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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed September 24, 2025 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendment can be found in at least paragraph [0046]. Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claims 1-19 remain pending with claims 5-19 withdrawn and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues a) Takeshi teaches away from the invention defined in claim 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art would not adopt a configuration in which the depressions overlap with each other when forming the depressions and b) Takeshi in view of Yoon does not teach “when viewing a warpage located at least at the outer edge of the ceramic plate body, a warpage height of the warpage in an area between the first point and the second point is not more than 150 µm.”
Regarding argument A, Applicant argues that Takeshi teaches away from the depressions overlapping each other; however, the Examiner disagrees that Takeshi teaches away from a configuration in which the depressions overlap with each other. Instead, Takeshi teaches a preferable embodiment wherein the interval between the protrusions and depressions are constant and do not overlap. Therefore, Takeshi does not teach away from an electrolyte sheet with overlapping protrusions or depressions as it is only a preference that there is no overlap. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Regarding argument B, Yoon teaches having a flatter cell makes it less likely that a cell will break due to compressive forces placed on a cell during stack assembly and thermal stresses created during operation, and warping, bending, or curving of a cell can also cause localized stress concentration, which can cause certain areas of the cell to experience levels of stress that exceed the strength of the material, resulting in cracks during assembly or operation (see e.g., paragraph [0060]). Therefore, applying Yoon’s teachings to the teachings of Takeshi, one of ordinary skill in the art could teach “when viewing a warpage located at least at the outer edge of the ceramic plate body, a warpage height of the warpage in an area between the first point and the second point is not more than 150 µm” in order to reduce the possibility of breaking. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP 2016126884 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeshi, in view of Aikawa et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200203748 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aikawa, and further in view of Yoon et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2014/0272665 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoon.
Regarding claim 1, Takeshi teaches an electrolyte sheet for a solid oxide fuel cell (see e.g., Abstract). Takeshi teaches the electrolyte sheet is a ceramic (“a ceramic plate body”) (see e.g., paragraph [0003]). Takeshi teaches the electrolyte sheet has at least one through hole in the sheet surface (“a through hole penetrating therethrough in a thickness direction thereof”) (see e.g., paragraph [0048]). Takeshi teaches the ratio of the shortest distance from the peripheral end of the through hole to the peripheral end of the sheet to the diameter, major axis, or maximum diagonal length of the sheet surface is 0.001 or more and less than 0.2 (see e.g., paragraph [0053]). Takeshi teaches the area of the electrolyte sheet is 50 cm2 or more (see e.g., paragraph [0056]); therefore, the major axis length of the electrolyte sheet, assuming the electrolyte is a square as shown in Figure 1, would be
50
cm2 or approximately 7.071 cm. Utilizing the ratio of the shortest distance from the peripheral end of the through hole to the peripheral end of the sheet to the major axis length as taught by Takeshi, the distance from the peripheral end of the through hole to the peripheral end of the sheet would range from approximately 0.0071 cm (0.071 mm) to less than 1.41 cm (14.1 mm) (“wherein a shortest distance between a first point on an outer edge of the ceramic plate body and a second point on a peripheral edge of the through hole is not shorter than 1 mm and not longer than 5 mm”).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the distance of 0.071 mm to 14.1 mm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Takeshi teaches the electrolyte sheet for the solid oxide fuel cell have depressions (see e.g., paragraph [0019]) on at least one side of the electrolyte sheet (see e.g., paragraph [0020]), wherein the intervales between the depressions may be regular or irregular (“one or both of a first main surface and a second main surface of the ceramic plate body includes scattered recesses”) (see e.g., paragraph [0036]).
Takeshi does not explicitly teach at least some of the scattered recesses overlap with each other.
However, Aikawa teaches a ceramic sheet (see e.g., Abstract) utilized as solid electrolytes of solid oxide fuel cells (see e.g., paragraph [0003]). Aikawa teaches a plurality of particle marks 31 are provided on the principal surface 30a of the ceramic sheet 30 (see e.g., paragraph [0095]). Aikawa teaches the plurality of particle marks 31 are disposed irregularly (see e.g., paragraph [0095]) and overlap with each other (see e.g., paragraph [0097] and Figure 4C) in order to improve the flexural strength of the ceramic sheet by preventing the ceramic sheet from being fragile against force along a specific direction (see e.g., paragraph [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the protrusions and depressions of electrolyte sheet of Takeshi to have the protrusions and depressions overlap, as taught by Aikawa, in order to improve the flexural strength of the ceramic sheet by preventing the ceramic sheet from being fragile against force along a specific direction (see e.g., paragraph [0105]).
Takeshi, as modified by Aikawa, does not explicitly teach when viewing a warpage located at least at the outer edge of the ceramic plate body, a warpage height of the warpage in an area between the first point and the second point is not more than 150 µm.
However, Yoon teaches ceramic fuel cells with enhanced flatness and strength (see e.g., Abstract). Yoon teaches a method of producing ceramic fuel cells to decrease the amount of warping, bending, or curving as it can cause localized stress concentration, which can cause certain areas of the cell to experience levels of stress that exceed the strength of the material, resulting in cracks during assembly or operation (see e.g., paragraph [0060]). Yoon teaches a half-cell that includes a patterned layer with through holes, an anode support layer 104, and an electrolyte layer 106 (see e.g., paragraph [0080] and Figure 1). Yoon teaches computer-generated flatness maps for the sintered half-cells (see e.g., Figures 4(a)-(c)) over the entire half-cell, and Yoon teaches the sintered half-cells with patterned layers (Figures 4(b) and 4(c)) are flatter than the sintered half-cell without a patterned layer (Figure 4(a)) (see e.g., paragraph [0091]). Yoon teaches in Figures 4(b) and 4(c), no portions of the sintered half-cells are over 0.2 mm in difference of flatness, and along the edges, the flatness ranges from 0-0.1 mm (“when viewing a warpage located at least at the outer edge of the ceramic plate body, a warpage height of the warpage in an area between the first point and the second point is not more than 150 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0091 and Figures 4(b) and 4(c)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electrolyte sheet of Takeshi, as modified by Aikawa, to have no portions of the sintered half-cells are over 0.2 mm in difference of flatness, and along the edges, the flatness ranges from 0-0.1 mm, as taught by Yoon, in order to reduce the amount of warping, bending, or curving as it can cause localized stress concentration, which can cause certain areas of the cell to experience levels of stress that exceed the strength of the material, resulting in cracks during assembly or operation (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because less than 0.2 mm but greater than 0 mm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 2, Takeshi, as modified by Aikawa and Yoon, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Takeshi teaches the electrolyte sheet comprises a ceramic having oxygen ion conductivity such as zirconia (see e.g., paragraph [0057]) that is sintered (see e.g., paragraph [0099). Takeshi teaches the electrolyte sheet made of zirconia is stabilized with scandium oxide (“wherein the ceramic plate body comprises sintered scandia-stabilized zirconia”) (see e.g., paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Takeshi, as modified by Aikawa and Yoon, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 1, Yoon teaches in Figures 4(b) and 4(c), no portions of the sintered half-cells are over 0.2 mm in difference of flatness, and along the edges, the flatness ranges from 0-0.1 mm (“when viewing a warpage located at least at the outer edge of the ceramic plate body, a warpage height of the warpage in an area between the first point and the second point is not more than 150 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0091 and Figures 4(b) and 4(c)).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because less than 0.2 mm but greater than 0 mm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 4, Takeshi, as modified by Aikawa and Yoon, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Takeshi teaches a fuel electrode layer (“a fuel electrode”) is formed on one side of an electrolyte sheet, and an air electrode layer (“an air electrode”) is formed on the other side (“the electrolyte sheet for solid oxide fuel cells between the fuel electrode and the air electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights