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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, “at least two of the plurality of slits” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “the plurality of slits comprises a plurality of first slits…and a plurality of second slits” in claim 2. It is unclear which “plurality of slits” claim 3 is referencing. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 9, “the plurality of slits” and “the plurality of first slits” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 are indefinite due to being dependent on claim 9.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to being dependent on claim 10.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonston et al. US 20220393219 A1 in view of Tomoshige et al. US 20160197359 A1 and in further view of Yasuo et al. US 6503650 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Edmonston et al. teaches a fuel supply control apparatus of an electro chemical cell represented by the stack 20. The stack 20 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A solid oxide cell represented by fuel cells 1 where in the “the fuel cells comprise solid oxide fuel cells” (Fig. 1C, [0021], claim 19).
A separator stacked on the solid oxide cell represented by interconnect 10 which “electrically connects adjacent fuel cells” (Fig. 1C, [0021-0022]).
The separator having a fuel inlet, a fuel outlet, and a plurality of fuel channels arranged between the fuel inlet and fuel inlet represented by “interconnect 10 may include the fuel channels 8A and fuel manifolds 28.” The fuel manifolds represent the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet as shown by Fig. 2B where “fuel flows from one of the fuel holes 22A into the adjacent manifold 28 through the fuel channels 8A. (Fig. 1C, Fig. 2B, [0026]).
Edmonston et al. fails to teach a fuel supply control plate stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell where in the fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits extending in a direction orthogonal to the fuel channels and arranged in a length direction of the fuel channels.
Tomoshige et al. teaches a fuel supply control plate stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell represented by fuel electrode layer 6 which is between the solid oxide electrolyte layer 7 and separator 5 (Fig. 2, [0047-0048]) where in “the fuel electrode layer 6 is provided with slits 6a constituting a fuel gas flow passage.” The fuel supply control plate stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell is beneficial to help distribute fuel as it enters the electrochemical cell. The fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits would merely represent obvious duplication of parts.
Tomoshige et al. does not teach the fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits extending in a direction orthogonal to the fuel channels and arranged in a length direction of the fuel channels.
Yasuo et al. teach the plurality of slits extending in a direction orthogonal to the fuel channels and arranged in a length direction of the fuel channels represented by “slits 121 and 124 are orthogonal to the anode channels 400” where in fuel flows in the anode channels 400 (pg. 16, par 4). The slits extending in a direction orthogonal to the fuel channels is beneficial to have a uniform distribution of fuel entering the electrochemical cell.
It would be have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. to incorporate the teaches of Tomoshige et al. and the teachings of Yasuo et al. to include a fuel supply control plate stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell with slits extending in a direction orthogonal to the fuel channels to help ensure an even and uniform distribution of fuel entering the electrochemical cell.
Regarding claim 8, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. further teaches the fuel channels arranged in a row between the fuel inlet and fuel outlet where in the fuel channels extend in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet represented by “interconnect 10 may include the fuel channels 8A and fuel manifolds 28.” The fuel manifolds represent the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet as shown by Fig. 2B where “fuel flows from one of the fuel holes 22A into the adjacent manifold 28 through the fuel channels 8A. (Edmonston Fig. 1C, Fig. 2B, [0026]). Figures 1C and 2B clearly show the fuel channels extending in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the fuel inlet and fuel outlet.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonston et al. US 20220393219 A1 in view of Tomoshige et al. US 20160197359 A1 and in further view of Yasuo et al. US 6503650 B1 and in further view of Yuan, Effect of inlet flow maldistribution in the stacking direction on the performance of a solid oxide fuel cell stack, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 185, Issue 1, 381-391 (2008).
Regarding claim 2, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. does not teach the plurality of slits comprising a plurality of first slits located near the fuel inlet and a plurality of second slits located far from the fuel inlet, wherein the plurality of first slits have a smaller width than the plurality of second slits.
However, Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about to 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). By locating the plurality of slits both near and far from the fuel inlet, as well as altering the width of the plurality of slits, the current invention is achieving a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. ). Therefore, it is beneficial to have the plurality of slits located in different positions with different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the plurality of first slits having a smaller width than the plurality of second slits is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et as al. with the teachings Yuan to make a plurality of slits located near the fuel inlet and a plurality of slits far from the fuel inlet, with the plurality of first slits having a smaller width than the plurality of second slits to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 3, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al and in further view of Yuan does not teach at least two of the plurality of slits having different widths.
However, Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). At least two of the plurality of slits having different widths will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to have different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the plurality of slits having different widths is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et as al. with the teachings Yuan to make at least two of the plurality of slits have different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 6, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. further teaches the plurality of slits extending in an arrangement direction of the fuel channels represented by “slits 121 and 124 are orthogonal to the anode channels 400” where in fuel flows in the anode channels 400 (Yasuo et al. pg. 16, par 4).
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. does not teach the plurality of slits extending to positions facing fuel channels disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels.
However, Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell close to 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). Positioning the plurality of slits extending to positions facing fuel channels disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to extend to positions facing fuel channels and be disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et as al. with the teachings Yuan to make the plurality of slits extend to positions facing fuel channels disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 9, Edmonston et al. teaches a fuel supply control apparatus of an electro chemical cell represented by the stack 20. The stack 20 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A solid oxide cell represented by fuel cells 1 where in the “the fuel cells comprise solid oxide fuel cells” (Fig. 1C, [0021], claim 19).
A separator stacked on the solid oxide cell represented by interconnect 10 which “electrically connects adjacent fuel cells” (Fig. 1C, [0021-0022]).
The separator having a fuel inlet, a fuel outlet, and a plurality of fuel channels arranged between the fuel inlet and fuel inlet represented by “interconnect 10 may include the fuel channels 8A and fuel manifolds 28.” The fuel manifolds represent the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet as shown by Fig. 2B where “fuel flows from one of the fuel holes 22A into the adjacent manifold 28 through the fuel channels 8A. (Fig. 1C, Fig. 2B, [0026]).
Edmonston et al. fails to teach the following:
A fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits arranged in a length direction of the fuel channels and stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell
The plurality of slits being configured such that each of the plurality of slits located close to the fuel inlet have a smaller width than each of the plurality of slits located far from the fuel inlet than the plurality of first slits.
Tomoshige et al. teaches a fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits arranged in a length direction of the fuel channels and stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell represented by fuel electrode layer 6 which is between the solid oxide electrolyte layer 7 and separator 5 (Fig. 2, [0047-0048]) where in “the fuel electrode layer 6 is provided with slits 6a constituting a fuel gas flow passage.” The fuel supply control plate stacked between the separator and the solid oxide cell is beneficial to help evenly distribute fuel as it enters the electrochemical cell. The fuel supply control plate having a plurality of slits would merely represent obvious duplication of parts.
Tomoshige et al. does not teach the plurality of slits being configured such that each of the plurality of slits located close to the fuel inlet have a smaller width than each of the plurality of slits located far from the fuel inlet than the plurality of first slits.
However, Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell close to 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). Configuring the plurality of slits such that each of the plurality of slits located close to the fuel inlet have a smaller width than each of the plurality of slits located far from the fuel inlet than the plurality of first slits would achieve non uniform inlet flow of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to have different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the plurality of slits having different widths is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. with the teachings of Tomoshige et al. and Yuan to have made the plurality of slits located close to the fuel inlet having a smaller width than each of the plurality of slits located far from the fuel inlet to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 11, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). Configuring at least two of the plurality of slits to have different widths would achieve non uniform inlet flow of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to have different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the plurality of slits having different widths is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made at least two of the plurality of slits having different widths to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 13, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches the plurality of slits extending in an arrangement direction of the fuel channels represented by “slits 121 and 124 are orthogonal to the anode channels 400” where in fuel flows in the anode channels 400 (Yasuo et al. pg. 16, par 4).
Yuan also teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell close to 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion). Positioning the plurality of slits extending to positions facing fuel channels disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to extend to positions facing fuel channels and be disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et as al. with the teachings Yuan to make the plurality of slits extend to positions facing fuel channels disposed at outermost positions among the fuel channels to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 14, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches the fuel channels arranged in a row between the fuel inlet and fuel outlet where in the fuel channels extend in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet represented by “interconnect 10 may include the fuel channels 8A and fuel manifolds 28.” The fuel manifolds represent the fuel inlet and the fuel outlet as shown by Fig. 2B where “fuel flows from one of the fuel holes 22A into the adjacent manifold 28 through the fuel channels 8A. (Edmonston Fig. 1C, Fig. 2B, [0026]). Figures 1C and 2B clearly show the fuel channels extending in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the fuel inlet and fuel outlet.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonston et al. US 20220393219 A1 in view of Tomoshige et al. US 20160197359 A1 and in further view of Yasuo et al. US 6503650 B1 and in further view of Yuan, Effect of inlet flow maldistribution in the stacking direction on the performance of a solid oxide fuel cell stack, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 185, Issue 1, 381-391 (2008) and in further view of Shimamune US 20020189936 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. does not teach the distance between each of the plurality of slits being gradually decreased in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet.
Shimamune teaches the distance between each slit can be variable represented by “the distance between each slit suitably is from about 10 to 40 cm” ([0022]).
Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion).
Gradually decreasing the distance between each of the plurality of slits will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to be spread apart unevenly to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Shimamune to gradually decrease the distance between each of the plurality of slits achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 5, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan and in further view of Shimamune teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan and in further view of Shimamune does not teach at least two of the distances between the plurality of slits being different.
However, Shimamune teaches the distance between each slit can be variable represented by “the distance between each slit suitably is from about 10 to 40 cm” ([0022]).
Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion).
Changing the distance between the plurality of slits will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to be spread apart unevenly to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Shimamune to make at least two of the distances between the plurality of slits being different achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 10, , Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan does not teach the distance between each of the plurality of slits being gradually decreased in a direction from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet.
Shimamune teaches the distance between each slit can be variable represented by “the distance between each slit suitably is from about 10 to 40 cm” ([0022]).
Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion).
Decreasing the distance between the plurality of slits from the fuel inlet to the fuel outlet will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to be spread apart unevenly to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Shimamune to make at least two of the distances between the plurality of slits being different achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Regarding claim 12, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan and in further view of Shimamune teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan and in further view of Shimamune does not teach at least two of the distances between the plurality of slits being different.
However, Shimamune teaches the distance between each slit can be variable represented by “the distance between each slit suitably is from about 10 to 40 cm” ([0022]).
Yuan teaches non uniform inlet flow of fuel can alter the average cell temperature and cell voltage of a solid oxide fuel cell by about 3 to 15%, respectively (Conclusion).
Changing the distance between the plurality of slits will result in a non-uniform inlet flow rate of fuel. Therefore, it is beneficial for the plurality of slits to be spread apart unevenly to achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Additionally, the courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size or proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Shimamune to make at least two of the distances between the plurality of slits being different achieve the desired cell temperature and cell voltage.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonston et al. US 20220393219 A1 in view of Tomoshige et al. US 20160197359 A1 and in further view of Yasuo et al. US 6503650 B1 and in further view of Yuan, Effect of inlet flow maldistribution in the stacking direction on the performance of a solid oxide fuel cell stack, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 185, Issue 1, 381-391 (2008) and in further view of Kaufman et al. US 4588661-A.
Regarding claim 7, Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al. and in further view of Yuan does not teach the plurality of slits having an equal length.
Kaufman et al. teaches the plurality of slits having an equal length represented by “slits 49 and 49a, preferably of equal width and length…” (Fig. 3, [14]). The slits having equal length is beneficial to ensure an even distribution of fuel.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edmonston et al. in view of Tomoshige et al. and in further view of Yasuo et al and in further view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Kaufman et al. to make the plurality of slits have an equal length to ensure even distribution of fuel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776