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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-5 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 recites at line 2 “each of the unit cells including a separator made of stainless steel” and recites at lines 3-4 “the unit cells includes a cathode separator , an anode separator , and an insulating sheet”. However, it is unclear whether the “separator made of stainless steel” is the same or different from any of the “cathode separator” or “anode separator”. That is, it is unclear whether the claim requires three separators (a separator, a cathode separator, and an anode separator) or only two separators (a cathode separator, and a anode separator) . Claims 2-5 are rejected for being dependent thereon. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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 . Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (JP 2010-113864, see Applicant supplied translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (US 2019/0288321). Regarding claim 1 , Shibata discloses a fuel cell 1 [ fuel cell stack ] comprising a plurality of cells 2 ([0004]-[0006], Fig 1) . The cells comprise an electrolyte membrane 19 [insulating sheet] with catalyst layers 20 and gas diffusion layers 18 ([0002]) . Conductive separators 16 [cathode separator, anode separator] are disposed between cells and sandwich the anode and cathodes ([0003]-[0005], [0013], Fig 1) . The fuel cell further includes cooling liquid supply and cooling liquid discharge manifolds (abstract , Figs 7-8 ) . The conductive separator plates includes cooling liquid passages which are exposed to the supply and discharge manifolds (abstract, Fig s 7- 8) . The conductive separator plates further include projected/protrusion parts 34 on insides of cross sections with respect to a lamination direction of the fuel cell (abstract) , and are disposed at the peripheral edges of the supply and discharge manifolds wherein said protrusion parts are integral with the separators ([0044]-[0053], Figs 7-8) . The projected/protrusion parts 34 suppress electrolytic corrosion of the conductive separator 16 ([0016]) ; because the projected/protrusion parts 34 suppress the electrolytic corrosion and project inward without support from the electrolyte member (Figs 7-8) , said projected/protrusion parts 34 are sacrificial electrolytic corrosion regions and are not adhered to the insulating sheet [electrolyte membrane] in a laminating direction. In addition, the region adjacent the projected/protrusion parts 34 in the planar direction is positioned adjacent the gas seal material 17 and is laminated to the MEA ([0003]-[0004], Figs 1-2 in view of Figs 7-8 having a small dark shaded region below the projected/protrusion parts 34) ; therefore, the separator further includes a sealing region that is adjacent to the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region in the planar direction and is adhered to the insulating sheet. As seen in Figures 7-8 , the projected/protrusion parts 34 have a coolant lead-in/lead-out region and a region other than the coolant lead-in/lead-out, wherein a shape of the separator in the coolant lead-in/lead-out region is a flat plate shape that is in contact with the insulating sheet (see annotated Fig 7 below with an interpretation) . While Shibata discloses the conductive separator is a metal material ( [0028] ) , Shibata does not explicitly disclose that the separator is made of stainless steel . In addition, Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of the separator in the region other than the coolant lead-in or lead-out region is an uneven shape that is at least partially out of contact with the insulating sheet. Kajiwara discloses a fuel cell stack in which unit cells 60 are stacked, wherein the unit cells includes: a membrane electrode assembly 20 ; an insulating member 40 ; a first separator 33a ; a second separator 33c ; and a gasket (abstract , [0027]-[0028], Fig 1 ) . S eparators 33a and 33c are each made of a material with a gas blocking property and electro-conductivity, are thin plate shaped members formed of a metal such as pressed stainless steel, titanium, or titanium alloy ([0030]) . The separators 33a/c include coolant flow path portions 35a/35c formed on one of the surfaces ([0030], Fig 1) . Separator 33a includes holes a2 and a5 and separator 33c includes holes c2 and c5 as part of the coolant inlets and outlets (Fig 1) . Protruding portions 36a1, protruding portions 36a2, a protruding portion 36a3, a protruding portion 36a4, recessed portions 37a, recessed portions 38a, and recessed portions 38a1 are formed around each of the holes a2 and a3 in the separator 33a , and protrude toward separator 33c ([0032] , Fig 2 ) . Protruding portion 36c is formed around each of the holes c2 and c3 in the separator 33c , and protrudes from the periphery toward the separator 33a ([0033], Fig 3) . Protruding portions 36a1 and 36a2 of separator 33a contact the protruding portions 36c of separator 33c ([0042] , Figs 4-5B ) . In addition, as seen in Figure 5B , protruding portions 36a1 and 36a2 of separator 33a and protruding portion 36c of separator 33c are spaced away from the insulating member 40 (Fig 5B) . As protruding portions 36a3 and 36a4 of separator 33a and protruding portion 36c of separator 33c extend around the respective holes a2,a3,c2,c5 , the portion away from the lead-in/lead-out region has an uneven shape and is at least partially out of contact with the insulating sheet [insulating member 40] (Figs 4-6B) . Kajiwara teaches with the structures [protruding portions] around the holes, it is possible to receive the reaction force of the gaskets 55 and 55 by the separators 33a and 33c, thereby suppressing the deterioration of the sealing property and suppressing the increase in the number of parts ([0055]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protruding portions toward the other separator and away from the insulating member as taught by Kajiwara with the separators and manifolds of Shibata for the purpose of receiving the reaction force of the gaskets, and suppressing deterioration of the sealing property and suppressing the increase in the number of parts. