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 (IDS) submitted on Mar. 20, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11" and “20” have both been used to designate same part (See Fig. 4).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20", “22” and "24" have all been used to designate same part (See Fig. 6).
According to the description of paragraph [0009], Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 represent the same “the embodiment”, but the two figures are not consistent. For instance, “22” in Fig. 6 is/are regularly arranged whereas “22” in Fig. 5 is/are randomly arranged. The issue applies similarly to Figs. 8 and 9.
The sign “24” is designated as “pores”. It is unclear how “24” in the figures are pores.
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. 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.
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 1-14 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.
The recitation “a first mixture that joins to each other” in claim 1 renders the claims indefinite, since it is unclear as to what to “join” and what “each other” refers to. Components of the first mixture bonds to each other? For purposes of examination, the recitation is interpreted as referring to the plurality of composite sheets are joined to each other by the first mixture.
In claim 2, the basis for the claimed range of percentage is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the percentages are interpreted as being relative the mass of the bipolar plate.
The term “adjacent” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim has been rendered indefinite due to the use of “adjacent”.
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 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koizumi et al. (JP 2020068091 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Koizumi).
Regarding claim 1, Koizumi teaches a bipolar plate (“1”, Abstract and Fig. 1) used in a redox flow battery (Abstract), the bipolar plate comprising:
a plurality of composite sheets that are stacked (composite sheets “2”, Fig. 1 and Abstract) and that are joined to each other by a first mixture (resin composition “3”, Fig. 1 and Abstract),
wherein
each of the plurality of composite sheets includes
a resin sheet (constituted by polyolefin resin fibers, e.g., polypropylene resin fibers, and optionally aramid resin fibers, see at least [0009]-[0010] and [0016]) including a plurality of pores (e.g., spaces occupied by particulate and fibrous conductive materials included in the composite sheet, see at least [0009] and space occupied by another polyolefin resin fiber, e.g., polyethylene resin fiber, see [0010]), and
a second mixture filled in at least come of the plurality of pores in the resin sheet (see above: particulate and fibrous conductive materials and polyethylene resin fiber constitute the second mixture), and
each of the first mixture and the second mixture contains
a plurality of conductive particles and a resin binder that fixes the plurality of conductive particles to the resin sheet (the first mixture in “resin composition” contains graphite particles and polyethylene resin as a binder, see [0011]-[0012]; the second mixture in “composite sheet” contains conductive graphite particles and polyethylene resin as a binder, see [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, wherein the first mixture is arranged between the resin sheets of adjacent composite sheets (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1. Since the composite sheet is prepared by initially mixing and dispersing various components of the composite sheet in water to prepare a slurry ([0056]), one would reasonably expect that various components (including a plurality of conductive particles and a resin binder that fixes the plurality of conductive particles to the resin sheet, as claimed) are uniformly distributed inside the composite sheet and on the surface of the composite sheet. As such, a combination of the plurality of conductive particles and the resin binder on the surface of the composite sheet (also a surface of the bipolar plate) reads on the third mixture as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, wherein the resin sheet includes a plurality of resin fibers (e.g., polypropylene resin fibers, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 5, wherein the resin sheet is a nonwoven fabric (because Koizumi does not disclose the sheet is woven; also see “manufacture” in [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of resin fibers includes polypropylene fibers (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, wherein the resin sheet has a thickness of 0.7 mm ([0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi.
Regarding claim 2, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, and further teaches the weight of the resin sheet is adjustable ([0051]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed mass ratio by adjusting the amount of the resin sheet.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation is patentably indistinguishable because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. (MPEP § 2144.04).
Notwithstanding this, Koizumi does disclose multiple composite sheets ([0014]), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed “seven composite sheets are stacked” and a thickness not smaller than 2 mm and not larger than 10 mm can be readily achieved by adjusting the number of composite sheet.
Regarding claim 11, Koizumi teaches the bipolar plate according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation represents the characteristic or property of the bipolar plate. Since Koizumi teaches substantially the same bipolar plate as claimed, the claimed bending strength is reasonably expected to be present. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2112.01).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki et al. (US 20190067711 A1, hereafter Shiraki) in view of Koizumi.
Regarding claims 12-14, Shiraki teaches a redox flow battery (“100”) comprising a cell stack (“200”) comprising a cell frame (“40”) comprising a bipolar plate (“41”) (See [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the bipolar plate of Koizumi as an alternative to the bipolar plate of Shiraki to produce a predictable redox flow battery, since a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
