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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/23/2023, 5/16/2023 and 8/6/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 3/23/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji et al (JP 2018174117 A)
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9, Yuji discloses a solid oxide fuel cell in which a first electrode layer, an intermediate layer, an electrolyte layer, an anti-reaction layer (corresponding to the intermediate layer of the present application), and a second electrode layer are formed on a metal substrate, wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer function respectively as an anode and a cathode, the anti-reaction layer is formed using a thin film formation method such as a PVD method or a CVD method, and GDC (gadolinium-doped ceria), YDC (yttrium-doped ceria), SDC (samarium-doped ceria), etc. is used as the anti-reaction layer. It is found that said materials have oxide ion conductivity. Yuji further teaches that the anti-reaction layer is formed in an uneven shape in which recessed parts and projecting parts are formed at the interface with the electrolyte layer, and an uneven shape is likewise formed on the opposing electrolyte layer. The thickness of the anti-reaction layer is set at 25 µm or less (set at 1 µm, for example), the height of the projecting parts on the electrolyte layer is set at 0.5 µm or more (set at 1.39 µm, for example), and the anti-reaction layer is formed using a thin film formation method such as a PVD method or a CVD method; therefore, it is highly likely that the upper surface of the anti-reaction layer will assume the uneven shape of the lower surface [Fig. 1-3; paragraph 0037-0070].
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the solid oxide fuel cell assembly with the combination of structural element as claimed, including the electrolyte layer having a plurality of crystal grains; the convex portions protrude toward the intermediate layer from the crystal grain on a surface of the electrolyte layer on the side of the intermediate layer; the crystal grains on the surface of the electrolyte layer on the side of the intermediate layer are larger than the convex portions.
Reasons for Allowance
11. Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As for claim 10, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or suggest or render obvious manufacturing method of a solid oxide fuel cell comprising: forming an electrolyte layer green sheet by applying slurry including oxide ion conductive material powder; applying slurry including oxide ion conductive material powder and resin particles on the electrolyte layer green sheet and, after that, firing the electrolyte layer green sheet, the oxide ion conductive material powder having a D50% particle diameter smaller than a D50% particle diameter of the oxide ion conductive material powder of the electrolyte layer green sheet; forming an intermediate layer on an electrolyte layer obtained by the firing, the intermediate layer having oxide ion conductivity and not having cathode activity; and forming a cathode on the intermediate layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723