DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 6 is 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 claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gromadskyi (WO 2021028000) in view of Kim (US 5,047,198).
As to claim 1, Gromadskyi teaches a method for producing separator plates by mixing thermoplastic polymer with electroconductive filler (page 18, lines 1-12) and extruding/providing an endless sheet/band of the malleable compound (page 20, lines 25-30) which would be of a constant thickness T as a result of the rolls (Fig. 2, item 5). Gromadskyi specifically teaches cropping (Fig. 2, item 7) and cutting (page 12, line 32) the sheet. Gromadskyi teaches placing the sheet in a hollow having a height H (height of the MPP in Fig. 4) between a support frame (Fig. 4, item 12) and bottom and cover press plates (Fig. 4, items 13A, 13B) which includes a template for embossing a fluid flow pattern (page 15, lines 9-12). Gromadskyi teaches hot press molding/hot compaction (Fig. 2, item 8) and cooling the sheet to under the glass temperature of the thermoplastic polymer (claim 3). Gromadskyi shows moving the press form into and out of (removing) the pressing area using a conveyor (Fig. 2, item 8).
Gromadskyi is silent to two oppositely positioned metallic press blocks and a driving mechanism for driving, as well as heating the press form and the sheet in a heating station outside the press region to a first temperature between the glass transition temperature and melting temperature, and then moving the press form in between the press blocks and simultaneously lowering the temperature of the press form by transferring thermal energy from the press form to the press blocks during exertion of pressure.
Kim teaches providing a press form (Fig. 1, items 15 and 17) and positioning in a heating station (Fig. 1, items 21 and 23) outside a press region (Fig. 1, item 27) and heating to a first temperature between the glass transition temperature and melting temperature (3:57-58). Kim further teaches providing a press with a press region formed from tool steel (metallic) mold halves/press blocks (Fig. 1, item 27 above 15 and below 17) inherently driven by a driving mechanism to exert pressure and simultaneously remove heat from the press form (2:48-49). The phrase “driving mechanism” is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation, and Kim meets this because it teaches applying pressure which would inherently require some driving mechanism. Alternatively, the Kim device for applying pressure would have been an equivalent driving mechanism to any corresponding structure described in the instant specification.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Kim into Gromadskyi because one would have viewed the Kim heating and pressing step to be an obvious interchangeable substitute heating and pressing step for those already taught by Gromadskyi. Gromadskyi already teaches a heating and pressing step performed using one method, and Kim teaches that the substituted steps/components and their functions (heating and pressing of a thermoplastic) were similarly known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known heating and pressing process for another since both the Gromadskyi and Kim heating and pressing processes arrive at a similar result.
As to claim 2, the modified Gromadskyi process could obviously be repeated or duplicated, and this modification (repetition or duplication of the process to form a second or subsequent part) would meet all limitations of claim 2.
As to claim 3, Gromadskyi positions the cover press plate (Fig. 4, item 13a) in the hollow. It would have been obvious that the press plate would have extended a distance D above the support frame (Fig. 4, item 12) prior to the hot compacting because in the alternative the Gromadskyi pressing (Fig. 4, item 11) would have been limited by the height of the support frame (Fig. 4, item 12). Stated differently, pressing of the MPP only occurs when the cover press plate (13a) extends above the support frame, and it would have been obvious that the pressing could press no lower than the height D of the cover press plate above the support frame because further pressing is limited by the Gromadskyi support frame.
As to claim 4, Gromadskyi in view of Kim provides a press with mold halves/press blocks (Kim, Fig. 1, item 27) which cool the cover and bottom press plates (Fig. 1, items 15 and 17). Although the Kim mold halves are depicted as large (Fig. 1, item 27) relative to the 1/16 or ¼ inch thick press plates (Kim, claim 1; Fig. 1, items 15 and 17), no specific mold/press block thickness is disclosed. However, in light of the fact that the mold halves/press blocks are provided to absorb heat from items 15 and 17 in Kim, one would have recognized that the thickness of the material represents a result effective variable that one would have optimized in order to cool the part quickly. One would have arrived at the claimed at least ten times thickness in an effort to optimize the cooling behavior of the part by providing a very thick mold/press block.
As to claim 5, Kim teaches a cooling system which maintains the mold halves at 100 F (4:8-15) which is necessarily below the glass transition temperature of the polymer in order for cooling to occur from the glass transition temperature (3:38) to 100 F (4:8-15).
As to claim 6, Kim teaches a mold/press blocks cooled to a range (50 F to 300 F, claim 3) which overlaps the claimed range after conversion to Celsius.
As to claim 7, Gromadskyi provides a feature (Fig. 4, item 16) that is depicted in the same manner and is interpreted to meet the claimed spring loaded rotating ball transfer table for sliding in the instant application (compare Gromadskyi Fig. 4, item 16 to instant Fig. 4, items 24 and 26).
As to claim 8, Gromadskyi teaches using molybdenum for the press form (page 23, line 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights