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 .
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on July 26, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "111" and "112" have both been used to designate a gasket and a stopper, as depicted in Figures 6 and 7. 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.
In Figures 6 and 7, elements 111 and 112, respectively defined as gasket and stopper, point to the same portion of the solid oxide fuel cell, whereas in Figure 2, the gasket and stopper are shown as different elements. See paragraph [0038] of Applicants’ Specification.
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.
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.
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 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0274389, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Roh et al. teach a fuel cell stack (“solid oxide cell stack”) comprising an anode end plate including a manifold for allowing fuel to flow in and out (“first end plate having a flow path”), a cathode end plate including first and second plates (“second end plate including a lower region…and an upper region disposed on the lower region”), wherein the first and second plates each have a plurality of openings (“first through-hole”; “second through-hole”). See Figure 2 and paragraphs [0032]-[0035] of Roh et al., where plate 340 corresponds to "lower region disposed on the solid oxide cell and having a first through-hole" in claims, and plate 320 corresponds to "upper region disposed on the lower region and having a second through-hole".
Regarding claims 2 and 3, and further regarding claim 18, Figure 3 of Roh et al. teach a view of the aforementioned first and second plates, wherein opening 330 (“first through-hole”) is larger than hole 310 (“second through-hole”), and wherein multiple holes 310 are dispersed in plural through first hole 330. However, reversal of the first and second plates would result in a configuration such that hole 330 would be below hole 310, thus resulting in 330 being the second through-hole, and 310 being the first through-hole. In this configuration, the second through-hole has a width larger than that of the first through-hole, thus reading on claim 2. Further, reversal of these parts would result in configuration such that holes 310 (now first through-hole) are dispersed in plural through holes 330 (now second through-hole), thus reading on claims 3 and 18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the first and second plates disclosed in Roh et al., since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, and further regarding claim 18, first and second plates 340, 320 in Figure 2 of Roh et al. are shown to have pluralities of holes 330, 310, and Figures 3 and 4B depict embodiments in which the through-holes are dispersed in plurality.
Regarding claim 6, Figures 3 and 4B of Roh et al. depict holes 310 that are uniform in width.
Regarding claim 7, Figure 4A of Roh et al. depicts the inside of hole 330 dispersed perpendicular to current collector 150, and to membrane electrode assembly 100. However, reversal of plates 320 and 340 would result in hole 310 being dispersed perpendicular to current collector 150, and to membrane electrode assembly 100. See In re Einstein, supra.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Roh et al. teach, in paragraph [0036], that the thickness of the cathode end plate, comprising first and second plates, is of a thickness that “makes the compression further uniform and the influx of the air smooth”. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal thicknesses of these plates, and readily envision plates 320 and 340 as having the same thickness, or of one having a thickness greater than or equal to the other, as long as the overall thickness of the cathode end plate ensures uniform compression and maintains smooth influx of air.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Figure 1 of Roh et al. shows connectors 350 connecting plates 340 and 340. Roh et al. additionally teach that plate 340 can be formed from stainless steel or other metals, and that the second plate can be metal having an insulating coating, and that the connector may be a bolt and a nut including an insulating coating layer; see paragraphs [0035] and [0037]. In view of these teachings, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the connector to have a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than that of the cathode end plate, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Roh et al. teach a current collector 150 adjacent the first and second plates 340, 320; see Figures 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 16, Roh et al. teach gaskets 130 positioned between the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and the first current collector, and between the MEA and the second current collector; see paragraph [0031] and Figure 2 of Roh et al. Note that the MEA, the current collectors, and the gaskets are between the anode end plate 250 and the cathode end plate 300.
Regarding claim 17, Roh et al. teach an MEA comprising an electrolyte membrane, a cathode (“air electrode”), and an anode (“fuel electrode”), positioned between the anode end plate and the cathode end plate; see Figures 1 and 2 and paragraph [0025] of Roh et al.
Regarding claim 20, Roh et al. teach, in Figure 4A, hole 310 in plate 320, that exhibits a width that is constant in an upward direction. Reversal of plates 340 and 320 would result in hole 310 corresponding to the “first through-hole”, said hole exhibiting a width that is constant in an upward direction. See In re Einstein, supra.
Roh et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the width of the second through-hole increasing in an upward direction, as recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 19. See Figure 4A of Roh et al., where in plate 340, the width of hole 330 increases towards current collector 150. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to rearrange plate 340, for example, by inverting it so that the width of hole 330 increases towards plate 320, as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Additionally, Roh et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the presence of a singular “second end plate”, as recited in claims 1 and 18. Rather, Roh et al. teach cathode end plate 300 in Roh et al. depicted as plates 340 and 320. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to combine these plates to form one plate, thereby reading upon Applicants’ claim limitation “second end plate”, as recited in Applicants’ claims, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0274389, Applicants’ submitted art) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0009231, Applicants’ submitted art).
Roh et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claims 1 and 12, as discussed above. Roh et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 13 regarding the presence of a terminal portion connected to the current collector.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. teach a fuel cell stack comprising first and second end plates, current collectors, and a membrane electrode assembly (MEA), wherein the current collectors comprise terminals that can connect adjacent unit cells in series. See paragraph [0055] and Figure 4 of Kim et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the fuel cell stack of Roh et al. by adding terminals to the current collectors, as suggested by Kim et al., to facilitate connection of the fuel cell stack to another fuel cell stack in series.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0274389, Applicants’ submitted art) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Blackburn et al. (WO 2021/096828, Applicants’ submitted art).
Roh et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claims 1 and 12, as discussed above. Roh et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 14 regarding the presence of a ceramic coating somewhere within first and second end plates, and other than where the current collecting layer is disposed.
Regarding claim 14, Blackburn et al. teach a solid oxide fuel cell wherein components such as endplates may be coated with materials such as carbide ceramics. The solid oxide fuel cell comprises top and bottom endplates, one or more repeat units disposed between the top and bottom endplates, and a coating, wherein each repeat unit comprises a cell, an electrically conductive interconnect plate, and a seal disposed between the interconnect plate and the cell, and wherein the cell includes a cathode, a solid ceramic electrolyte, and an anode. The coating is disposed on the interconnect plate, the bottom endplate, and/or the top endplate, and may comprise, inter alia, a carbide ceramic or a nitride ceramic. See page 21, lines 6-19 of Blackburn et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the fuel cell stack of Roh et al. by incorporating therein a coating comprising a carbide ceramic or a nitride ceramic, as suggested by Blackburn et al., as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0274389, Applicants’ submitted art) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0074652, Applicants’ submitted art).
Roh et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claim 1, as discussed above. Roh et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 15 regarding the presence of a first end plate has a groove provided around the flow path, and a sealant disposed in the groove to cover a side surface of the solid oxide cell.
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al. teach a fuel cell stack comprising bipolar plates placed between membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs), and electric conductive end plates placed uppermost and lowermost of the fuel cell stack. One face of each of the electric conductive end plates contacts the MEA, and has the same structure as a face of the bipolar plate, which comprises a square electrode region where the MEA is placed, and a groove enclosing the electrode region, said groove being filled with a sealing material to form a sealing member to seal gaps between the bipolar plates. See Figures 7 and 8 and paragraphs [0068]-[0069] of Choi et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the fuel cell stack of Roh et al. by incorporating therein the conductive end plate having a structure having the same structure as a face of the bipolar plate, as suggested by Choi et al., to form a fuel cell stack that prevent fuel leakage. See paragraph [0029] of Choi et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Hara et al. (WO 02/45198).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732