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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2024, 07/22/2025, and 11/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
(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 1-4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses a method for manufacturing a metal separator of a fuel cell for a vehicle the method comprising steps of ([0012] metal separator for fuel cells and thus can be used in fuel cell containing equipment such as vehicles):
Preparing a base material (Figure 1; preparing a stainless steel sheet matrix);
Applying a platinum containing coating agent and an electrolyte on the base material to form a discontinuous coating layer (Figure 1; forming metal coating film on the stainless steel sheet matrix; [0012] a discontinuous coating made of materials such as containing platinum and may be applied through electrolyte plating [0045]); and
Thermally treating the base material and the coating layer to form on an oxide layer on the base material (Figure 1; abstract; [0012] heat treating the stainless steel sheet having the discontinuous coating film to form an oxide film on a portion of the stainless steel sheet).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the platinum containing coating agent further comprises gold, ruthenium, iridium, ruthenium oxide or iridium oxide ([0012] coating can contain platinum as well as gold, ruthenium, iridium, ruthenium oxide and iridium oxide).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the base material is stainless steel, titanium, aluminum or polymer composite material ([0012] stainless steel sheet for the base material; [0061] base metal can also be titanium).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of forming the discontinuous coating layer is performed through electroplating, electroless plating or a PVD process ([0045] PVD, electrolyte plating or electroless plating).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of thermally treating is performed under an oxygen atmosphere ([0052] heat treatment is performed under a vacuum, an atmosphere or an oxygen atmosphere).
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of thermally treating is performed in a temperature range of about 80-600°C ([0052] wherein the heat treatment is within a temperature range of 80-300 °C). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Jeon further discloses wherein the base material is stainless steel ([0009]), and wherein the step of thermally treating is performed in a temperature range of about 80-230 °C ([0052] wherein the heat treatment is within a temperature range of 80-300 °C). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Jeon further discloses wherein the base material is titanium ([0009] base metal can be titanium), and wherein the step of thermally treating is performed in a temperature range of about 300-500 °C ([0052] where the platinum group compound coating film is formed by the heat treatment is within a temperature range of 80-300 °C). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of thermally treating is performed in a time range of 10 to 180 minutes ([0013] heat treatment of 10 minutes to 3 hours). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of thermally treating is performed in a time range of 30 to 60 minutes ([0013] heat treatment of 10 minutes to 3 hours). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimamune (US 2004/0247978 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon is silent with respect to wherein the platinum contained in the platinum containing coating agent is from Chloroplatinic acid or potassium chloroplatinate.
Shimamune discloses a bipolar plate for fuel cell and method for production thereof and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of fuel cells. Shimamune further discloses wherein a metal substrate is immersed in an immersion solution containing chloroplatinic acid in order to coat the stainless steel metal substrate with the platinum group metal oxide in order to make the bonding stronger to achieve a longer life for the fuel cell ([0059-0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the platinum containing coating agent to include the platinum material formed by immersion within chloroplatinic acid in order to coat the substate with the platinum containing compound in order to achieve a longer life of the fuel cell as taught by Shimamune. The resulting modification would render obvious wherein the platinum used for the platinum coating layer is contained within chloroplatinic acid and thus all the claim limitations of claim 5 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Regarding claims 19-20, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon is silent with respect wherein the metal separator for a fuel cell is for a vehicle.
Shimamune discloses a bipolar plate for fuel cell and method for production thereof and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of fuel cells. Shimamune further discloses the metal bipolar plate can be used for a fuel cell and thus a vehicle comprising the fuel cell ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use the metal separator of Jeon in a fuel cell within a vehicle as taught by Shimamune as a metal separator is known in the art to be used in vehicles comprising fuel cells.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markoski et al. (US 2004/0265681 A1).
Regarding claims 12-15, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1, however, is silent with respect to wherein the electrolyte is an acidic electrolyte comprising H2SO4 or HClO4.
Markoski discloses a fuel cell and is within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Markoski further discloses wherein an electrolyte enhances charge conductivity and can improve the current of the fuel cell in acidic conditions with acid electrolyte such as H2SO4 or HClO4 ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the electrolyte of Jeon for the electrolyte of Markoski of an acidic electrolyte such as H2SO4 or HClO4 in order to enhance the charge conductivity of the electrolyte within the fuel cell system as taught by Markoski. Thus through the modification all the claim limitations of claims 12-15 are rendered obvious.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US 2018/0083294 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jeon further discloses wherein the step of applying a platinum containing coating agent and an electrolyte on the base material, however, is silent with respect to applying a current at a coating temperature.
Yano discloses a metal sheet for separator for a fuel cell and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor or fuel cells. Yano discloses wherein an oxide layer can be formed by providing a current to the metal sheet and coating for the separator at a temperature of 60° C in order to form a coating oxide layer ([0105,0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the method of Yano into the method of Jeon such that the method of providing a current at a temperature to the separator and coating layer will form an oxide layer as taught by Yano. The resulting combination would render obvious wherein a current is applied at a coating temperature to the platinum containing coating agent and electrolyte in order to form an oxide layer. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 16 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Regarding claim 18, modified Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Yano further discloses wherein the coating temperature is about 25-80° C (Yano [0105,0121], 60° C see modification of claim 16).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2012/0148941 A1) in view of Yano et al. (US 2018/0083294 A1) as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0148742 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jeon discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Modified Jeon is silent with respect to wherein the current is 5-60 mA/cm2.
Lee discloses a preparation method for porous separators for a fuel cell and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of fuel cells. Lee discloses wherein a fuel cell including the porous separator can be subjected to a voltage and current between the range of 0 or more and 2,000 or less mA/cm2 as is a common and known range for fuel cell separators ([0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the current of Jeon to have a current to within 0-2,000 or less mA/cm2 as taught by Lee as a change in the current would have predictable results absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 17 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (JP 2009054421 A-as cited in the IDS)-discloses an aluminum plate for fuel cell having a coating and oxide layer formed onto the aluminum plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights