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 Group I, claims 1-2 in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2 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 the limitation “more than 0 or not more than 0.5% of at least one of Ti and Nb” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether Ti and/or Nb are required in the composition as the phrase uses “or” when describing the limitations. Moreover, it is unclear whether the total of Ti and Nb must be less than 0.5% or if each of Ti and Nb can be included in amounts of not more than 0.5%. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner is assuming the “or” should actually be “but” to follow with all the other compositional ranges and that the total of Ti and/or Nb is more than 0% and less than 0.5%. Clarification is required.
Regarding dependent claim 2, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2011/0294042 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a ferrite stainless steel for a polymer fuel cell separator having excellent interfacial contact resistance comprising the following composition (Kim, Abstract and Table 1):
Element
Present invention, wt.%
Kim, wt.%
Kim, Steel 1
C
0-0.02
0-0.02
0.009
N
0-0.02
0-0.02
0.009
Si
0-0.4
0-0.4
0.29
Mn
0-0.3
0-0.2
0.142
P
0-0.04
0-0.04
<0.003
S
0-0.02
0-0.02
<0.002
Cr
15-34
25.0-32.0
26.26
Cu
0-1.0
0-2.0
0.437
Ni
0-0.4
0-0.8
0.173
Ti and/or Nb
0-0.5
Ti: 0-0.5
Nb: 0-0.5
Ti: 0.058
Nb: 0.241
Total: 0.299
Balance
Fe and impurities
Fe and impurities
Fe
Kim also teaches the surface roughness can be 0.055 µm and 0.350 µm (Kim, Figure 2). Moreover, given that the composition of the stainless steel of Kim is substantially identical to the composition of the stainless steel as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that stainless steel 1 of Kim would inherently have a developed interfacial area ratio of 5% or more as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the contact resistance of the stainless steel may be 10 mΩ·cm2 or less (Kim, [0017]). Kim also teaches Steel 1 has a contact resistance of 5.17 mΩ·cm2 after chemical surface reforming (Kim, Table 3). The broader range of Kim is the same as claim 2 and the contact resistance of Steel 1 of Kim falls within the range of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights