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 .
Applicant’s amendments were received on 1/9/26. Claims 1 is amended. Claim 4 is cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/9/26 has been entered.
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 8 and 15 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. Specifically, claim 1 discloses an interconnector (singular), however, claim 8 discloses interconnectors (plural) which is dependent on claim 1 and claim 2, respectively. Claim 1 and claim 2 do not comprise more than one interconnector. Appropriate corrections and/or further clarification are required.
Claim 11 is 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. Specifically, 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 11 recites the broad recitation 0.1 microns-100 microns, and the claim also recites 1 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. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims Analysis
For compact prosecution, claim 8 will be interpreted as “A cell stack comprising a structural unit in which a solid oxide electrochemical cell containing a fuel electrode, an electrolyte layer, an air electrode and further comprising the protective-layer-coated-interconnector according to claim 1.” Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection above.
For compact prosecution, claim 15 will be interpreted as “A cell stack comprising a structural unit in which a solid oxide electrochemical cell containing a fuel electrode, an electrolyte layer, an air electrode and further comprising the protective-layer-coated-interconnector according to claim 2.” Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Badwal et al. (WO1997035349A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, the Badwal reference discloses an interconnector comprising an anode and a plate-like chromium-containing substrate (Cr 94 wt%) having fuel gas-flow channels on one side and an oxidation-resistant coating on surfaces of said one side adapted to contact the anode. The coating comprises an outer oxygen barrier layer for electrically contacting the anode and comprising Ni, a noble metal except Ag or an alloy of one or more of these metals and an electrically conductive metal barrier layer comprising Nb, Ta, Ag or alloys of one or more of these metals between the substrate and the outer layer (Abstract). The metal barrier layer comprises a thickness of 8-10 microns.
Regarding claim 5, the Badwal reference discloses an outer oxygen barrier layer comprises a thickness of 5-20 microns.
Regarding claim 7, the Badwal reference discloses the oxygen barrier layer is an oxidating coating that does not comprise open pores for gaseous to permit mass transfer of oxygen (0% porosity).
Please note, alternatively, claim 7 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as disclosed below.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the Badwal reference discloses a cell stack comprising a structural unit in which a solid oxide electrochemical cell containing a fuel electrode, an electrolyte layer, an air electrode and further comprising the protective-layer-coated-interconnector according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the Badwal reference discloses a hydrogen energy system comprising the cell stack according to claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodridgo et al. (US Patent 7,648,789) in view of Brady et al. (Growth of Cr-Nitrides on commercial Ni–Cr and Fe–Cr base alloys to protect PEMFC bipolar plates), on claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15 are maintained. The rejection is further modified in view of the Applicant’s new amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (Copper oxide coated stainless steel mesh for flexible electrodes) in view of Brady et al. (Growth of Cr-Nitrides on commercial Ni–Cr and Fe–Cr base alloys to protect PEMFC bipolar plates), on claims 1, 2, 3, 5 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Badwal et al. (WO1997035349A1).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 13, the Badwal et al. reference discloses that the interconnector must be impervious to gasses in order to avoid mixing the fuel and oxidant in a fuel cell, thus it should have no open porosity. That is, the interconnector and all layers of the interconnector should not have open porosity to prevent cross contamination of the metals with fuel and oxygen supply of the fuel cell which would result in 0% porosity.
Regarding claim 9, the Badwal reference discloses a hydrogen (hydrogen fuel) energy system comprising the cell stack according to claim 7.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodridgo et al. (US Patent 7,648,789) in view of Brady et al. (Growth of Cr-Nitrides on commercial Ni–Cr and Fe–Cr base alloys to protect PEMFC bipolar plates).
Regarding claim 1, the Rodridgo et al. reference discloses a protective-layer-coated-interconnector comprising interconnector material of stainless steel (plug; claim 8) and a protective layer on the surface of the interconnector material (layer of Ag-Sn; 14:1-5), wherein the protective layer contains a metal layer constituted by a Group 11 element. The Rodridgo et a. reference is silent in disclosing the stainless steel material to be in an amount of 12 wt% or more, however, the Brady et al. reference discloses the commercially available stainless steel comprises Cr of 30-35 wt % (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate commercially available stainless steel disclosed by the Brady reference for the stainless steel disclosed by the Rodridgo et al. reference since the stainless steel is widely known to one of ordinary skill in the art. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When 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 has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
In addition, the Rodridgo et al. reference discloses the metal layer constituted by a Group 11 element has a thickness of 10 microns to 1000 microns and not specifically, 0.5-20 microns. However, the thickness range that encapsulates 0.5 microns to 20 microns is anticipated and the range outside of the encapsulated claimed range is obvious since, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
Regarding claim 2, the Rodridgo et al. reference discloses protective-layer-coated-interconnector according to claim 1, wherein the protective layer further contains an oxide layer , and the oxide layer is disposed on the external side (Sn-O; 14:1-10).
Regarding claim 8, the Rodrigo et al reference discloses a cell stack comprising a structural unit in which a solid oxide electrochemical cell containing a fuel electrode, an electrolyte layer, and an air electrode is sandwiched between the protective-layer-coated-interconnectors according to claim 1 (Abstract; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, it appears hydrogen energy system is considered preamble
Regarding claim 11, the Rodrigo et al. reference discloses the metal layer constituted by a Group 11 element has a thickness of 0.1 micron to 100 micron (60-100 microns).
Regarding claim 15, the Rodrigo et al. reference discloses a cell stack comprising a structural unit in which a solid oxide electrochemical cell containing a fuel electrode, an electrolyte layer, and an air electrode is sandwiched between the protective-layer-coated-interconnectors according to claim 2 (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodridgo et al. (US Patent 7,648,789) in view of Brady et al. (Growth of Cr-Nitrides on commercial Ni–Cr and Fe–Cr base alloys to protect PEMFC bipolar plates) in further view of Shigenori et al. (JP2011-181412)
Regarding claims 6, 7 and claim 13, the Rodrigo et al. reference in view of the Brady et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Rodrigo et al. reference discloses a solid oxide fuel cell but is silent in disclosing that the metal layer and metal oxide layer is nonporous, however, the Shigenori et al. discloses the interconnector should be nonporous to prevent leakage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate nonporous interconnectors for solid oxide fuel cells for any layer of the interconnector disclosed by the Rodrigo et al. reference in order to prevent fuel cell leakage that would result in an improved fuel cell. As a result, the modified Rodridgo et al. reference discloses 0% porosity.
Regarding claim 9, the Rodrigo et al. reference in view of the Brady et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The modified Rodrigo et al. reference is silent in specifying a hydrogen energy system, however, the recitation “hydrogen energy system” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self- contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue, “However, because Ag-Sn alloy is not a group II element.”
However, Ag is a group 11 element. The claim limitation merely discloses that it metal layer constituted by a Group II element, and by definition, “constituted” means to be a part of a whole. That is, Ag is a part of the metal layer disclosed by the Rodrigo reference
The Applicants argue the effects of the claimed invention, however, the effects that was argued are not claimed and therefore, these arguments are moot.
The Applicants argue that Brady is silent as to a Group 11 element having a thickness of 0.5-20 microns, however, the Rodrigo et al. reference discloses the claimed limitation, “metal layer constituted by a Group II element having a thickness of 10 microns to 1000 microns and not specifically, 0.5-20 microns. However, the thickness range that encapsulates 0.5 microns to 20 microns is anticipated and the range outside of the encapsulated claimed range is obvious since, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
The Applicants argue, “
PNG
media_image1.png
548
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
However, the operating temperature and the type of fuel cell are unclaimed and therefore, these arguments are moot.
The Applicant argues that the Shigenori does not make up for the deficiency of Rodrigo and Brady, however, the rejection does not rely on the Shigenori for any teachings other than the teaching of the interconnector should be nonporous to prevent leakage and motivation for the interconnector layers to be nonporous or porosity of 0%.
The rejection over Yavuz and Brady has been withdrawn and therefore these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752