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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2024 considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burghardt et al. (U.S. 2019/0237774).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Burghardt et al. (hereinafter “Burghardt”) teaches a method for producing a current collector for a fuel cell and a fuel cell (Title). Specifically, Burghardt teaches that a current collector (meeting claimed ‘polar plate’ as would be known in the art) is made by the method having the steps of: mixing a pulverulent or granular base material with a binder and with fibers to produce a material mixture, wherein the fibers have a lower melting point and/or a lower chemical resistance than the base material, shaping a shaped article from the material mixture, removing the binder form the shaped article, removing at least some of the fibers from the shaped article, and sintering the shaped article (claim 1 of Burghardt). Burghardt expressly teaches the combination of 3d printing method and sintering (claim 2 of Burghardt). It is well known that 3D printing is a layer by layer additive manufacturing process. Thus, the disclosures of 3D printing and the use of granular base material and fibers, i.e., filament, meet the claimed ‘comprising a print material layer-by-layer through a nozzle using a fused filament fabrication process or a fused granular fabrication process’. Further, it is conventional that the 3D printing process would require the layer by layer additive manufacturing build to occur on a work surface/plane that is then built up to achieve the desired part (also meeting instant dependent claim 16 because of Burghardt’s printing). In the instant case, the desired part is the current collector/polar plate. The first deposited layer of the material would meet the claimed feature requiring the production of ‘a blank of the polar plate’. Burghardt’s sintering directly maps to the claimed sintering.
In the interest of the clarity of the record, it is inherent to the Burghardt reference that the temperatures during sintering would remain below the melting temperature of the print material so that the built up layer by layer polar plate would not melt during sintering and, thus, be destroyed due to the loss of its desired shape/structure achieved during the additive manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the composite comprises a binder (claim 1 of Burghardt) that undergoes a debinding step (claim 1 of Burghardt) that occurs due to thermal vaporization and/or decomposition (Claim 6; ‘binder…removed at a temperature of between 500C and 700C’ which would be understood to be a thermal vaporization and/or decomposition).
Regarding claim 3, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the polar plate is in the form of a filament (see Claim 1 of Burghardt describing ‘fibers’).
Regarding claim 4, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the composite is applied by depositing individual material webs (see Figures 1 and 2 which depict arrangements of fibers that would meet the BRI of ‘individual material webs’).
Regarding claim 5, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches the composite is in the form of a granular material (claim 1 of Burghardt “granular base material”).
Regarding claim 6, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches the composite includes at least one polymer (claim 5 of Burghardt).
Regarding claim 7, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches the composite comprises a metal constituent such as the austenitic stainless steel 316L or 17-4 PH and/or Ni, and/or Ti, and/or Cu and/or Al and/or low-alloy steel (Paragraph 0010) as well as a metal foam (Paragraph 0036 and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the base material may include materials such as Ni, Al, and/or Cu (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 12, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches the current collector (meeting claimed ‘polar plate’) made by the method taught by Burghardt (Paragraph 0036, Figure 4, and/or claim 1 of Burghardt).
Regarding claim 13, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the current collector comprises internal cavities or channels…which are designed for passage of a fluid (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claims 14-15, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the current collector is in a fuel cell (Paragraph 0027) which also meets the BRI of the claimed ‘redox flow battery’.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gould et al. (U.S. 2016/0093898).
Regarding claim 12, Gould et al. (hereinafter “Gould”) teaches a three-dimensionally printed bipolar plate for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (Title). Specifically, Gould uses a direct metal laser sintering process to form the bipolar plate (meeting claimed ‘polar plate’).
While the method of claim 1 utilizes a fused filament fabrication process or fused granular fabrication process and Gould utilizes a different three-dimensional printing process, i.e., direct metal laser sintering, the polar plate of Gould nevertheless anticipates claim 12 because the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
It has been held that “[E]ven 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 13, Gould anticipates the polar plate as applied to claim 12 above and further teaches that the polar plate has at least one continuous flow path extends from the at least one inlet to the at least one outlet (Paragraph 0005; meeting claimed ‘at least one internal channel through which fluid can flow’ as well as Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Gould anticipates the polar plate as applied to claim 12 above and further teaches that the polar plate is used in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (Title and Paragraph 0015) and that an oxidation reduction reaction occurs (Paragraph 0015). In the interest of the clarity of the record, an oxidation reduction reaction is a redox reaction. Thus, Gould’s proton exchange membrane fuel cell having an oxidation reduction reaction occurring would meet the BRI of the claimed ‘redox flow battery’.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt as applied to claims 1 and/or 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above but is silent to the metal constituent comprising a vanadium-alloyed steel having at least 0.1% V. However, Burghardt teaches that the base material can comprise high-alloy steel such as for example the austenitic stainless steel 316L or 17-4 PH and/or Ni, and/or Ti, and/or Cu and/or Al and/or low-alloy steel (Paragraph 0010) and that ‘by suitable selection of the base material, the current collector has a high electrical and thermal conductivity primarily perpendicular to the preferred direction of flow defined by the microchannels, and high corrosion resistance’ (Paragraph 0027).
Thus, it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable base material, such as a vanadium alloyed steel having at least 0.1%V, so as to achieve high electrical and thermal conductivity in the produced polar plate.
Additionally, materials such as Ti-6Al-4V are well known and conventional within the art particularly with regard to the titanium alloy’s use as current collector such that the selection of an alloy having at least 0.1% V would not patentably distinguish the claimed method.
Regarding claim 9, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above but is silent to the metal constituent comprising a noble metal-alloyed steel having at least 0.1% of a noble metal. However, Burghardt teaches that the base material can comprise high-alloy steel such as for example the austenitic stainless steel 316L or 17-4 PH and/or Ni, and/or Ti, and/or Cu and/or Al and/or low-alloy steel (Paragraph 0010) and that ‘by suitable selection of the base material, the current collector has a high electrical and thermal conductivity primarily perpendicular to the preferred direction of flow defined by the microchannels, and high corrosion resistance’ (Paragraph 0027).
Thus, it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable base material, such as a noble metal-alloyed steel having at least 0.1% of a noble metal, so as to achieve high electrical and thermal conductivity in the produced polar plate.
Regarding claim 10, Burghardt anticipates the method as applied to claim 1 above but is silent to the metal constituent comprising an aluminum-alloyed steel having at least 0.1% Al. However, Burghardt teaches that the base material can comprise high-alloy steel such as for example the austenitic stainless steel 316L or 17-4 PH and/or Ni, and/or Ti, and/or Cu and/or Al and/or low-alloy steel (Paragraph 0010) and that ‘by suitable selection of the base material, the current collector has a high electrical and thermal conductivity primarily perpendicular to the preferred direction of flow defined by the microchannels, and high corrosion resistance’ (Paragraph 0027).
Thus, it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable base material, such as an aluminum alloyed steel having at least 0.1% Al, so as to achieve high electrical and thermal conductivity in the produced polar plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights