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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of a method of manufacturing a current collector by providing a base plate comprising a surface; further comprising cutting a pre-bend coordination pattern into the base plate where the prebend corrugated should pattern is cut by a die as claimed in claims 8-9; and forming the base plate and forming a foot using selective laser sintering with defeat and made a nickel for a nickel alloy and the base plate is made from stainless steel alloy in the reply filed on 8-18-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7, 10, 21-22, 24 and 26-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-18-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for bend-forming the stainless steel base plate creating a plurality of open corrugations by cutting a pre-bend corrugation pattern into the base plate by use of a die tool to create a plurality of open corrugations, does not reasonably provide enablement for the method step of bend-forming. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims [method step of bend-forming by any method];
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor [only by the use of a die tool];
The existence of working examples [there are no working examples]; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim(s).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for forming a foot made from nickel or nickel alloy between the first flange and the second flange of each open corrugation to close each open corrugation and form a corrugation by using selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, laser metal deposition or 3D printing, does not reasonably provide enablement for forming a foot by any other methods. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims [forming a foot by any methods];
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor [using selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, laser metal deposition or 3D printing to form a foot between the flanges];
The existence of working examples [there are no working examples]; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim(s).
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 23 and 25 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. Claim 1 is rejected because the claim should cite “A method of manufacturing an anode current collector for a fuel cell, the method comprising:” Claims 2-4 and, 23 are rejected because the claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends from because claim 1 only claims forming one foot and does not continue the method of forming more than one foot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simpkins et al. (US 8,048,587) teaches a fuel-cell current collector having a corrugation formed in a spacer. Simpkins et al. teaches in claim 6, wherein the spacer material consists of stainless steel, nickel, nickel alloys, etc. Brousseau (US 9,444,108) teaches in column 3, lines 19-36, teaches that it is known that the first flow field channel is manufactured by additive manufacturing so suitable patterns can be formed for particular applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M, Th and F.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights