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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1 (claims 1-6, drawn to a bipolar plate) in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.01 (a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2024, 04/02/2025, and 05/13/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show membrane arrangement 12 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “Figure 1” should be omitted from the abstract.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal sides" in line 4 and “the opposite longitudinal side” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 refers to “the opposite longitudinal side” in lines 8-9. However, “the longitudinal sides”, encompassing multiple longitudinal sides are earlier recited and it is uncertain as to which longitudinal side is being referenced in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all longitudinal sides comprise/require the limitation of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ports” in line 5. There is indefinite scope within this claim limitation as one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as coolant ports. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as media ports. Otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as comprising both coolant ports and media ports. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as comprising both coolant ports and media ports.
Claim 1 refers to “the respective port” and “the port” in line 8. However, “the ports”, encompassing multiple ports are earlier recited and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all ports comprise/require the limitation of claim 1.
Claims 2-6 are thus rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the transverse direction" and “the coolant channels” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-4 are thus rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 3 refers to “the associated port” in line 2 and “the same port” in line 4. However, “the ports”, encompassing multiple ports are earlier recited in claim 1 and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 3. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all ports comprise/require the limitation of claim 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the next media channel” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is thus rejected due to its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 4 refers to “the active field” in line 2. However, “active fields”, encompassing multiple ports are earlier recited in claim 1 and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 4. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all active fields comprise/require the limitation of claim 4.
Claim 5 refers to “the active field” in lines 3-4. However, “active fields”, encompassing multiple ports are earlier recited and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 5. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all active fields comprise/require the limitation of claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the ports” in line 2. There is indefinite scope within this claim limitation as one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as coolant ports. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as media ports. Otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as comprising both coolant ports and media ports. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim limitation “the ports” as comprising both coolant ports and media ports.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “this region” in line 3. There is indefinite scope within this claim limitation as one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “this region” as a transverse distribution region. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret the claim limitation “this region” as a longitudinal distribution region. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim limitation “this region” as comprising a transverse distribution region.
Claim 6 is thus rejected due to its dependency on claim 5.
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.
(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.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loesche-Ter Horst et al. (US 2019/0131636 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Loesche-Ter Horst discloses a bipolar plate with two embossed half-plates, which lie one on top of the other and which have a rectangular, elongated basic shape, (Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1 illustrates and para. [0052] describes bipolar plate 10 (bipolar plate) with two embossed half-plates (anode plate 19 and cathode plate 20) which are joined to each other.) wherein by means of the half-plates coolant ports as well as media ports placed on the longitudinal sides of the half-plates (Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1 depicts coolant inlet opening 15 and coolant outlet opening 16 (coolant ports) and anode inlet opening 11, anode outlet opening 12, cathode inlet opening 13, and cathode outlet opening 14 (media ports) placed on longitudinal sides of the half-plate.), distribution fields arranged next to the ports and provided for coolant distribution and media distribution and active fields are formed (Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1 shows distribution fields (denoted by arrow) arranged next to the ports and active fields are formed (AA).), and wherein embossed structures are formed within the distribution fields such that increasing free flow cross-sections are provided for the media flowing from the respective port in the direction of the port arranged on the opposite longitudinal side (Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1 illustrates embossed structures within the bipolar plate 10 (denoted by arrow). Paras. [0051]-[0052] explain the structure and process of transporting cathode and anode gases (media) from one respective port (anode inlet opening 11 and cathode inlet opening 13) to the direction of the other port (anode outlet opening 12 and cathode outlet opening 14).).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1: A bipolar plate (10) with two embossed half-plates (19;20) wherein coolant ports (15, 16) and media ports (11, 12, 13, 14) are placed on longitudinal sides of the half-plates. Distribution fields with embossed structures (denoted by arrow) are arranged next to the plurality of coolant and media ports and active fields (denoted by arrow) are formed.
Regarding claim 5, Loesche-Ter Horst discloses a bipolar plate wherein the distribution field comprises a transverse distribution region adjoining the ports and a longitudinal distribution region arranged between this region and the active field (Annotated Loesche-Ter Horst Fig. 1 illustrates a transverse distribution region (right arrow in “Distribution fields” block) adjoining the ports and a longitudinal distribution region (left arrow in “Distribution fields” block) arranged between the active field and the transverse distribution region.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesche-Ter Horst et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2011/0207018 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Loesche-Ter Horst discloses the bipolar plate as discussed in claim 1.
Loesche-Ter Horst fails to disclose wherein the increasing flow cross-sections are implemented by a decreasing height of then coolant channels formed between the half-plates in the transverse direction of the half-plates.
