Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/100,536

Sintered Anode For Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 23, 2023
Examiner
ROSENBAUM, AMANDA R
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fuelcell Energy Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
98 granted / 164 resolved
-5.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.4%
+17.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 164 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 claims 1-10, drawn to a molten carbonate fuel cell, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. (US 2020/0176783) in view of Youn et al. (US 2010/0196778). Regarding claim 1, Rosen teaches a molten carbonate fuel cell, comprising: a first separator plate 311; a cathode current collector 360 (P8.87; Fig. 9); a cathode 350, the cathode current collector 360 providing support between the first separator plate 311 and a first surface of the cathode 350, an open area of the first surface of the cathode comprising 45% or more, overlapping the claimed range of 40% or more of the total surface area of the first surface of the cathode (P8.26.87; Fig. 9); a second separator plate 310; an anode current collector 320; an anode 330 comprising a thickness of 0.30 mm or more and beginning-of-life porosity of 45% or more, the anode current collector 320 providing support between the second separator plate 310 and a first surface of the anode 330; and an electrolyte matrix 340 having an interface with a second surface of the cathode 330 and an interface with a second surface of the anode 350 (P8.87; Fig. 9). Rosen is silent in teaching the structure/composition of the anode, or the anode comprising a thickness of 0.30 mm or more and beginning-of-life porosity of 45% or more; however, Youn, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a molten carbonate fuel cell (P2-4). Youn teaches an anode with a porosity of 50% to 55%, falling within the claimed range of 45% or more, and a thickness of 0.29 mm to 1.01 mm, overlapping the claimed range of 0.30 mm or more, to maximize the electrochemical reaction of electrodes, an electrolyte and fuel gas, and have a uniform thickness without cracking and as examples of design standards for a typical molten carbonate fuel cell (P4.19.22-23.35.41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the anode of Rosen formed with a beginning of life porosity of 50% to 55%, and a thickness of 0.29 mm to 1.01 mm, as a reliable known structure for an anode that can have a uniform thickness and maximize reaction, as taught by Yoon. Given Rosens silence in the structure of the anode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Regarding claim 2, modified Rosin in view of Youn teaches the anode can be any thickness such as between 0.29 mm to 1.01 mm, overlapping the claimed range of 0.35 mm to 0.55 mm (P22). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Regarding claim 3, modified Rosin teaches the open area of the first surface of the cathode comprises 50% or more of the total surface area of the first surface of the cathode (P26) Regarding claim 4, modified Rosin teaches a distance from any point on the cathode surface to an open area on the cathode surface is 1.0 mm or less (P26). Regarding claim 5, modified Rosin teaches a contact area of the cathode current collector with the first surface of the cathode is greater than 10% of the total surface area of the first surface of the cathode (P31). Regarding claim 6, modified Rosin teaches an intermediate mesh layer between the cathode current collector and the first cathode surface, the cathode current collector providing support of the first surface of the cathode via the intermediate mesh layer (P65) Regarding claim 7, modified Rosin teaches the average cathode gas lateral diffusion length is 0.30 or less, falling within the claimed range of 0.35 mm or less (P26) Regarding claim 8, modified Rosin teaches the alkali carbonate electrolyte being at least partially contained in pores of the cathode (P88). Regarding claim 9, modified Rosin teaches a molten alkali carbonate electrolyte, the molten alkali carbonate electrolyte being at least partially contained in the electrolyte matrix (P9.45.88). Regarding claim 10, modified Rosin teaches an alkali carbonate electrolyte, wherein the alkali carbonate electrolyte comprises Na₂CO₃, Li₂CO₃, K₂CO₃, or a combination thereof (P45). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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 A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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. /Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 14, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603301
COMPONENT FOR SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586813
MANUFACTURING APPARATUS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567649
BATTERY MODULE AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12512506
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12512547
BATTERY UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+10.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 164 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month