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel, as taught by Kajiwara , as the material for the separators in Shibata because Kajiwara recognizes the material as suitable for separators in a fuel cell stack, and would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Regar ding claim 2 , modified Shibata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While the protrusion parts 34 [sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region] have a width in the planar direction (see Fig 8) from an end portion of the coolant manifold on a coolant inlet or outlet side, and therefore has a sacrificial electrolytic corrosion distance W, and also has a thickness [D], modified Shibata does not explicitly disclose that a sacrificial electrolyte corrosion surface area W x D that is a product of the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion distance W and a thickness D of the separator, is 0.25 mm 2 or more. However, as th e amount of protection and suppression of electrolytic corrosion is dependent on the size of the projected/protrusion parts 34, as an increased size or area provides more material for suppression while increasing the weight and manufacturing costs, the size and area of the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region [projected/protrusion part] would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the area (W x D, including the amount of 0.25 mm 2 or more) of the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region [projected/protrusion pars 34] of modified Shibata for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between electrolytic corrosion suppression and added weight and/or manufacturing costs. Regar ding claim 5 , modified Shibata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion distance W is 2.1 mm to 13 mm; and the thickness D of the separator is 0.08 mm to 0.12 mm. However, as the amount of protection and suppression of electrolytic corrosion is dependent on the size of the projected/protrusion parts 34, as an increased size or area provides more material for suppression while increasing the weight and manufacturing costs, the size and area of the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region [projected/protrusion part] would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the width and thickness (W and D) (including the amounts of 2.1-13 mm of W, and 0.08-0.12 mm of D) of the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region [projected/protrusion pars 34] of modified Shibata for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between electrolytic corrosion suppression and added weight and/or manufacturing costs. Claim (s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (JP 2010-113864, see Applicant supplied translation) in view of Kajiw ara et al. (US 2019/0288321), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bisaka (US 2006/0093889). Regarding claim s 3 -4 , modified Shibata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Shibata discloses the separators including projected/protrusion parts 34 [sacrificial electrolytic corrosion regions] protrude further in the planar direction toward a partial region of the coolant manifold than the insulating sheet adjacent to the separator (Figs 7-8) , modified Shibata does not explicitly disclose (claim 3) the type of separator being selected from a group consisting of: a cathode separator of a highest-potential unit cell that contributes to power generation and has a highest electrical potential among the unit cells, a cathode separator of an end portion unit cell that is adjacent to the highest-potential unit cell and does not contribute to power generation, and an anode separator of the end portion unit cell , nor (claim 4) wherein the cathode separator of the highest-potential unit cell includes the sacrificial electrolytic corrosion region protruding portion. Bisaka discloses a fuel cell stack 10 with improved corrosion resistance of metal separators (abstract) . The cell stack 10 is constituted by stacking a number of unit cells 20 obtained by sandwiching both surfaces of an electrolyte membrane between an anode and a cathode and sandwiching the outer sides thereof with a pair of metal separators, wherein the metal separators positioned on the plus side (cathode side) of the cell stack is subjected to surface treatment providing for relatively higher corrosion resistance (abstract) . That is, Bisaka teaches by having corrosion resistant improvements at the end of the stack on the plus/cathode side that has the highest potential unit cell ([0024], see Fig 1B where the highest oxidation occurs at the plus/cathode side ) , the corrosion resistance can be improved with reduced cost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the corrosion resistance to the end cell of the cell stack at the plus/cathode side as taught by Bisaka with the corrosion resistance projected/protrusion parts of Shibata for the purpose of adding corrosion resistance with reduced cost. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1186 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3879 . 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. /JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725