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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-22 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-22 have been amended.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 17-22 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 7
The limitation “wherein a first strip and two second strips are arranged parallel to each other in step e)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which already recites a first strip and two second strips. Therefore, it is not clear if the first strip and two second strips recited in claim 6 correspond to those in claim 5. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 7 is rejected at least for its dependency on claim 6.
Regarding claim 10
The limitation “wherein a tool with a device is provided in step b)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Step b) of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends recites “providing a tool having a lower die and an upper die.” Therefore, it is unclear if “a tool with a device” recited in claim 10 corresponds to:
1) the same tool provided in step b) of claim 1, and now further limited as having the device; or
2) another tool provided in step b).
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13
The limitation “another deformable intermediate plate is arranged between the workpiece and the upper die or the lower die in step d) than in the previously executed steps e) and f)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the arrangement of the deformable intermediate plate in step d), while only steps e) and f) are repeated. Further, steps e) and f) do not recite arranging a deformable intermediate plate. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires step d) to be repeated to replace deformable the intermediate player before another repetition of e) and f), or otherwise how the “another deformable intermediate plate” relates to the intermediate plate used during the previously executed steps e) and f).
Regarding claim 15
The recitation “particularly using a punch tool” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain whether the use of a punch tool is required or merely an optional or preferred manner of shortening the workpiece. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain if a punch tool is required by the claim as the term “particularly” constitutes preferential language. It is suggested that claim 15 be amended to read as follows:
15. The method according to claim 1, wherein after a final repetition of steps e) and f) has been executed, a length and/or width of the workpiece machined by means of the method is shortened to a predetermined length and/or a predetermined width
Regarding claim 17
The limitation “wherein a leaded workpiece with a profile is provided in step a) is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 depends from claim 17 depends, recites “wherein a leaded workpiece is provided in step a) which has a profile.” Therefore, it is not clear if the leaded workpiece recited in claim 17 correspond to that in claim 16. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claims 18-20
The recitation “particularly a bipolar battery” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain whether a bipolar battery is required or merely an optional or preferred type of battery. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain if a bipolar battery is required by the claim as the term “particularly” constitutes preferential language. It is suggested that lines 1-2 of claim 18 be amended to read as follows:
“18. A method for producing a bipolar plate for a battery
“18. A method for producing a bipolar plate for a bipolar battery
Claim 18 further recites “providing a further leaded plater having at least one projection produced by the method according to claim 1 or providing a substantially planar leaded plate,” but then requires “arranging the further leaded plate having the at least one projection.” It is unclear how the latter step is performed when the substantially planar leaded plate alternative is selected. Although the claim subsequently recites an alternative arrangement involving the substantially planar leaded plate, it is unclear which subsequent method steps corresponds to each of the previously recited alternatives. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 19-20 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 18.
Regarding claims 21 and 22
The recitation “particularly a bipolar battery” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain whether a bipolar battery is required or merely an optional or preferred type of battery. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain if a bipolar battery is required by the claim as the term “particularly” constitutes preferential language. It is suggested that lines 1-2 of claim 21 be amended to read as follows:
“21. A method for producing a battery
“21. A method for producing a bipolar battery
Claim 22 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1
US 3382690 A, KAUFMANN et al. teaches a method for producing a plate (metal blank) which has at least one projection [Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Cols. 1-2], the method comprising: the steps:
a) providing a workpiece (sheet blank of metal 28) [Col. 2, lines 55-62],
b) providing a tool having a lower die (corresponding to backing plate 16 having lower die pads 26a) and an upper die (female die 10), wherein the lower die and/or the upper die have at least one recess (the female die 10 has a recess 12) [Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Col. 2, lines 26-31 and 44-45],
c) arranging the workpiece (28) between the lower die (26a) and the upper die (10) [Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Col. 3, lines 9-26],
d) arranging a deformable intermediate plate (corresponding to uppermost die 26b which is sheet like in appearance and deforms substantially to the shape shown in Fig. 5) between the workpiece (28) and the lower die (26a) [Figs. 1, 4 and 5, Col. 3, lines 9-13 and 59-74]
e) arranging a first strip (corresponding to steel insert 22) between the intermediate plate (26b) and the lower die (16) on a side of the intermediate plate (26b) facing away from the workpiece (28) Fig. 1], and
f) executing a relative motion between the upper die (10) and the lower die (16) along a first direction which reduces a distance between the upper die (10) and the lower die (16) in order to exert pressure on the workpiece (28) via the intermediate plate (26b), the first strip (22) thereby effects a flowing movement of the material of the workpiece (28) in a second direction running perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 63-72 and Col. 3, lines 9-47].
PNG
media_image1.png
320
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation “steps e) and f) are repeated multiple times so as to effect at least a portion of the material of the workpiece flowing into the at least one recess in order to form the at least one projection,” KAUFMANN et al. teaches that sufficient number of blanks 26 are used to cause the workpiece (28) to be formed in a single pass [Col. 3, lines 24-26]. However, KAUFMANN et al. further discloses that it is well known the amount of draw necessary to achieve a desired end product dictates drawing of the workpiece in a series of progressive steps [Col.1, lines 0062-0065].
Therefore, although not preferred, it is well known in the art for the steps e) and f) to be repeated multiple times so as to at least a portion of the material flowing into the recess forms the at least one projection.
KAUFMANN et al. does not teach at least one second strip between the intermediate plate and the upper die or the lower die on a side of the intermediate plate facing away from the workpiece, the first strip and the at least one second strip are arranged spaced at a distance from one another along the second direction in step e), wherein, in addition to the first strip, the at least one second strip also effects a flowing movement of the material of the workpiece in a second direction running perpendicular to the first direction.
Accordingly, KAUFFMAN et al. fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, the claim is allowed.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14 and 16
Claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 are allowed for their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights