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
Note, that in the Restriction Requirement dated 03/26/2025 the claims for Group I were not properly number and should have been 1-19 as those are the claims directed toward the monolithic electrode supported electro-chemical device stack while Claims 20-27 are directed toward the method. The Examiner apologizes for the typographical error. Claims 20-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 04/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “c). planer ceramic interconnects” which should read “c). planar ceramic interconnects”
Claim 9 recites in the preamble “the method of claim 1,” however, Claim 1 is not directed toward a method. The preamble should read “the stack of claim 1”.
Claim 13 recites “Sr-titanate (Sr TiO3)” which should read “Sr-titanate (Sr TiO3)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 "b). the anode, cathode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed that the recited anode and cathode is in reference to the functional anode and functional cathode. The Examiner suggest the following wording “b). the functional anode, functional cathode”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the bulk anode and bulk cathode have thicknesses between 0.5 mm and 5 mm, preferably of substantially similar thicknesses.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein the bulk anode and bulk cathode have thicknesses between 0.5 mm and 5 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably of substantially similar thicknesses” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the functional anode and functional cathode have thicknesses between 10 μm and 100 μm, preferably of substantially similar thicknesses.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “wherein the functional anode and functional cathode have thicknesses between 10 μm and 100 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably of substantially similar thicknesses” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites “wherein interconnect material is electronically conductive metal oxides, preferably Sr-titanate (Sr TiO3) with a n-dopant, including LaxSr1-xNbyTiO3 where x is between 0.01 and 0.5 and y is between 0.01 and 0.25.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “interconnect material is electronically conductive metal oxides”, and the claim also recites “preferably Sr-titanate (Sr TiO3) with a n-dopant, including LaxSr1-xNbyTiO3 where x is between 0.01 and 0.5 and y is between 0.01 and 0.25” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites “a thermal expansion coefficient that is substantially the same as, or slightly smaller than, the CTE of electrode scaffold material.” The recitation of CTE is unclear what is being referenced rendering the claim indefinite. The Examiner suggest the following change to define CTE, “a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) that is substantially the same as, or slightly smaller than, the CTE of electrode scaffold material.”
Claim 16 recites “coating material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the coating material is in reference to the “electronically insulating hermetic coating.”
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “wherein the electronically insulating hermetic coating material…”
Claims 2-19 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Cable et al. (US-20110045386-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cable teaches
A monolithic electrode supported electro-chemical device stack comprising (monolithic solid oxide fuel cell stack , see [0008]):
a). a plurality of cells (two or more symmetrical, bi-electrode supported fuel cell repeat units, see [0008]),
each cell including, a bulk anode, a functional anode over the bulk anode (a thin coating of electrically conductive ceramic (i.e., functional anode) deposited upon opposing major outer surfaces of the first and second electrode scaffolds (i.e., bulk electrodes), see [0008]),
an electrolyte over the functional anode (thin electrolyte layer disposed between the first and the second porous electrode scaffolds, see [0008]),
a functional cathode over the electrolyte, and a bulk cathode over the functional cathode (A thin coating of electrically conductive ceramic (i.e., functional anode) is deposited upon opposing major outer surfaces of the first and second electrode scaffolds (i.e., bulk electrodes), see [0008]. The recitation of over is broadly interpreted to mean resides above in either direction an does exclude having intervening structure to claim. Alternative wording such as “direct physical contact” would indicate layers on top of one another with no intervening structure.;
b). the anode, cathode, bulk anode, and bulk cathode comprise of porous scaffold and electro-chemically active catalyst particulate coating on the scaffold pore surfaces (the pores of the electrode scaffolds are infiltrated with electrocatalyst solutions followed by heat treatment, see [0052]);
c). planer ceramic interconnects between the cells, bonded to bulk anode of a first cell and bulk cathode of a second cell (interconnects which can suitably be ceramic are disposed between individual cells which can be connected in series, see [0037] and [0028]. The instant specification recognizes that a stack connected is series has the structure of “stacked in serial… whereas an interconnect is sandwiched between a first cell's anode and its neighboring cell's cathode”);
d). cells and interconnects are substantially parallel to each other and form a planar stack of cells (see interconnects 31, Fig. 3),
stacked one on top of another bonded by interconnects (interconnects are disposed between individual cell which is sintered into a single monolithic ceramic fuel cell framework, see [0037] and [0007]);
e). a planar ceramic interconnect bonded to the top surface of the formed stack, and a planar ceramic interconnect bonded to the bottom surface of the formed stack (see Fig. 3);
f). an electronically insulating hermetic coating on the exterior surfaces of the stack, except for part of the top and bottom surfaces (hermetic seals are provides on at least some part of the outer edges of the cell stack ,see [0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cable describes the electrolyte layer as being non-porous, see [0041], therefore, teaching the limitation of :
wherein the electrolyte is non-porous or without open porosity.
Regarding Claim 7, Cable discloses the electrolyte preferably has a thickness of 5 um to about 25 um which is within the claimed range, see claim 20.
Regarding Claim 8, Cable discloses the bi-electrode supported fuel cell repeat unit all have essentially the same coefficient of thermal expansion, see [0008]. This reads on the limitations of:
wherein the anode scaffold, cathode scaffold, bulk anode scaffold, bulk cathode scaffold, and electrolyte are of the same material or materials having substantially similar sintering shrinkage and thermal expansion coefficients.
Regarding Claim 9, Cable discloses the first electrode scaffold and the second electrode scaffold and the thin electrolyte layer of each of the two or more symmetrical, bi-electrode supported fuel cell repeat units are made essentially of a single solid oxide ceramic material, and it is an ionic conductor of ionic oxygen, see [0008]
Regarding Claim 10, Cable discloses the ceramic interconnect is a thin, dense layer (i.e., non-porous), see [0055]. This reads on the limitation:
wherein interconnect is non-porous or without open porosity.
Regarding Claim 11, Cable discloses the interconnects have a preferred thickness in the range of about 5 µm to about 25 µm which is within the claimed range, see [0037].
Regarding Claim 12, Cable discloses all components shown in FIG. 3 are made of materials having at least the shared property of having essentially the same coefficient of thermal expansion, see [0037]. This reads on the limitations:
wherein interconnect material has sintering shrinkage and thermal expansion coefficient that is substantially similar as anode and cathode scaffold material.
Regarding Claim 13, Cable discloses the interconnects 31 are suitably made of thin layers of electrically conductive ceramic, see [0037]. The following limitation is interpreted to be optional and not required by the claim due to the recitation of “preferably.”
preferably Sr-titanate (Sr TiO3) with a n-dopant, including LaxSr1-xNbyTiO3 where x is between 0.01 and 0.5 and y is between 0.01 and 0.25.
Regarding Claim 15, Cable discloses all components shown in FIG. 3 are made of materials having at least the shared property of having essentially the same coefficient of thermal expansion, see [0037]. This reads on the limitations:
wherein the hermetic coating has a thermal expansion coefficient that is substantially the same as, or slightly smaller than, the CTE of electrode scaffold material.
Regarding Claim 16, Cable discloses the nonconductive edge seals are suitably made of ceramic or glass, see [0037].
Regarding Claim 17, Cable discloses porous fuel and gas channels are created through the porous cathode and porous anode, see [0049].
Regarding Claim 18, Cable discloses using a cross flow arrangement, see [0049] and Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 19, Cable discloses the pores which are used as flow channels are primarily circular/elliptical in shape, see Fig. 4A-C. The claim limitation of “cross-section sizes not smaller than 0.2mm and not greater than the thickness of the layers they are embedded in” is broadly interpreted to mean any cross sectional dimension. The graded pores are described as “graded pores, each of said pores having a first end with a small pore opening and a second end with a large pore opening,” see [0009], and therefore are through pores, see also Fig. 4A. The cross-section in a thickness direction of the pores are based on the thickness of the electrode which is taught by Cable to preferably be 300 µm to about 750 µm (i.e., 0.3 – 0.75 mm) which is within the claimed 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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cable et al. (US-20110045386-A1).as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Cable teaches:
preferably of substantially similar thicknesses (porous electrodes of essentially equal thickness, see [0033]).
Cable does not necessarily teach:
wherein the bulk anode and bulk cathode have thicknesses between 0.5 mm and 5 mm,
However, Cable teaches the first porous electrode scaffold and the second porous electrode scaffold each to have a thickness in the range of about 100 µm to about 1,500 µm (i.e., 0.1 – 1.5 mm) which overlaps the claimed range.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness because Cable teaches the overlapping thicknesses are suitable for the thickness of the electrode scaffolds (i.e., bulk electrodes).
Regarding Claim 5, Cable teaches:
preferably of substantially similar thicknesses (porous electrodes of essentially equal thickness, see [0033])
Cable does not necessarily teach:
wherein the functional anode and functional cathode have thicknesses between 10 µm and 100 µm,
However, Cable teaches the thin electrically conductive coating deposited on the outer surface of each of the first and second porous electrode scaffolds to have a preferred thickness in the range of about 5 µm to about 25 µm which overlaps the claimed range, see claim 6).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed thickness because Cable teaches the overlapping thicknesses are suitable for the thickness of the electrically conductive coating (i.e., functional electrode).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cable et al. (US-20110045386-A1).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US- 20120141906-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Cable teaches that the first and the second electrode scaffolds are porous with a graded porous structure, see [0008]. However, Cable is silent toward the porosity and does not teach:
wherein the bulk anode and bulk cathode… and have porosity between 20% and 50%.
To solve the same problem of providing a yttria stabilized zirconium based electrode for a fuel cell (see [0007] and [0017]), Ryu teaches having the electrode have a porosity of 15-50% which significantly overlaps the claimed range, see [0020] and [0022]. Ryu further teaches increasing the porosity of the electrodes improves the efficiency of the fuel cell by allowing the fuel/gas to permeate, see [0006].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the electrode of Cable with a porosity in a range of 15-50% to improve the efficiency of the fuel cell.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed porosity because Cable in view of Ryu teaches the overlapping porosities are suitable.
Regarding Claim 4, Cable teaches that the thin coating of electrically conductive ceramic is non-porous, see [0044]. Therefore, Cable does not teach:
wherein the functional anode and functional cathode are porous, and have porosity between 10% and 30%.
To solve the same problem of providing a yttria stabilized zirconium based electrode for a fuel cell (see [0007] and [0017]), Ryu teaches increasing the porosity of the electrodes improves the efficiency of the fuel cell by allowing the fuel/gas to permeate, see [0006]. Ryu teaches having the electrode have a porosity of 15-50% which overlaps the claimed range, see [0020] and [0022].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the electrode including the thin coating of electrically conductive ceramic of Cable with a porosity in a range of 15-50% to improve the efficiency of the fuel cell.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed porosity because Cable in view of Ryu teaches the overlapping porosities are suitable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cable et al. (US-20110045386-A1).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackburn et al. (WO-2021096828-A1 with citations from provided document).
Regarding Claim 14, Cable is silent toward the thickness of the hermetic coating and, therefore, does not teach:
wherein the hermetic coating has thickness of between 10 µm and 1 mm.
To solve the same problem of providing a seal on a solid oxide fuel cell device (see Abstract), Blackburn teaches the thickness of seal for the electrodes which can suitably be made of a glass material may range from approximately 0.005 mm to approximately 15 mm (i.e., 5 µm – 15 mm) which overlaps the claimed range, see Pg43/L21-23 and Pg42/L19-20. Blackburn further teaches his configuration solves the problem of seal leakage, see Pg2/L21-25.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the seal thickness range taught by Blackburn for the thickness of to reduce seal leakage. in order arrive at a desired reduction in seal leakage.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rasmussen (US-20240282997-A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721