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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/06/2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending in the current application. Claim 9 has been amended. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 4, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 9 have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 9.
Upon further review of the claims, prior art of record, further search and consideration, and consultation with a Primary Examiner, the Office has determined to withdraw the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claims 1-14 and provide the new rejection of record set forth below.
The Office apologizes for any inconvenience.
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, 4-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primdahl et al (Ni Catalyst for Hydrogen Conversion in Gadolinia-Doped Ceria Anodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) in view of Pan et al (US 20190051920 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Primdahl discloses a stable ceramic anode composition for a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) having a porous surface, said stable ceramic anode composition comprising an electrocatalyst comprising (a) a second ion conductor and (b) nickel, a nickel alloy, or a combination thereof (porous CG4 (Ce0.6Gd0.4O1.8) electrode infiltrated with 0.8 wt % Ni; Page A1466, Introduction Section, Experimental Section; the Examiner notes that in Table I, this electrode is noted as “CG + 0.8 wt.% Ni”, however, it is believed this is a typographical error as the Experimental section describes using CG4 powder for the porous electrodes and then applying the nickel).
Calculations below show the actual atom basis ratio of Ni to CG4 in the CG4/Ni materials of Primdahl.
MW of Ni = 58.6934 g/mol and MW of CG4 (i.e., Ce0.6Gd0.4O1.8) = 175.768 g/mol
A CG4/Ni material with 0.8 wt.% Ni is equivalent to 0.8g of Nickel in a total of 100g of the CG4/Ni material. This leaves 99.2 g of CG4 to make up the rest of the total 100g of the CG4/Ni material.
Thus:
0.8 g Ni / MW of Ni = 0.8 g / 58.6934 g/mole = 0.01363 moles of Ni
99.2 g CG4 / MW of CG4 = 99.2 g / 175.768 g/mole = 0.56438 moles of CG4
Ni : CG4 ratio on atom basis = 0.01363 : 0.56438 = 1 : 41.407
As can be seen by the calculation above, the CG4/Ni material of Primdahl has a ratio of said nickel to said second ion conductor (CG4) in said electrocatalyst that is less than 1:2 on an atom basis.
However, Primdahl does not disclose said stable ceramic anode composition comprising strontium-iron-cobalt-molybdenum oxide material (SFCM); a first ion-conductor composition comprising an oxide of cerium or cerium that is doped with a rare-earth metal, and nanoparticles of the electrocatalyst, wherein said nanoparticles are infiltrated within said porous surface of said stable ceramic anode, wherein a total amount of said electrocatalyst in said stable ceramic anode is about 10 % by weight or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pan teaches “Typically, the anode forms the principal structural component of SOFCs and therefore, it is critical that the anode material should be highly efficient. For traditional SOFC anode materials, porous Ni-YSZ or Ni-GDC composites are often fabricated to achieve both high ionic conductivity and high electronic conductivity. However, even though nickel is highly electronically conductive and catalytically active, there are problems with it, such as volume change during thermal and reduction-oxidation cycling, carbon deposition when using hydrocarbon fuels, and low sulfur tolerance. Considering these issues, electronically conductive ceramics offer a promising alternative to nickel-based anodes. And, ceramic oxide based anodes are also a potential replacement for conventional Ni-GDC anodes considering their tolerance toward coking and sulfur poisoning. But, the electronic conductivity and catalytic activity for hydrogen oxidation for ceramic anodes are much lower than with Ni-GDC anodes. Application of ceramic anodes for low temperature operating SOFCs is still being researched. And, ceramic anodes suffer from several fabrication challenges such as thermal mismatch, chemical stability and incompatibilities with other components (e.g., electrolyte). Furthermore, the conductivity of electronically conductive ceramics is much lower than nickel, which is deleterious to the performance of SOFCs” (P3).
Pan teaches there is a need for an improved low temperature anode material for use within solid oxide fuel cells, and there is a need for new electronically conductive ceramic materials that meet both the conductivity and stability requirements of the anode and are compatible with intermediate- and low-temperature operation (P5).
Pan teaches a solid oxide fuel cell comprising an anode layer comprising a strontium iron cobalt molybdenum (SFCM) oxide material and GDC (P7, 29, 93). Pan teaches using SFCM offers high conductivity achievable at intermediate and low temperatures (P1). Pan teaches wherein the anode layer can be infiltrated with Ni-GDC (P31). Pan teaches an example wherein an SFCM-GDC anode is infiltrated with 10 wt% Ni-GDC (“The anode scaffold was prepared by mixing SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3) and 2% cobalt doped GDC (in a weight ratio of 2:1)”, Example 1, P116; see also P53-54, 117 regarding the infiltration of Ni-GDC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Pan and modified the stable ceramic anode composition of Primdahl such that the stable ceramic anode composition included a backbone of strontium-iron-cobalt-molybdenum oxide material and a first ion-conductor composition comprising an oxide of cerium or cerium that is doped with a rare-earth metal (SFCM-GDC anode layer of Pan, SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3) and 2% cobalt doped GDC (in a weight ratio of 2:1)) wherein nanoparticles of the CG4/Ni material of Primdahl is infiltrated into the porous surface of the SFCM-GDC backbone in an amount of 10 wt%, given Pan teaches anodes utilizing Ni-GDC composite materials have problems surrounding the nickel such as volume change during thermal and reduction-oxidation cycling, carbon deposition when using hydrocarbon fuels, and low sulfur tolerance, Pan teaches utilizing using SFCM offers high conductivity achievable at intermediate and low temperatures, and Pan teaches an anode can instead be formed from an SFCM-GDC composite material infiltrated with a NI-GDC material. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Furthermore, this combination of Primdahl’s CG4/Ni material infiltrated inside Pan’s SFCM-GDC anode backbone would be obvious to try given Primdahl teaches a CG4/Ni based anode, Pan teaches the issues Ni-GDC based anodes have, and Pan teaches instead, a new anode with a SFCM-GDC backbone infiltrated with Ni-GDC. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Modified Primdahl would meet the limitation wherein a total amount of said electrocatalyst in said stable ceramic anode is about 10 % by weight or less, given Pan teaches an SFCM-GDC backbone can be infiltrated with 10 wt% Ni-GDC.
Regarding claim 4, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein a ratio of SFCM to said first ion-conductor composition is from about 5:1 to about 1:1 by weight (given the SFCM and first ion-conductor is the SFCM-GDC of Pan; see the rejection of claim 1; Pan teaches “The anode scaffold was prepared by mixing SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3) and 2% cobalt doped GDC (in a weight ratio of 2:1)”, Example 1, P116).
Regarding claim 5, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said rare-earth metal is a lanthanide metal (given the first ion-conductor is the GDC of Pan; see the rejection of claim 1; GDC includes gadolinium which is a lanthanide metal).
Regarding claim 6, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said second ion-conductor further comprises an oxide of cerium (given the second ion-conductor is the CG4 of Primdahl; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said electrocatalyst comprises nickel and gadolinium cerium oxide (given the electrocatalyst is the CG4/Ni of Primdahl; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein the ratio of nickel to gadolinium cerium oxide in said Ni-GDC electrocatalyst is 1:4 or less on atom basis (given the ratio of nickel to CG4 of Primdahl is 1 : 41.407; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said SFCM oxide material is of the formula: SrFe(x)Co((1-x)/2)Mo((1-x)/2)O3+ δ, wherein x is 0.1-0.5 and δ is 0-1.5 (given the SFCM oxide material is the SFCM material of Pan; see the rejection of claim 1; SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3), wherein x = 0.2 and δ = 0; see Pan Example 1, P116).
Regarding claim 11, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said first ion-conductor composition comprises gadolinium-doped cerium oxide (GDC) (given the first ion-conductor is the GDC of Pan; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein said GDC is doped with cobalt (given the first ion-conductor is the GDC of Pan which is doped with cobalt; see the rejection of claim 1; Pan teaches “The anode scaffold was prepared by mixing SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3) and 2% cobalt doped GDC (in a weight ratio of 2:1)”, Example 1, P116).
Regarding claim 13, modified Primdahl meets the limitation wherein an amount of cobalt in said GDC is about 10 wt% or less (given the first ion-conductor is the GDC of Pan which is doped with cobalt at 2%; see the rejection of claim 1; Pan teaches “The anode scaffold was prepared by mixing SrFe0.2Co0.4Mo0.4O3 (SFCM #3) and 2% cobalt doped GDC (in a weight ratio of 2:1)”, Example 1, P116).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primdahl et al (Ni Catalyst for Hydrogen Conversion in Gadolinia-Doped Ceria Anodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) in view of Pan et al (US 20190051920 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wachsman et al (US 20140302420 A1) and Lu et al (Co-infiltration of Nickel and Mixed Conducting Gd0.1Ce0.9O2d and La0.6Sr0.3Ni0.15Cr0.85O3d Phases in Ni-YSZ Anodes for Improved Stability and Performance).
Regarding claim 2, modified Primdahl does not meet the limitation wherein a total amount of said electrocatalyst in said stable ceramic anode of said infiltration is 5% or less by weight.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wachsman teaches the infiltration of a material such as Ni-GDC improves the conductivity of the anode layer and improves the performance of the fuel cell; it is believed that these improvements are the result of a material such as Ni-GDC incorporating electronic and ionic conductivity in to the anode layer, which increases the catalytic activity thus leading to an enhanced triple phase boundary (P112).
Further, Lu teaches infiltration of Ni-GDC into a porous anode reduced the pore volume by 17.1% (Pages 3837 Right Column, 3845 Right Column). Lu also traches the filling of the pores by infiltration results in a 20.6% increase in mass transfer resistance for the NiGDC-infiltrated cell compared with an uninfiltrated cell (Page 38475 Right Column).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the amount of Ni-GDC infiltrated within an anode is a result-effective variable based upon the desired balance of electronic conductivity, ionic conductivity, occupied pore volume, mass transfer resistance, and overall fuel cell performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized, through routine experimentation, the weight of Ni-GDC electrocatalyst within the stable ceramic anode of modified Primdahl in order to achieve the desired balance of electronic conductivity, ionic conductivity, occupied pore volume, mass transfer resistance, and overall fuel cell performance due to the teachings above because, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primdahl et al (Ni Catalyst for Hydrogen Conversion in Gadolinia-Doped Ceria Anodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) in view of Pan et al (US 20190051920 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gopalan et al (US 20100015014 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Primdahl does not meet the limitation wherein an average particle size of said nanoparticles is about 200 nm or less.
Gopalan teaches an electrocatalyst that is applied to mixed ionic and electronic conducting membranes (P6). Gopalan teaches the catalyst an include Ni-GDC (P8). Gopalan teaches a membrane can be coated with fine particles of Ni-GDC (P42).
Gopalan teaches “Particle size and porosity is selected to provide a high surface area for catalysis and promote gas diffusion through the catalyst layer to the MIEC membrane surface” (P43). Gopalan teaches exemplary particle size is in the range of 10 nm to 10 microns (P43, which overlaps the claimed range of 200 nm or less and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
While Gopalan does not teach the Ni-GDC fine particles used within a stable ceramic anode, if a technique has been used to improve one device, such as tailoring particle size between 10 nm and 10 micron, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, such as providing high surface area for catalysis and promoting gas diffusion through a layer, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have selected a particle size of the Ni-GDC of modified Primdahl within the claimed range, given Gopalan teaches this can provide a high surface area for catalysis and promote gas diffusion through a layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primdahl et al (Ni Catalyst for Hydrogen Conversion in Gadolinia-Doped Ceria Anodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) in view of Pan et al (US 20190051920 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ayawanna et al (Electrochemical Performance of Ni1-xCox-GDC Cermet Anodes for SOFCs).
Regarding claim 7, modified Primdahl does not meet the limitation wherein the electrocatalyst comprises a nickel alloy and wherein said nickel alloy comprises cobalt, iron, tin, or a combination thereof.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ayawanna teaches “The catalytic activity and the degradation of NiGDC anode in operating conditions play an important role in determining SOFC performance. Coarsening of Ni particles, resulting in a decrease of the triple phase boundary length of the anode, has been reported as one of the main causes for electrical degradation of the cells. Alloying Ni with another metal has been considered as an alternative method used for suppression of Ni particle coarsening” (Page 440, Introduction). Ayawanna teaches “The significant positive effects as a result of Co addition with different contents on microstructure and performance of the Ni-YSZ anode and overall cell have been reported by many researchers” (Page 440, Introduction).
Ayawanna teaches alloying conventional NiO with Co3O4 at the weight fraction of 25 % prior to mixing with GDC (Ni0.75Co0.25-GDC) resulted in an improvement of cell performance of the Ni-GDC anode due to an increase in electrical contacts between anode-anode and anode-electrolyte (Page 448, Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ayawanna and modified the CG4/Ni electrocatalyst of Primdahl to include an alloy of 75 wt% NiO and 25 wt% Co3O4, given Ayawanna teaches both Ni-GDC and NiCo-GDC are used in fuel cell anodes, alloying Ni with another metal has been considered as an alternative method to suppress Ni particle coarsening within the cells, and a cell including Ni0.75Co0.25-GDC resulted in enhanced electrical performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primdahl et al (Ni Catalyst for Hydrogen Conversion in Gadolinia-Doped Ceria Anodes for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) in view of Pan et al (US 20190051920 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Zheng et al (US 20110008705 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Primdahl does not meet the limitation wherein the total amount of said electrocatalyst in said stable ceramic anode is about 5 % by weight or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zheng teaches that larger pores and a lower solid electrolyte loading can decrease the probability of blockage of pores by the solid electrolyte at an interface between a catalyst layer and gas diffusion layer (P50). Zheng teaches this can facilitate gas diffusion through the gas diffusion layer (P50).
While Zheng’s larger pores and lower solid electrolyte loading is mentioned in relation to an interface between a catalyst layer and gas diffusion layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the gas diffusion benefits of larger pores and lower solid electrolyte loading would also be useful for a porous anode (such as the one of modified Primdahl). If a technique has been used to improve one device (such as increase pore size within a layer and decrease loading amount of a catalyst a layer), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (prevent blocking of pores and facilitate gas diffusion in a layer), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to decrease the total amount of said electrocatalyst in said stable ceramic anode and increase the size of the pores in said stable ceramic anode to an optimal amount, through routine experimentation, to reach a desired facilitation of gas diffusion due to a decrease in the probability of pores being blocked. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights