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 .
Drawings
Figures 2 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “108” has been used to designate both counterbores (pg. 14 line 27) and recess (pg. 16 line 17). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 108 (instant disclosure at least pg. 14 line 27 and pg. 16 line 17). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Independent claim 1 recites “…a plurality of sub-stacks placed in the internal volume, at least two of the sub-stacks being at least partially superimposed on one another…each lower face of an end plate in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks has one or more free surfaces which are not superimposed with a non-superimposing sub-stack and which are not in contact with a non-contacting sub-stack…”. The interpretations of a non-superimposing sub-stack and a non-contacting sub-stack is unclear and can be vast. For the purpose of compact prosecution, both a non-superimposing sub-stack and a non-contacting sub-stack will be interpreted as a sub-stack that is not in contact with a free surface of the end plate.
Claims 2-13 are objected to for depending on independent claim 1.
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, 3, 6-12, and14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki et al (JP 3066736 B2) in view of Ramisch et al. (US 2006/0131167).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki teaches a system configured for conditioning a plurality of sub-stacks of SOEC/SOFC-type solid oxide cells operating at a high temperature, jointly forming a modular stack of high-temperature SOEC/SOFC-type solid oxide cells (P3.12.18.20), each sub-stack including a plurality of electrochemical cells, the electrochemical cells including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte inserted between the cathode and the anode, and a plurality of intermediate interconnects, the intermediate interconnects being arranged between two adjacent electrochemical cells (Fig. 1-2), the system comprising:
a thermal enclosure, or pressure vessel 32, delimiting an internal volume (P18.25; Fig. 1);
a plurality of sub-stacks 1/2/21/22 placed in the internal volume, at least two of the sub-stacks being at least partially superimposed on one another, each of the sub-stacks having an upper face and a lower face (P16-18; Fig. 1.4);
a plurality of end plates, including upper bellows plate 23, intermediate plate 26, and support base 30, each of the sub-stacks 21/22 being arranged between an upper end plate and a lower end plate, each of the end plates having an upper face and a lower face, at least one of the upper and the lower face being in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks, an upper face surface of an end plate being of greater dimension than a lower face surface of a sub-stack, and a lower face surface of an end plate being of greater dimension than an upper face surface of a sub-stack such that each upper face and each lower face of an end plate in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks has one or more free surfaces which are not superimposed with a non-superimposing sub-stack and which are not in contact with a non-contacting sub-stack (P16-24; Fig. 1.4).
Hiroaki is silent in teaching a plurality of die-forming supports arranged on the one or more free surfaces of the upper faces of the end plates in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks, each die-forming support comprising a recess opening out onto die-forming support upper face opposite a free surface; a plurality of flexible elements, each of the flexible elements being arranged above a respective recess bearing on the die-forming support, on either side of the respective recess; a plurality of bearing elements arranged beneath the one or more free surfaces of the lower faces of the end plates in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks, each of the bearing elements being capable of coming into contact with at least one flexible element when conditioning the sub-stacks and of deforming it by penetration of at least one recess.
However, Ramisch, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a way of holding a cell stack in alignment, forming a support structure and housing for cells within a vessel during conditioning and pressurization (P7-8.23-29.33-34; Fig. 1).
Ramisch teaches teaching a plurality of die-forming supports, or frames 15/16/25/26 arranged on the one or more free surfaces of the upper faces of the end plates 21/22 in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks 4, each die-forming support 15/16/25/26 comprising a recess opening 15e/16e out onto die-forming support upper face opposite a free surface; a plurality of flexible elements, or compressible regions 15c/16c/25a/26a each of the flexible elements being arranged above a respective recess 15e/16e bearing on the die-forming support, on either side of the respective recess (P24.26.33-34; a plurality of bearing elements, or projection 15d/16d arranged beneath the one or more free surfaces of the lower faces of the end plates in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks 4, each of the bearing elements being capable of coming into contact with at least one flexible element when conditioning the sub-stacks and of deforming it by penetration of at least one recess 15e/16 to allow mechanical stabilization under all temperatures and to hold the cell stacks in place between end plates in various conditions (P.7-8.22-29.33-34; Fig. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of die-forming supports, as taught by Ramisch, arranged on the one or more free surfaces of the upper faces of the end plates in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks of Hiroaki, each die-forming support comprising a recess opening out onto die-forming support upper face opposite a free surface; a plurality of flexible elements, each of the flexible elements being arranged above a respective recess bearing on the die-forming support, on either side of the respective recess; a plurality of bearing elements arranged beneath the one or more free surfaces of the lower faces of the end plates in contact with at least one of the sub-stacks, each of the bearing elements being capable of coming into contact with at least one flexible element when conditioning the sub-stacks and of deforming it by penetration of at least one recess, to provide support for the cells in various conditions.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 3, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch teaches the flexible element takes the form of flexible strips, or as elastic compressible elements (P23-29; Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch teaches the die-forming supports are made of metal (P31).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hiroaki teaches a number of sub-stacks is in a range of from 2 to 20 (P24; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hiroaki teaches the modular stack is arranged between an upper main load distribution plate, or upper tightening plate 25 and a lower base plate, or lower tightening bellows 24 (P16-22; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, modified Hiroaki teaches the thermal enclosure consists of a thermal hearth forming a lower horizontal wall of the enclosure and upper horizontal wall and side walls together defining the internal volume (P18; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hiroaki teaches a force rod, or bolts 29 configured for applying a compressive force to the modular stack (P17.21-22; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11, modified Hiroaki teaches a method for clamping a plurality of sub-stacks of solid SOEC/SOFC-type oxide cells operating at a high temperature, forming a modular stack using the conditioning system of claim 1 (P3.12.18.20); Fig. 1), wherein in the method Ramisch of modified Hiroaki teaches exerting a vertical compression force on the sub-stacks with a force uptake through the flexible elements 15c/16c bearing on the die-forming supports 15/16 (P18-32; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch teaches each of the flexible elements is positioned on a counterbore, wherein the counterbore is interpreted as the second deepest section of the rigid elements 15b/16b (P22-31; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hiroaki teaches the thermal enclosure consists of a thermal hearth forming a lower horizontal wall of the enclosure and upper horizontal wall and side walls together defining the internal volume (P18; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hiroaki teaches a force rod, or bolts 29 configured for applying a compressive force to an upper main load distribution plate 25 of the modular stack (P17.21-22; Fig. 1)
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierport et al. (US 20040096716).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch is silent in teaching the recesses have a V-shaped cross-section; however, Pierport, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using a recess within a frame to join parts and form support outside of an assembly,
Pierport teaches using a V-shaped cross-section recess, while teaching any pattern known can be used, to form a seal of a frame outside of a MEA that creates a hard stop and electrical insulation preventing failure by better protecting membranes (P70.81.91-92; Fig. 3b).
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 recess of modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch formed with a V-shape cross-section to reduce chances of failure and as an obvious engineering choice, as taught by Pierport. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04 It is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch is silent in teaching the recesses have a V-shaped cross-section; however, Pierport, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using a recess within a frame to join parts and form support outside of an assembly,
Pierport teaches using a V-shaped cross-section recess, while teaching any pattern known can be used, to form a seal of a frame outside of a MEA that creates a hard stop and electrical insulation preventing failure by better protecting membranes (P70.81.91-92; Fig. 3b).
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 recess of modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch formed with a V-shape cross-section to reduce chances of failure and as an obvious engineering choice, as taught by Pierport. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04 It is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change.
With regards to the counterboring formation method, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. MPEP 2113
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Edmonston et al. (US 20160226093).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch is silent in teaching the one or more flexible elements associated with a first sub-stack have a first sub-stack thickness different from a second sub-stack thickness of the one or more flexible elements associated with a second sub-stack superimposed on the first sub-stack; however, Edmonston, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches compression and conditioning of a fuel cell (P7-10).
Edmonston teaches that the amount of compression and bending probability increases in a direction from the top to the bottom of a stack and to account for this by increasing the thickness of the bottom stack elements to reduce maximum bending of supporting plates (P107-110; Fig. 16-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to change the thickness of flexible elements associated with a first sub-stack relative to flexible elements associated with a second sub-stack to reduce the probability of bending dependent on the load distribution and bending deflection, as taught by Edmonston. Further, it is also well established that where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 5, modified Hiroaki in view of Ramisch is silent in teaching the first and second sub-stack thickness of the flexible elements increases from a top of the modular stack to a bottom of the modular stack, however, Edmonston, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches compression and conditioning of a fuel cell (P7-10).
Edmonston teaches that the amount of compression and bending probability increases in a direction from the top to the bottom of a stack and to account for this by increasing the thickness of the bottom stack elements to reduce maximum bending of supporting plates (P107-110; Fig. 16-17).
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 first and second sub-stack thickness of the flexible elements increases from a top of the modular stack to a bottom of the modular stack to reduce the probability of bending dependent on the load distribution and bending deflection, as taught by Edmonston. Further, it is also well established that where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change
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
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752