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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed April 19, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received April 19, 2023 are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/235467 A1 (Yamada et al.). NOTE: US 2020/0153019 is relied upon as the English translation for the WO document, as both documents pertain to the same PCT.
As to claim 1, Yamada et al. teach a cell comprising:
an air electrode layer (cathode [114]) (figs. 1, 4; para 0047);
a fuel electrode layer (combination of anode active layer [220] and intermediate layer [190]) containing a first rare earth element and a second rare earth element different from the first rare earth element (as anode active material [220]) contains rare earth element E2, and the intermediate layer [190] contains rare earth element E1 and E2; see fig. 6);
and a solid electrolyte layer [112] located between the air electrode layer (cathode [114]) and the fuel electrode layer (combination of anode active layer [220] and intermediate layer [190]), the solid electrolyte layer containing the second rare earth element (solid electrolyte layer contains rare earth element E1; see fig. 6), wherein
the fuel electrode layer (combination of anode active layer [220] and intermediate layer [190]) comprises a first site (anode active material [220]), and a second site (intermediate layer [190]) located between the first site (anode active material [220]) and the solid electrolyte layer [112], the second site containing at least the second rare earth element (fig. 4; intermediate layer includes rare earth element 1; see fig. 6).
As to claim 2, Yamada et al. teach in the second site (intermediate layer [190]), a content of the second rare earth element is larger than a content of the first rare earth element (as fig. 6 shows examples where rare element E1 (second rare earth element, as claimed) is larger than rare element E2 (first rare earth element, as claimed) – S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, S10, S11, S12).
As to claim 3, Yamada et al. teach a content of the second rare earth element in the second site (intermediate layer [190]) is larger than a content of the second rare earth element in the first site (anode active material [220]) (as rare earth element E1 (second rare earth element as claimed) is not present in the first site (anode active material [220]) (see fig. 6; see also para 064-0065, 0068).
As to claim 4, Yamada et al. teach the fuel electrode layer (combination of anode active layer [220] and intermediate layer [190]) contains a first particle body having electron conductivity (GDC (electronic conductivity a property of the material); para 0051) and a second particle body having ion conductivity (Y2O3 and Gd2O3 (ion conductivity a property of the material; also ion conductivity must exist for operable cell); para 0051, 0034), and the second particle body comprises a first particle containing the first rare earth element (Gd2O3 has Gd) and a second particle containing the second rare earth element (Y2O3 has Y) (see fig. 6, para 0051).
As to claim 7, Yamada et al. teach a ratio of a content of the first rare earth element to a sum of contents of the first rare earth element and the second rare earth element is larger in the first site than in the second site. The first site (anode active layer [200]) contains only the first rare element (see para 0068); thus, the ratio of the first rare element to the sum of the contents of the first rare earth element and the second rare earth element is 1. The second site (intermediate layer) includes both the first rare earth element and the second rare earth element (see fig. 6); thus the ratio of the first rare element to the sum of the contents of the first rare earth element and the second rare earth element is less than 1. Accordingly, the claim language is met.
As to claim 9, Yamada et al. teach a cell stack device, comprising:
a cell stack (figs. 1-3) provided with at least one cell according to claim 1 (the cell of claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 10, Yamada et al. teach a module comprising:
the cell stack device according to claim 9 (the cell stack of claim 9 set forth in the rejection to claim 9, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s’ sake); and a storage container configured to house the cell stack device (insulating porous body [106] interpreted to the storage container; figs 1, 3).
As to claim 12, Yamada et al.t each the solid electrolyte layer further containing one of Zr and Ce (YSZ contains Zr) (para 0051, 0034).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada et al. (The teachings of Yamada et al., as set forth above and applicable herein (i.e. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above) are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’ sake.)
As to claim 5, the ion conductivity of the second particle is higher than an ion conductivity of the first particle is either (a) expected, or alternatively (b) obvious.
With respect to (a): The materials are to interface with the electrolyte (purpose of ion conduction) and the electrode to prevent resistance between the two layers, and thus would be expected to have higher ion conductivity to create a smooth transition from the electrolyte to the electrode.
With respect to (b): At the very least, it would be obvious have the second particle (part of the intermediate layer) is higher than an ion conductivity of the first particle. Specifically para 0016 states that the intermediate layer should not provide large resistance, thus providing motivation to have the second particle be higher than an ion conductivity of the first particle. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the second particle be higher than an ion conductivity of the first particle in order to minimize resistance across the intermediate layer.
As to claim 6, Yamada et al. either (a) teach a content of the first rare earth element in the first site is larger than a content of the first rare earth element in the second site, or (b) such a limitation is obvious.
With respect to (a): Yamada et al. teach that the first rare element is provided in the anode active layer [220] (first site) (Gd via GDC) in a 50:50 by volume amount (para 0068). Additionally, amount of the first rare earth element (E2) is provided in amounts such as 3.6 or 6.5 atomic weight% (S2, S7 in fig. 6) with minimized thickness regarding the intermediate layer [190] (second site) (thicknesses of 3.8 µm or less in a most preferable range; para 0016, 0092). Accordingly, it would be expected that the amount of the first rare element provided in the first site is larger than a content of the first rare earth element in the second site (due to a small thickness ascribed to the second site and a small amount of the first rare element present in the second site compared to the first site, as set forth above).
With respect to (b): Alternately, due to lack of concrete amounts, at the very least, a content of the first rare earth element in the first site is larger than a content of the first rare earth element in the second site would be obvious. Specifically, Yamada et al. teach that the first rare element is provided in the anode active layer [220] (first site) (Gd via GDC) in a 50:50 by volume amount (para 0068), wherein the of rare earth element (E2) is provided in amounts such as 3.6 or 6.5 atomic weight% (S2, S7 in fig. 6) with minimized thickness regarding the intermediate layer [190] (second site) (thicknesses of 3.8 µm or less in a most preferable range; para 0016, 0092). Accordingly, the motivation for having a content of the first rare earth element in the first site is larger than a content of the first rare earth element in the second site, is to allow for minimizing the intermediate layer to prevent resistance increase (para 0016). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a content of the first rare earth element in the first site is larger than a content of the first rare earth element in the second site in order to allow for minimizing the intermediate layer to prevent resistance increase (by having a thin intermediate layer, which has less of the first rare element within).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al., as applied to claims 1, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of JP 2010-231918A (Iwamoto).
As to claim 11, Yamada et al. teach the module according to claim 10 (the teachings regarding the module of claim 10 set forth in the rejection to claim 10, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
Yamada et al. do not teach an auxiliary device configured to operate the module; and an external case configured to house the module and the auxiliary device.
However, Iwamoto teaches an auxiliary device configured to operate the module (reformer [15]); and an external case (storage container [12]) configured to house the module and the auxiliary device (para 0083-0085). The motivation for having an auxiliary device configured to operate the module; and an external case configured to house the module and the auxiliary device is to improve reliability of the module (para 0085). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have an auxiliary device configured to operate the module; and an external case configured to house the module and the auxiliary device to improve reliability of the module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0301715 (Takahashi et al.). Takahashi et al. teaches a fuel electrode layer [1101], solid electrolyte [1102], air electrode [1111]); the fuel electrode layer can include Y and Sc, which can also be in the solid electrolyte layer (para 0075, 0078); fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759