However, Nakagawa teaches wherein the increasing flow cross-sections are implemented by a decreasing height of the coolant channels formed between the half-plates in the transverse direction of the half-plates (Annotated Nakagawa Fig. 5 illustrates channel connection section (coolant channels) used for distribution of coolant from coolant supply manifold hole 120 (coolant port) throughout the bipolar plate. Increasing free flow cross-section (denoted by arrow) are implemented by a decreasing height of the coolant channels along the transverse direction (denoted by arrow) of the half-plates.).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
1079
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Nakagawa Fig. 5: A half-plate with a coolant port (120) and coolant channel (440). A free flow cross-section (denoted by arrow) is defined by a decreasing height of said coolant channel formed in the transverse direction of the half-plate.
Loesche-Ter Horst and Nakagawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing fuel cells with uniform coolant flow throughout said fuel cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bipolar plate of Loesche-Ter Horst to include increasing cross-flow sections that are implemented by a decreasing height of the coolant channels formed between the half-plates in a transverse direction of said half-plates because Nakagawa teaches that decreasing heights of coolant channels at free flow cross-sections results in equal distribution of coolant into the corresponding coolant channels (para. [0166]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 3, Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses the bipolar plate as discussed in claim 2.
Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, fails to disclose wherein the height of an edge channel furthest from the associated port is at least 15% greater than the height of the next media channel located in the distribution field and supplied by the same port.
However, Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, illustrates a height of an edge channel furthest from the associated port possessing a height that appears to be significantly larger than the height of the next media channel located in the distribution field and supplied by the same port. (Annotated Nakagawa Fig. 3 illustrates that third distribution space 214 (edge channel) possesses a height that stretches almost the entirety of a transverse direction of air electrode separator 200 (denoted by box and arrow) while slits of a third distribution rib (next media channel) possesses a significantly smaller height that stretches from one third distribution rib (223) to the adjacent third distribution rib and fails to stretch almost the entirety of a transverse direction of air electrode separator 200. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the height of an edge channel furthest from the associated port is at least 15% greater than the height of the next media channel located in the distribution field and supplied by the same port.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of an edge channel possessing a height of at least 15% greater than a next media channel because Nakagawa teaches overlapping ranges for an edge channel possessing a height of greater than 15% of a next media channel, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image3.png
829
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Nakagawa Fig. 3: A half-plate with an edge channel (third distribution space 214) and a next media channel (slits of a third distribution rib 223) wherein the edge channel possesses a height of at least 15% greater than the height of the next media channel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesche-Ter Horst et al., as modified by Nakagawa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Keitsch et al. (US 2023/0246205 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses the bipolar plate as discussed in claim 3.
Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, fails to disclose wherein the edge channel transitions into a bypass flanking the active field.
However, Keitsch teaches wherein the edge channel transitions into a bypass flanking the active field (Keitsch Fig. 6 illustrates and para. [0039] describes a bypass duct 18 (bypass) flows past flow field 12 on an adjacent side of flow field 12.).
Loesche-Ter Horst, Nakagawa, and Keitsch are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing bipolar plates with improved uniform distribution of coolant and reaction gases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bipolar plate of Loesche-Ter Horst, as modified by Nakagawa, to include an edge channel that transitions into a bypass flanking the active field because Keitsch teaches that the flow of said bipolar plate can be set in a simplified manner by utilizing a reaction gas bypass (para. [0006]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesche-Ter Horst et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Oda et al. (US 2008/0292941 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Loesche-Ter Horst discloses the bipolar plate as discussed in claim 5.
Loesche-Ter Horst fails to disclose wherein the transverse distribution region is designed as a dimpled field.
However, Oda teaches wherein the transverse distribution region is designed as a dimpled field (Oda Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate an anode side first metal separator 18 and a cathode side second metal separator 20 of a power generation cell 12. Both the anode side first metal separator 18 and the cathode side second metal separator 20 provide a transverse distribution region that is comprised of dimples (plurality of bosses 38a, 38b, 52a, 52b).).
Loesche-Ter Horst and Oda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing bipolar plates with uniform flow of a reactant gas through an active flow field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bipolar plate of Loesche-Ter Horst to include a transvers distribution region that is designed as a dimpled field because Oda teaches that the structure of buffer 44b, which houses a plurality of bosses, enables for uniformly supplying fuel gas to the entire fuel gas flow field (para. [0060]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kunz et al. (US 2019/0319279 A1) discloses a bipolar plate possessing both a longitudinal distribution region and a transverse distribution region.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights