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, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/6/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/6/25.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babu et al. (US 2021/0135248)
Regarding claim 1, Babu discloses a proton conduction fuel cell [0003], an anode support made of metal [0034] having a fuel flow channel (102), an anode (105) comprising an anode active material [0036] in contact with the anode support, a cathode support made of a metal [0034] having a cathode gas flow channel (104), a cathode (110) comprising a cathode active material [0038] in contact with the cathode support, and an electrolyte layer (125) comprising a first layer of electrolyte formed in a lock pattern (150 or 155) on the anode, and a second layer formed in a key pattern (150 or 155) on the cathode ([0040-0045] and [0077-0078]), the key pattern of the second layer received in the lock pattern of the first layer to form the electrolyte layer (Fig. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 2, please see Fig. 1B-C and 2B.
Regarding claim 3, please see Fig. 1B-C and 2B, [0046], and [0051].
Regarding claim 4, please see Fig. 1A-C and [0048].
Regarding claim 5, given the dimensions of the lock pattern and key pattern [0046], [0050-0053], Babu discloses a total surface area of the electrolyte in the first layer is greater than a total surface area of the electrolyte in the second layer.
Regarding claim 8, Babu discloses additional materials are present in the pattern of the first layer [0012], [0077-0078]. Given that there is no material as claimed, the examiner is taking the position that the additional material would correspond to the claimed adhesive. Alternatively, reference (130) corresponds to the claimed adhesive.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al. (US 2021/0399329).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Braun discloses a proton conduction fuel cell, comprising an anode support made of metal having a fuel flow channel, an anode comprising an anode active material in contact with the anode support, a cathode support made of a metal having a cathode gas flow channel, a cathode comprising a cathode active material in contact with the cathode support, and an electrolyte layer (Fig. 2A). Braun discloses that the electrolyte layer is doped perovskites with ABO3−δ, such as BCZYYb4411 [0065]. Braun discloses a cross-sectional of the sandwiched microstructure and morphology of the intergrowth of cathode, electrolyte, and anode of a single cell (Fig. 2B). Given that Braun discloses that the electrolyte layer is directly in contact between a cathode and an anode and comprises of microstructure with specific morphology (Fig. 2B: depicts PCFC layers are connected together by the intergrowth of proton conducting ceramic phases) as well as the exact material as claimed, Braun discloses a first layer of electrolyte formed in a lock pattern on the anode, and a second layer of the electrolyte formed in a key pattern on the cathode, the key pattern of the second layer received in the lock pattern of the first layer to form the electrolyte layer. The examiner contends that the interlocking of the morphology of the intergrowth of the ceramic microstructure of the electrolyte layer would corresponds of the receiving of the two patterns as claimed (Fig. 2B).
Furthermore, the limitation of two pattern layers of same material receiving and therefore interlocking to each other “to form the electrolyte layer”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). It appears that there is no structural difference between a whole ceramic electrolyte layer and the formation of two pattern layers of the same material interconnecting with each other to produce a whole electrolyte layer.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, please see Fig. 2B, wherein depicts phases comprises different widths, wherein one is larger than the other. With regards to surface areas, the examiner contends that different widths contribute to the surface areas, thereby Braun discloses the surface area of the first and second layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “cutouts”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). It appears that there is no structural difference between a whole ceramic electrolyte layer and the formation of two pattern layers of the same material interconnecting (align) with each other to produce a whole electrolyte layer.
Regarding claim 6, given that there is no material as claimed, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of the second layer of electrolyte or bottom stratum of the cathode would correspond to the claimed adhesive.
Regarding claim 8, given that there is no material as claimed, the examiner is taking the position that the bottom stratum of the first layer or upper stratum of the second layer would correspond to the claimed adhesive.
Regarding claim 11, Braun discloses surface roughness, thereby corresponds to the claimed surface irregularities (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 13, Braun discloses that there is surface roughness at the interface between the anode and the anode support (Fig. 2A-2B). The examiner is taking the position that the surface roughness at the interface corresponds to the claimed key and lock pattern. Given that the anode and the anode support are in direct contact to each other, Braun discloses that the support facing surface received in the lock pattern of the anode facing surface of the anode support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 2021/0399329) in view of Sala (US 10,422,044).
Regarding claims 6-7, Braun discloses a second layer of electrolyte and a cathode as set forth above, however, fails to explicitly disclose a silicate glass adhesive between the second layer of electrolyte and the cathode as presently claimed.
Sala discloses a fuel cell (col. 1, line 11) comprising electrolyte layer between an anode and a cathode (abstract). Sala discloses that there are four known types of electrolysers, wherein one of them is a solid electrolyte ceramic perovskite proton-conducting electrolysers (col. 1, lines 22-30). Sala discloses that it is advantageous that it is made of aluminosilicates, which is a silicate glass, as it prevents mechanical fragility of the cell unit as well as being inexpensive (col. 1, lines 42-46, 666-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braun’s electrolyte layer to include or be aluminosilicate, since Sala discloses that it prevents mechanical fragility and is inexpensive.
With regards to being adhesive, given that there is no material distinction between second layer of electrolyte and adhesive, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of Braun in view of Sala’s electrolyte layer would read upon the claimed silicate glass adhesive.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 2021/0399329).
Regarding claim 10, although Braun discloses an example of using BZY20-Ni as the anode active material [0065], Braun fails to explicitly disclose using BCZYYb4411. However, Braun discloses that the materials are not limited and discloses that BZY20 is functionally equivalent to that of BCZYYb4411 [0065]. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify BZY20-Ni to be of BCZYYb441-Ni, with reasonable expectation of success, and since Braun discloses that they are of functionally equivalent to each other. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Braun discloses surface roughness at the cathode facing surface, thereby corresponds to the claimed surface irregularities (Fig. 2B). Braun fails to explicitly disclose the cathode has a smaller surface area perpendicular to a stacking direction that the cathode support and the electrolyte layer, defining a perimeter space around the cathode.
However, Braun discloses that electrolyte-supported and/or cathode-supported may be of any suitable area or size [0065], which therefore would directly affect the cathode’s dimensions.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the overall dimension of the cathode and the electrolyte layer, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the dimensions of the overall fuel cell dimension on what the end use fuel cell was used for.
With regard to the claimed adhesive, given that there is no material as claimed, the examiner is taking the position that space around the cathode or outermost sidewalls of the cathode would corresponds to the claimed “adhesive”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785