DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, and 4-12 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 (Fig. 4) between a support frame (Fig. 4, item 12) and tightly fitting bottom and cover press plates (Fig. 4, items 13b, 13a) which includes a template for embossing a fluid flow pattern (page 15, lines 9-12). While Gromadskyi does not specifically teach the sheet having a portion extending a distance D above an upper edge of the support frame (12) and pushing the cover press-plate no more than distance D such that the support frame upper edge mechanically stops the press blocks, this feature would have been obvious for use in Gromadskyi in order that the pressing (Fig. 2, “Press”) causes the cover press-plate (13a) to reach the position shown in Fig. 4 where the support frame and cover press-plate have the same height (compare top of 12 to top of 13a). The distance which the Gromadskyi sheet has been compressed in Fig. 4 meets the claimed distance D. 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 press-region using a conveyor (Fig. 2, item 8).
Gromadskyi is silent to two oppositely positioned metallic press blocks and a driving mechanism for pressing, 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 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 claims 6 and 9, 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). As to claims 10, 11, and 12, Gromadskyi already provides a cover press plate which is interpreted to push a distance D into the hollow. This is interpreted to be pressed with press-blocks having a size extending beyond the support frame of the press-form to provide the flush upper edge and mechanical stop configuration with the support frame shown in Gromadskyi (Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gromadskyi does not disclose the dimensions or shape of the press block above support frame 12, and argue that arrow 11 only indicates the applied pressure force. Applicant discusses their position that Fig. 4 shows the upper plate when starting the compression, and that the pressing would push deeper into the support frame.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, but notes the Applicant is also the assignee of the prior art reference applied in the rejection and invites Applicant to file a declaration addressing these issues below. After carefully considering the Applicant’s arguments, it seems there are only two possibilities here. The first is that (as Applicant argues) the press block is smaller than the support frame and pushes deeper into the support frame. The second is that (as the Examiner believes), the press block is actually larger than the cover press plate such that the press block would act as a mechanical stop for a sheet that started with a greater thickness. In this view, what is shown in Fig. 4 of the reference is the end state where the top press block had completed its pressing such that the top of the support frame (12) and cover press-plate (13a) are flush. This view would meet the claimed configuration. Since there are only two identifiable alternatives here, the Examiner believes that both options are obvious, even if the reference does not specifically show or state which of these two alternatives is shown in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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