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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 02-20-2026.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 21, the phrase “removing the binder from the SOEC using only the at least one microwave radiation” is interpreted to mean that only heat generated by the at least one microwave source is used to remove the binder from the SOEC.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2-3, “the at least one microwave radiation” should be --the at least one microwave source--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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, 3-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not describe “continuously moving the SOEC through the first zone of a furnace and into a second zone of the furnace while the first zone is held at a first temperature”. ¶ [0028] states “the furnace 150 may be configured to maintain a selected atmosphere and/or temperature within the first zone 160 and/or the second zone 170”, and ¶ [0029] states “The microwave generator 162 may be configured to heat the SOECs 20 to a sufficient temperature in order to drive out (e.g., volatize) binders from the electrode inks printed thereon.” These passages do not specify that the first zone is held at a particular single temperature for the entirety of moving the SOEC through the first zone and into the second zone of the furnace. Heating the SOECs to a sufficient temperature to drive out binders could include changing temperature of the furnace over time, so long as a temperature high enough to drive out binders is reached, and it does not require that such a temperature is maintained while the SOEC is moved into the second zone.
The specification does not describe “sintering the SOEC…while continuously moving the SOEC through the second zone of the furnace, while the second zone is held at a second temperature”. ¶ [0028] states “the furnace 150 may be configured to maintain a selected atmosphere and/or temperature within the first zone 160 and/or the second zone 170”, and ¶ [0031] states “The second zone 170 may be maintained at a temperature sufficient to sinter the SOECs 20, as the SOECs 20 pass through the second zone 170”. These passages do not specify that the second zone is held at a particular single temperature while the SOEC is moved through the second zone. Maintaining a temperature sufficient to sinter could include variations in temperature in the furnace, so long as the temperature at any given time is maintained in a sintering range.
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.
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, 3, 6-7, and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccombe ‘739 (US 2005/0089739 A1) in view of Rokhvarger ‘941 (US 5,911,941).
Regarding claim 1, Seccombe ‘739 teaches inserting a SOEC into a furnace, removing a binder from the SOEC at a first temperature using microwave radiation while the SOEC in disposed in a zone of a furnace, and sintering the SOEC at a second temperature while the SOEC is disposed in a zone of the furnace (¶ [0006], [0021], [0038]-[0041]), wherein the furnace comprises at least one microwave source and at least one heating element (¶ [0039], [0041]). It is noted that Seccombe ‘739 describes a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), and Applicant’s specification evidences that all SOFCs can be operated as SOECs. Thus the SOFC taught by Seccombe ‘739 reads on the claimed SOEC. Seccombe ‘739 teaches that the binder removal and sintering can occur in a furnace have multiple chambers (¶ [0006], [0041]), wherein each chamber may be considered a zone, and further that the thermal cycle can be a continuous process (¶ [0021]) but Seccombe ‘739 does not explicitly state that the binder removal occurs in a first zone and the sintering occurs in a second zone.
In analogous art of ceramic sintering, Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests manufacturing a ceramic article by inserting an article into a furnace, moving the article through the furnace having a plurality of zones, including a first zone held at a first temperature and a second zone held at a second temperature, wherein the furnace comprises at least one microwave source disposed in the first zone and at least one heating element disposed in the second zone for removing binder and sintering a ceramic article (column 8, lines 1-4; column 11, line 61-column 12, line 4; column 12, lines 31-36; column 19, lines 4-11; Fig. 5), and wherein the article is continuously moved through the first and second zones (claims 1, 14) for the benefit of employing an efficient, continuous sintering process. It is noted that the temperatures illustrated in Fig. 5 of Rokhvarger ‘941 include the binder removal and sintering temperatures taught in Seccombe ‘739 (¶ [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Seccombe ‘739 by removing a binder using microwave radiation in a first zone of a continuous furnace, held at a first temperature, and sintering in a second zone of the furnace, held at a second temperature, wherein the SOEC is continuously moved through the first and second zones, and wherein the furnace comprises at least one microwave source disposed in the first zone and at least one heating element disposed in the second zone, for the benefit of employing an efficient, continuous sintering process, as suggested by Rokhvarger ‘941.
Regarding claim 3, Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests the furnace with the first and second zones as described above, and further that the furnace is a continuous pusher or roller hearth kiln (column 11, line 66-column 12, line 2; Fig. 5; claims 1, 14).
Regarding claim 6, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the removing the binder comprises removing the binder from an electrode ink coated on one side of a solid oxide electrolyte of the SOEC (¶ [0035], [0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the removing the binder comprises removing the binder from respective first and second electrode inks coated on opposing first and second sides of a solid oxide electrolyte of the SOEC (¶ [0025], [0027], [0034]-[0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Seccombe ‘739 teaches at least one heating element as described above, but is silent regarding a gas heating element. Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests sintering ceramics with microwave heating in combination with a gas heating element for the benefit of permitting thermally effective and uniform treatment of ceramic articles (column 11, lines 47-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Seccombe ‘739 by making the at least one heating element comprise a gas heating element as a known additional heating source for use in combination with microwave heating in ceramic sintering processes, and for the benefit of permitting thermally effective and uniform treatment of ceramic articles, as suggested by Rokhvarger ‘941.
Regarding claim 12, Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests the first zone and the second zone as described above, and further suggests continuously moving the ceramic article through the first zone and the second zone (claims 1, 14). Rokhvarger ‘941 is silent regarding moving at a constant rate. However, the moving can only be at either a constant rate or a non-constant rate. In the combination of Seccombe ‘739 and Rokhvarger ‘941, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have pursued either of the two finite options with a predictable result of sintering the SOEC, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to move at a constant rate for the benefit of providing a steady and predictable throughput of articles through the furnace.
Regarding claim 13, Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests the first and second zone as described above. Rokhvarger ‘941 further suggests articles pass through the first and second zones without exiting the furnace (Fig. 5), such that in the combination of Seccombe ‘739 and Rokhvarger ‘941 as described above, the SOEC would pass through the first and second zones without exiting the furnace.
Regarding claim 14, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the first temperature is a temperature ranging from 400°C to 800°C (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the second temperature is a temperature ranging from 1100°C to 1400°C (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the sintering sinters at least one electrode of the SOEC to a solid oxide electrolyte of the SOEC (¶ [0038], [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the solid oxide electrolyte comprises a stabilized zirconia or a doped ceria material (¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the at least one electrode comprises an air electrode comprising an electrically conductive perovskite material (“strontium doped lanthanum manganite”, ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the air electrode comprises a mixture of the electrically conductive perovskite material and an ionically conductive ceramic material (“strontium doped lanthanum manganite-YSZ”, ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches the at least one electrode comprises a fuel electrode comprising a cermet material (¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 21, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches removing the binder from the SOEC using only the at least one microwave source (¶ [0039], [0041] - wherein “preferably includes a convection and/or radiation source” means that such additions may be excluded), and the sintering comprises using only heat generated by the at least one heating element (¶ [0039]-[0041] - wherein at least one heating element may encompass microwave sources and/or convection/radiation sources).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccombe ‘739 (US 2005/0089739 A1) and Rokhvarger ‘941 (US 5,911,941) in view of Ideguchi ‘732 (US 5,529,732).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches removing the binder comprises removing the binder from multiple SEOCs using the microwave radiation, and the sintering comprises sintering the multiple SOECs (¶ [0021], [0023], [0040]-[0041]). Rokhvarger ‘941 suggests removing the binder using the microwave radiation from an article loaded on a support while the support continuously moves through the first zone of the furnace, and sintering the article loaded on the support while the support moves through the second zone of the furnace (column 11, line 61-column 12, line 4; kiln cars 73, Fig. 5). Seccombe ‘739 and Rokhvarger ‘941 are silent regarding a ceramic support. In analogous art of ceramic sintering, Ideguchi ‘732 suggests conducting a sintering process by loading multiple ceramic articles on a ceramic support, and inserting the ceramic support with the articles into a furnace for the benefit of using a support which has a long life free from thermal expansion which does not cause distortion of the supported articles during sintering (Abstract; column 1, lines 53-65; column 3, lines 20-30; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seccombe ‘739 and Rokhvarger ‘941 by making the support a ceramic support which can support multiple SOECs for the benefit of using a support which has a long life free from thermal expansion which does not cause distortion of the supported articles during sintering, as suggested by Ideguchi ‘732.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccombe ‘739 (US 2005/0089739 A1) and Rokhvarger ‘941 (US 5,911,941) in view of Nguyen ‘992 (US 2009/0110992 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seccombe ‘739 further teaches:
printing the first electrode ink and drying the first electrode ink (¶ [0025]-[0029])
providing the first electrode to the first side of the solid oxide electrolyte (¶ [0031])
printing the second electrode ink on the second side of the electrolyte and drying the second electrode ink to form the SOEC (¶ [0035]-[0037])
inserting the SOEC to the furnace after drying the first and the second electrode inks (¶ [0006], [0038])
cooling the SOEC (implicit in discontinuation of heating).
Rokhvarger ‘941 further suggests inserting into the first zone of the furnace as described above, as well as cooling outside of the furnace (Fig. 5; column 13, liens 25-28). Seccombe ‘739 forms the first electrode ink prior to forming the solid oxide electrolyte. In analogous art of forming SOECs, Nguyen ‘992 suggests printing a first electrode ink on a first side of a solid oxide electrolyte, and then printing the second electrode ink on the second side of the electrolyte (¶ [0009], [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Seccombe ‘739 by printing the first electrode ink on the first side of the solid oxide electrolyte, as suggested by Nguyen ‘992, as an alternative manner of building a SOEC with a predictable result of forming an electrode-electrolyte-electrode stack.
Regarding claim 10, Seccombe ‘739 is silent regarding the first zone comprising multiple microwave sources configured to generate the microwave radiation. Nguyen ‘992 suggests generating microwave radiation with multiple microwave sources simultaneously for the benefit of emitting different microwave frequencies tailored for heating different materials of a SOEC (¶ [0023]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seccombe ‘739 and Rokhvarger ‘941 by making the first zone comprise multiple microwave sources configured to generate the microwave radiation for the benefit of emitting different microwave frequencies tailored for heating different materials of the SOEC, as suggested by Nguyen ‘992.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-20-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
Seccombe fails to disclosed or suggests a method in which a first zone of a furnace is held at a first temperature while a SOEC is continuously moved through the first zone and into the second zone, or that a second zone of the furnace is held at a second temperature while the SOEC continuously moves through the second zone, because US 7,196,297 B2, referenced in Seccombe, teaches a different heating schedule.
Response: The rejection does not reference or depend on the specific structure or heating schedule of US 7,196,297 B2. The rejection of claim 1 above and previously cites Seccombe in view of Rokhvarger, wherein Rokhvarger suggests a continuous furnace structure that does not necessitate a pause for cooling between zones in order to accommodate a transfer assembly. Note also the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) above.
Rokhvarger fails to remedy the deficits of Seccombe because Fig. 5 discloses that the temperature varies as the ceramic body passes through each of the zones.
Response: Fig. 5 of Rokhvarger illustrates temperature in the furnace as a function of position. Thus at a given position in the furnace, a temperature in a zone is held as articles pass through the zones.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741