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 2 – Claims 22-25 in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 have been canceled. New claims 26-41 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 May 2023 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 22, 26, 27 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer.
Claim 22 claims a method for fabricating an electrode for an electrochemical flow cell, the method comprising: fabricating the electrode as a monolithic structure via additive manufacturing, the additive manufacturing including a laser power bed fusion; and based on the fabricating, forming in the monolithic structure: a dense region with embedded flow channels; and a porous region in contact with the dense region, the porous region configured to interact with the embedded flow channels for distribution of a reactant for an electrochemical reaction through the porous region, wherein the fabricating includes using a metal that includes a catalyst for the electrochemical reaction.
Fleck discloses a redox flow battery with at least one cell and an electrode and method of forming a conductive pattern of a redox flow battery electrode element in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fleck teaches a porous electrode, Para[0014], with different density regions, Para[0015], produced by additive manufacturing, Para[0027]. This covers the additive manufacturing and dense/porous region limitations. Fleck also teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation. Fleck does not teach monolithic structure or a metal catalyst for the electrochemical reaction.
Greer discloses three-dimensional architected pyrolyzed electrodes for use in secondary batteries and methods of making three-dimensional architected electrodes in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Greer teaches that the fabricated 3D monolithic electrode may have great structural integrity, which can maintain the designed architecture from the fabrication even after battery operations, Para[0276]. Greer also discloses a nickel catalyst, Para[0257]. Greer teaches that these electrodes described herein have a combination of features and properties that are elusive in conventional electrodes, including, but not limited to, high strength, high deformability/ductility, large elastic limit, low weight, and low density, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monolithic structure and the nickel catalyst taught by Greer in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to achieve great structural integrity, high strength, high deformability/ductility, large elastic limit, low weight, and low density. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 26 further limits claim 22 by claiming that a density of the dense region is equal to, or greater than, 90%, and a density of the porous region is smaller than 90%.
While Fleck teaches different density regions, Para[0015], Fleck does not teach a specific density.
Greer teaches that the porosity of the structure is selected from the range of 10% to 95%. This overlaps with both the claimed range for the dense region and the claimed range for the porous region. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Greer discloses that the electrodes described herein have advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Generally, development of electrodes involves trade-offs among a number properties or features. In the case of lightweight electrodes, a challenge is the trade-off among density, strength, and stiffness. The electrodes described herein address these challenges via a combination of properties and features, such as low density and high strength, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the dense and porous regions disclosed by Fleck with the density taught by Greer in order to achieve advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 further limits claim 26 by claiming that the density of the porous region is in a range from 25% to 50%.
While Fleck teaches different density regions, Para[0015], Fleck does not teach a specific density.
Greer teaches that the porosity of the structure is selected from the range of 10% to 95%. This overlaps with both the claimed range for the dense region and the claimed range for the porous region. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Greer discloses that the electrodes described herein have advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Generally, development of electrodes involves trade-offs among a number properties or features. In the case of lightweight electrodes, a challenge is the trade-off among density, strength, and stiffness. The electrodes described herein address these challenges via a combination of properties and features, such as low density and high strength, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the dense and porous regions disclosed by Fleck with the density taught by Greer in order to achieve advantageous physical and mechanical properties. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 33 further limits claim 22 by claiming dense region flow channels having a serpentine, interdigitated, or pin-type flow field design.
Fleck does not specifically teach a flow field design with serpentine, interdigitated, or pin-type design.
Greer teaches that the electrode is an interdigitated electrode in said electrochemical cell, Para[0030]. Greer discloses that it is possible to make a 3D interdigitated full cell to have great energy and power density due to short ion-diffusion length in an electrolyte and a high active materials fraction, Para[0275]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the interdigitated design disclosed by Greer in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to have great energy and power density. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the forming further includes: forming in the porous region a plurality of sub-regions having different porosities.
Fleck teaches that in an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 34.
Claim 35 further limits claim 34 by claiming that a porosity of the porous region is provided by a porosity gradient.
Fleck teaches that in an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the conductive structure is formed by different density regions of the electrode. In other words, the electrode, which is in particular configured as a fleece, has a plurality of density regions, i.e. regions of different density. Adjacent density regions each have a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Different density regions make up a porosity gradient. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer covers all limitations of claim 35.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of US2019299290 of Kuhns.
Claim 23 further limits claim 22 by claiming adjusting one or more parameters of the laser power bed fusion that control a laser power, a scan speed, or a hatch spacing; and based on the adjusting, controlling a porosity of the porous region.
Fleck does not teach adjusting the laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing.
Kuhns discloses an additively manufactured non-uniform porous materials and components in-situ with fully material, and related methods, systems and computer program product in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kuhns teaches that the distance between scan lines can be increased to increase porosity or the laser power can be pulsed from higher to a lower power or on and off. These methods allow the user to set the laser parameters in the print control file and thereby control the porosity throughout the part, Para[0101]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the porosity of the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer by adjusting the laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing as taught by Kuhns. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Kuhns covers all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of CN106299383 (machine translation) of Zhang.
Claim 24 further limits claim 22 by claiming that an outer surface of the dense region distal the porous region has a shape of a dome.
Fleck does not teach a dome shape.
Zhang discloses a fuel cell module in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang teaches that since the original planar type membrane electrode is changed to a curved shape, the specific surface area of the membrane electrode is increased and the internal exchange reaction efficiency is improved, so that the practical use efficiency of the fuel cell module adopting the membrane electrode is improved, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dome or curve shaped electrode in order to increase the surface area of the electrode increasing efficiency. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 24.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of DE3812813 (machine translation) of Lemoine.
Claim 25 further limits claim 22 by claiming that an outer surface of the porous region distal the dense region has a ridged shape.
Fleck does not specifically teach a ridged shape.
Lemoine teaches a fuel cell working electrochemically in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lemoine teaches wave-shaped electrodes, Para[0009], equivalent to the claimed ridged shape. Lemoine discloses that the wave-like formation of electrodes and electrolyte results in high mechanical strength of the fuel cells, Para[0009]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the wave shape taught by Lemoine in the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer in order to achieve high mechanical strength. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Lemoine cover all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of JP2019216060 (machine translation) of Miyake and WO2012014768 (machine translation) of Sasaki.
Claim 28 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the dense region provides functionality of a flow field layer of the electrode, and the porous region provides combined functionalities of a gas diffusion layer and a catalyst layer of the electrode.
Fleck teaches that in conventional redox flow batteries, the electrolyte is pumped to or through the electrode by means of a so-called flow field (flow field). The flow field forms a conductive structure which is arranged as part of an electrode element on the electrode. Fleck does not teach a gas diffusion layer or a catalyst layer.
Miyake teaches a production method of coating liquid for forming fine porous layer of gas diffusion electrode in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Miyake teaches a structure consisting of a formed catalyst layer and a gas diffusion layer, and that the performance required of the gas diffusion electrode includes, for example, gas diffusion, conductivity for collecting electricity generated in the catalyst layer, and drainage for efficiently removing moisture generated on the surface of the catalyst layer. can give. In order to obtain such a gas diffusion electrode, generally, a conductive porous substrate having both gas diffusion ability and conductivity is used, Para[0002].
Sasake teaches an electrode for use in a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sasake discloses an electrode for a fuel cell having both functions of a gas diffusion layer and an electrode catalyst layer, Para[0001]. Sasake teaches that since the electrode for a fuel cell of the present invention also has the functions of a catalyst layer and a gas diffusion layer, it is not necessary to use a gas diffusion layer when forming a membrane electrode assembly. Therefore, when used for either one of the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, the gas diffusion layer can be omitted on the electrode side. As a result, the membrane electrode assembly can be made thinner, and as a result, the fuel cell stack can be made thinner and thinner, and the contact surface resistance can be reduced by omitting it further, Para[0030].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the porous region taught by Fleck and Greer as the gas diffusion layer and catalyst layer because the porous region would meet the requirement of the gas diffusion layer and catalyst layer as taught by Miyake and Sasake. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Miyake and Sasake cover all limitations of claim 28.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, further in view of JP2019216060 (machine translation) of Miyake and WO2012014768 (machine translation) of Sasaki, as cited above, further in view of US20190067706 of Liu.
Claim 29 further limits claim 28 by claiming that an entirety of a volume of the porous region contains catalytic surfaces provided by pores of the porous region.
Fleck does not teach catalytic surfaces.
Liu teaches carbon dioxide reduction electro catalysts prepared for metal organic frameworks in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liu teaches that the catalytic reactions generally take place on the surface and inside of the pores of the catalyst material. Highly porous catalysts, however, offer more catalytic surface area, therefore more overall catalytic activity. The microporosity of the catalyst will also elongate the carbon dioxide retention time inside of the pore, which could potentially alter the reaction paths and products, Para[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalytic surfaces as taught by Liu in the porous region taught by Fleck to offer more catalytic surface area. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Miyake, Sasaki, and Liu teach all limitations of claim 29.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of CN111508712 (machine translation) of Jia.
Claim 30 further limits claim 22 by further comprising: selectively etching at least a portion of the monolithic structure after the fabricating to increase a surface area of the catalyst.
Fleck does not teach etching.
Jia discloses a manufacturing method of powder sintered anode foil and anode foil in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jia teaches that in order to store electrical energy, etching processing technology is currently applied to both the anode and the cathode to form a concave-convex shape on the surface of the aluminum foil, thereby increasing the electrode area. Especially for the anode aluminum foil, the surface is etched to open countless tiny tunnel-like holes. The surface area can be expanded, Para[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the electrode as taught by Jia to increase the surface area of the electrode. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Jia covers all limitations of claim 30.
Claims 31, 32, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, further in view of US2019299290 of Kuhns, as cited above, further in view of WO2007117230 (machine translation) of Darling.
Claim 31 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region includes a first porous surface that contacts the dense region, and a second porous surface configured to contact a membrane of the electrochemical flow cell, and pores of the porous region include decreasing or increasing pore sizes between the first porous surface and the second porous surface.
Fleck teaches different adjacent density regions each having a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Fleck does not specifically teach an increase or decrease in pore size.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore size between porous surfaces as taught by Kuhns and Darling in the electrode taught by Fleck and Greer in order to regulate the flow of the fluid. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 31.
Claim 32 further limits claim 31 by claiming that the pore sizes increase in a direction of the first porous surface so as to provide flow of liquid from the second porous surface to the first porous surface via capillary action.
Fleck teaches different adjacent density regions each having a density that is different from one another, Para[0015]. Fleck does not specifically teach an increase in pore size or capillary action.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore size between porous surfaces as taught by Kuhns and Darling in the electrode taught by Fleck and Greer in order to regulate the flow of the fluid via capillary action. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 32.
Claim 41 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region is further configured to interact with the embedded flow channels for removal of a product produced by the electrochemical reaction.
Fleck teaches a porous electrode, Para[0014], with different density regions, Para[0015], produced by additive manufacturing, Para[0027]. This covers the additive manufacturing and dense/porous region limitations. Fleck also teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation.
Kuhns teaches that a benefit of this porous material is to provide a flow path for fluids from one location to another, with the pore size and density acting to regulate the flow of the fluid. A secondary function of this method is to control the stiffness, strength, density, or coefficient of thermal expansion of a material.
Darling teaches composite water management electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Darling discloses that Water retention and permeability of porous membranes is a complicated function of diameter of open or through voids and porosity, as described by a "Carman-Kozeny" equation, known in the art. One mechanism to significantly increase water retention and permeability of a porous membrane is to increase a pore size or diameter of open pores or voids within the membrane, Para[0016]. Darling also teaches that the composite electrolyte membrane serves as a water sink for product water generated at the cathode catalyst, while the finer pores closest to the anode catalyst will serve to draw the water by capillary action from the larger pores toward the smaller pores adjacent the anode catalyst to thereby facilitate hydration of the PEM adjacent the anode catalyst, Para[0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the flow channels as taught by Fleck to regulate the flow of the fluid as disclosed by Kuhns and Darling resulting in a removal of the product produced in the electrochemical reaction. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Kuhns, and Darling cover all limitations of claim 41.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of KR101267326 (machine translation) of Ihm.
Claim 36 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the forming further includes: forming cooling channels embedded within the dense region, the cooling channels forming one or more closed loops for flow of a working fluid.
Fleck teaches channels in which the electrolyte directly goes through, Para[0012]. This covers the embedded flow channels limitation. Fleck does not specifically teach cooling channels.
Ihm teaches a separator, manufacturing method thereof and fuel cell including the separator in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ihm teaches that a cooling channel may be formed on the back surface of the air electrode, or a cooling channel may be formed on the back surface of the fuel electrode. In addition, a cooling channel is formed at the back of the cathode and the backside of the anode to reduce the volume of the fuel cell stack, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cooling channels taught by Ihm in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to reduce the volume of the fuel cell. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Ihm covers all limitations of claim 36.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of US2019067706 of Liu.
Claim 37 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the electrode is a cathode for an electrolyzer and the electrochemical reaction is a CO2 reduction reaction, and the metal comprises one of: copper, a copper alloy, tin, lead, a tin-lead alloy, indium, or an alloy containing any one of the foregoing.
Fleck does not teach a CO2 reduction reaction or the metal.
Greer teaches that the active electrode carbon allotrope material is a composite comprising glassy carbon, pyrolytic carbon, graphitic carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination of these, and one or more additives selected from the group consisting of nickel, copper, cobalt, iron, silicon, germanium, tin, magnesium, aluminum, titanium, vanadium, chromium, zinc, molybdenum, antimony, phosphorous, and metal oxides, Para[0024], and that the electrodes described herein can have a wide range of geometries and configurations suitable for and advantageous for electrochemical cells. In addition to beneficial physical and mechanical embodiments noted above, these electrodes include low tortuosity, for example, Para[0025]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include copper or tin as taught by Greer in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to achieve beneficial physical and mechanical properties.
Liu teaches that embodiments described herein relate generally to the synthesis and fabrication of MOF based electro-catalysts with highly porous frameworks. Such a set of electrocatalysts can be used as catalysts for carbon dioxide reduction reactions (CRR), Para[0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electrode disclosed by Fleck and Greer in an electrolyzer with a CO2 reduction reaction as taught by Liu.
Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Liu cover all limitations of claim 37.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer, as cited above, further in view of CN112242546 (machine translation) of Song.
Claim 38 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the porous region has a thickness in a range from 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers.
Fleck does not teach a thickness of the porous region.
Song teaches metal-supported self-sealing solid oxide fuel cell/electrolytic cell based on additive manufacturing and galvanic pile in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Song teaches that the thickness of the dense metal body is not less than 0.3 mm (300 micrometers), and the thickness of the porous metal body is not less than 0.1 mm (100 micrometers), Para[0080]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Song teaches that the inventor found that within the above-mentioned structural size range, the fabricated battery structure can be better achieved without collapse and sufficient supporting force, Para[0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of the porous region as taught by Song in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to provide sufficient support of the structure. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Song cover all limitations of claim 38.
Claim 39 further limits claim 22 by claiming that the dense region has a thickness in a range from 2 millimeters to 1 centimeter.
Fleck does not teach a thickness of the dense region.
Song teaches metal-supported self-sealing solid oxide fuel cell/electrolytic cell based on additive manufacturing and galvanic pile in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Song teaches that the thickness of the dense metal body is not less than 0.3 mm (300 micrometers), and the thickness of the porous metal body is not less than 0.1 mm (100 micrometers), Para[0080]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Song teaches that the inventor found that within the above-mentioned structural size range, the fabricated battery structure can be better achieved without collapse and sufficient supporting force, Para[0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of the dense region as taught by Song in the electrode taught by Fleck in order to provide sufficient support of the structure. Thus, Fleck in view of Greer and Song cover all limitations of claim 39.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3534448 (machine translation) of Fleck in view of US2019103600 of Greer and CN106299383 (machine translation) of Zhang, as cited above, further in view of US2011186582 of Whitaker.
Claim 40 further limits claim 24 by claiming forming dense capping regions laterally surrounding the porous region so as to contain reactants and products within an active area of the electrode.
While Fleck teaches different density regions to control the flow of the fluid, Para[0015], Fleck does not specifically teach a capping region.
Whitaker teaches a nanolaminate-reinforced metal composite tank material and design for storage of flammable and combustible fluids in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Whitaker teaches that a dense layer of the compositionally modulated material, referred to as the capping layer is further applied to the exterior of the substrate to close off the accessible pore structure, Para[0064] . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the capping of a porous region with a dense region as taught by Whitaker in the electrode disclosed by Fleck in order to close off the accessible pore structure. Thus, Fleck, Greer, Zhang, and Whitaker cover all limitations of claim 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights