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 species claims [25+26] in the reply filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-24 and 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 10, 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on February 18, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN 202241008702 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herchen et al (US 2013/0129557).
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Herchen teaches a fuel cell interconnect (title) comprising an interconnect comprised of a chromium iron alloy preferably containing 94-96 wt% chromium (par. 20). Regarding claims 25 and further regarding claim 15, Herchen teaches embodiment wherein the Cr/Fe interconnect body includes Mn, Co, Cu, and Ni (par. 42). The interconnect 9 has an air side and a fuel side, including ribs 10 and flow channels 8 (par. 19 and Fig. 1). Herchen teaches that a combination of Mn and Co may aid in promoting the in situ formation of a protective barrier layer over at least one surface of the interconnect (par. 42). This is considered to encompass the air side of the interconnect. As such, the formation of such a protective layer upon at least the air side of the interconnect is considered to be prima facie obvious. Herchen further teaches that the protective barrier layer may include one or more chromium-transition metal oxide containing spinels (par. 42).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Herchen teaches that the spinels may contain Mn, Co, Cr, Cu, and/or Ni (par. 42).
Regarding claims 17 and 31-33, Herchen teaches the presence of an (Mn, Co3)O4 spinel or lanthanum strontium manganite (LSM) coating upon the air side of the interconnect (par. 40).
Regarding claim 19, Herchen does not require the protective coating to be present on the fuel side of the interconnect. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine optimal amounts of protective material, including the claimed amounts, to be contained on either side of the interconnect in order to achieve the desired or required level of protection.
Regarding claim 20, Herchen teaches that the interconnect 9 is part of a solid oxide fuel cell stack (par. 20, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732