flow cells (batteries) [paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Modified Yano and Kucernak are analogous inventions in the field of corrosion resistant coated metallic components for use in electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the component of Modified Yano in a redox-flow cell because Kucernak expressly teaches that such components are suitable for redox flow cells.
Regarding claim 15
Modified Yano teaches an electrochemical device comprising the component as set forth above, which comprises a flow field plate or a fluid diffusion layer (corresponding to any of diffusion layers 2 or 3), and at least one polymer electrolyte membrane (1) [Yano, Fig. 1 and para. 0009].
Modified Yano teaches the electrochemical device comprising a fuel cell [Yano, Fig. 1, paras. 0009 and 0059].
Modified Yano does not teach the electrode adapted for an electrolyzer.
Kucernak teaches a component of an electrochemical cell (corresponding to a corrosion protection coating for a fuel cell, electrolyser or redox-flow battery) [para. 0007], the component comprising:
a metal substrate (substrate, 100, comprising a metallic substrate) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), paras. 0019, 0027 and 0049];
a layer system (corresponding to layers 101 and 102) which is at least partially electroplated onto the metal substrate (100) [Figs. 1(a)-1(b), para. 0049], the layer system (101 and 102) comprising a first layer (corresponding to layer comprising tin 101) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074], and at least one second layer (corresponding to electrically conductive coating 102) disposed on the metal substrate (100) [Fig. 1(a) and para. 0074].
Kucernak discloses that such components (corrosion-resistant electrically conductive components) are useful not only in fuel cells but also in electrolyzers [paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Modified Yano and Kucernak are analogous inventions in the field of corrosion resistant coated metallic components for use in electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the component of Modified Yano in an electrolyzer because Kucernak expressly teaches that such components are suitable for use in electrolyzers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano in view of Kobayashi and Kucernak, as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of US 2018/0366736 A1, Ichikawa et al.
Regarding claim 13
Modified Yano teaches the redox flow cell as set for above, wherein the at least one of the electrodes comprises at least two of the electrodes (bipolar plates 4 and 5) [Yano, Fig. 1 and para. 0009; Kucernak, paras. 0006, 0019 and 0027].
Modified Kobayashi is silent to a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber, wherein each of the first and second reaction chambers is in contact with one of the electrodes and the first and second reaction chambers are separated from each other by an ion exchange membrane.
Ichikawa shows that a redox-flow cell structure includes a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber (corresponding to positive and negative electrode chambers), wherein each of the first and second reaction chambers is in contact with one of the electrodes and the first and second reaction chambers are separated from each other by an ion exchange membrane [para. 0085].
Modified Yano and Ichikawa are analogous inventions in the field of redox-flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the redox-flow cell of modified Yano to comprise a first reaction chamber and a second reaction chamber separated by an ion exchange membrane, as disclosed in Ichikawa, in order to provide the standard electrochemical architecture for operation of the redox-flow cell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0110648 A1, Lee et al teaches a metal separator for a fuel cell comprising metal substrate and a metal nitride coating layer [Abstract].
US 2009/0293262 A1, Shimamune teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell including a metal substrate and a metallic coating formed on at least part of a surface of the metal substrate [Abstract].
US 2024/0047703 A1, Baechstaedt et al. teaches an electrically conductive plate (1) comprising a substrate (2) made of stainless steel and a layer system (3) applied over the entire surface on one side of the substrate (2) [Fig. 1 and para. 0072].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights