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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2023 and 12/28/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katayama et. Al (JP 2019091584 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama teaches a solid oxide cell (Fig.5, the unit cell 110 can be a solid oxide fuel cell [0029], electrolysis single cell [0088], and other types of electrochemical reaction single cells [0007]) comprising: a fuel electrode ([0028], Fig. 5, fuel electrode 116) including: a porous metal body having pores (fuel electrode 116 is a porous layer [0031] which includes active layer 320 with Ni, a transition metal [0032], and pores (PO in Fig. 7) [0042]), and a barrier portion disposed in the pores of the porous metal body ([0032] and [0042], oxygen ion conductive material YSZ which is labeled Py in Fig. 7 are disposed in pores of active layer 320), wherein the barrier portion has a shape of at least one of a sheet shape and a flake shape (sheet-shape of YSZ which is labeled Py in Fig. 7); an air electrode ([0028], air electrode 114 in Fig. 5); and an electrolyte disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode ([0028], electrolyte layer 112 in Fig. 5). With respect to the barrier portion, the specification of the instant application does not define specific structural or compositional limitations for the barrier portion. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term “barrier portion” encompasses any structure or particle disposed in the pores that can function as a barrier. Under this interpretation, the YSZ particles (Py) disclosed by Katayama and shown in Fig. 7, which are disposed within the pores of the fuel electrode structure, reasonably correspond to the claimed barrier portion. Furthermore, regarding the shape limitation, the specification does not provide a detailed structural definition of “sheet shape” or “flake shape.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms encompass plate-like particles having a thin, extended morphology. As illustrated in Fig. 7 of Katayama, the YSZ particles (Py) exhibit plate-like or sheet-like structures, which correspond to sheet-shaped as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein the fuel electrode includes a plurality of barrier portions (the plurality of oxygen ion conductive material YSZ are illustrated in Fig. 7 which are labeled Py ).
Regarding claim 5, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein at least one of the plurality of barrier portions does not contact other barrier portions (Fig. 7 shows Py particles that are not in contact with each other).
Regarding claim 6, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein at least one of the plurality of barrier portions is spaced apart from a surface of the pores in the porous metal body (Fig. 7 shows at least one Py particle that is isolated from surrounding particles and, therefore, is spaced apart from a surface of the pores).
Regarding claim 7, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein at least one of the plurality of barrier portions is in contact with a surface of the pores in the porous metal body (Fig. 7 shows at least one Py particle that is in contact with a solid boundary that can define a pore, thereby contacting a surface of the pore).
Regarding claim 9, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein at least a portion of the plurality of barrier portions is in a form of a bent sheet (Fig. 7 shows different shape of Py particles such as a form of a bent sheet).
Regarding claim 12, Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein the porous metal body contains Ni ([0032]).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marinha et al. (Marinha et al. "Mixed-ionic and electronic conduction and stability of YSZ-graphene composites." Journal of the European Ceramic Society 39, no. 2-3 (2019): 389-395.).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama teaches a solid oxide cell (Fig.5, the unit cell 110 can be a solid oxide fuel cell [0029], electrolysis single cell [0088], and other types of electrochemical reaction single cells [0007]) comprising: a fuel electrode ([0028], Fig. 5, fuel electrode 116) including: a porous metal body having pores (fuel electrode 116 is a porous layer [0031] which includes active layer 320 with Ni, a transition metal [0032], and pores (PO in Fig. 7) [0042]), and a barrier portion disposed in the pores of the porous metal body ([0032] and [0042], oxygen ion conductive material YSZ which is labeled Py in Fig. 7 are disposed in pores of active layer 320), wherein the barrier portion has a shape of at least one of a sheet shape and a flake shape (sheet-shape of YSZ which is labeled Py in Fig. 7); an air electrode ([0028], air electrode 114 in Fig. 5); and an electrolyte disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode ([0028], electrolyte layer 112 in Fig. 5). With respect to the barrier portion, the specification of the instant application does not define specific structural or compositional limitations for the barrier portion. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term “barrier portion” encompasses any structure or particle disposed in the pores that can function as a barrier. Under this interpretation, the YSZ particles (Py) disclosed by Katayama and shown in Fig. 7, which are disposed within the pores of the fuel electrode structure, reasonably correspond to the claimed barrier portion. Furthermore, regarding the shape limitation, the specification does not provide a detailed structural definition of “sheet shape” or “flake shape.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms encompass plate-like particles having a thin, extended morphology. As illustrated in Fig. 7 of Katayama, the YSZ particles (Py) exhibit plate-like or sheet-like structures, which correspond to sheet-shaped as recited in the claim.
Furthermore regarding barrier portion, the specification of the instant application states that the barrier portion may be selected in consideration of the material transfer blocking function and electrical conductivity, and in the present embodiment, a conductor of a carbon material is used ([0035] of instant application). Thus, the claims reasonably encompass barrier portions containing carbon-based materials such as graphene. Katayama does not disclose that the barrier portion includes carbon. However, Marinha teaches composites of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) incorporating graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ improves mechanical and tribological properties and increases electrical conductivity of the composite material (p. 389, Introduction and p. 395, Conclusion). Marinha also explains that graphene may improve microstructural characteristics such as grain boundary behavior (Fig.2, first paragraph of page 391). Because graphene consists entirely of carbon, Marinha teaches a YSZ-based material incorporating carbon in the form of graphene nanoplatelets. Although Marinha is directed to ceramic composite materials and electrochemical applications, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in Katayama, namely improving the functional properties of YSZ-based materials used in electrochemical devices. In both references, YSZ materials are used in electrochemical systems and their functional properties are important for device performance. Accordingly, Marinha constitutes analogous art to Katayama, as it addresses improving the properties of YSZ materials used in electrochemical environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles of Katayama to include graphene (carbon) as taught by Marinha, in order to improve the electrical conductivity and functional properties of the YSZ barrier material (p. 389, Introduction; Fig.2, first paragraph of page 391; and p. 395, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. As stated above, Marinha teaches a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a conductor including carbon (page 389, last paragraph of Introduction). Marinha explicitly teaches a composite of Yttria-stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) incorporating graphene nano-platelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ increases the electronic conductivity of the material (p. 395, Conclusion). Because graphene consists entirely of carbon and function as an electrically conductive material, Marinha teaches a conductor including carbon within a YSZ-based material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles of Katayama to include graphene (carbon) as taught by Marinha in order to increase electronic conductivity (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 3, Katayama, as modified by Marinha teaches all claim limitations of claim 2 as stated above. As stated above, Marinha teaches the additional limitation that the conductor includes graphene. As discussed above, Marinha teaches a composite of Yttria-stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) incorporating graphene nano-platelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ increases the electronic conductivity of the material (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion). Marinha teaches a conductor including graphene within a YSZ-based material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles to include graphene as taught by Marinha in order to increase electronic conductivity (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 4, Katayama, as modified by Marinha teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein the fuel electrode includes a plurality of barrier portions (the plurality of oxygen ion conductive material YSZ are illustrated in Fig. 7 which are labeled Py ).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama, as modified by Marinha, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210159528 A1)
Regarding claim 8, modified Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Katayama fails to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein a portion of the plurality of barrier portions is sheet-shaped, and at least a portion of remaining barrier portions is flake-shaped. However, Kim discloses this limitation. Specifically, Kim discloses that graphene may be in the form of sheets, flakes, powders, and/or combinations thereof ([0027]). Kim further teaches that such graphene may be deposited via dispersion ([0027]) onto catalyst material layer 56. Additionally, Kim discloses that catalyst material layer 56 may comprise a metal such as Ni ([0031]). Accordingly, Kim expressly teaches sheet-shaped and flake-shaped graphene particles incorporated into a metal-containing layer. Kim further teaches that the addition of graphene-based material enhances electron transport due to increased conductivity of the catalyst layer ([0026]). Further, Katayamas, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the YSZ-graphene particles of modified Katayama, disposed in the metal body, to include the sheet-shaped and flake-shaped graphene structure as taught by Kim in order to enhance electron conductivity of the electrode structure ([0026]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama, as modified by Marinha, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suda et al. (US 20110111320 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Katayama fails to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor as an additional component distinct from the barrier and metal portion. Modified Katayama teaches YSZ-graphene as an oxygen-ion conductive material incorporated with graphene, which is interpreted as the barrier portion. To the extent that claim 10 requires that the fuel electrode further include an ion conductor in addition to the barrier and metal components, modified Katayama does not expressly disclose such an arrangement. However, Suda teaches that the fuel electrode may be formed from a mixture of metal catalysts (e.g., nickel) and ceramic powder material consisting of an ion conductor, or composite powder thereof. Suda further teaches that one or more such ion conductor ceramic materials may be used to enhance ionic conductivity [0042]. Further, modified Katayama, and Suda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solid oxide fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katayama’s fuel electrode, as modified by Marinha, to further include another ion conductor as taught by Suda in order to enhance ionic conductivity [0042].
Regarding claim 11, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Suda further teaches the additional limitation wherein the ion conductor includes a ceramic porous body disposed in the pores of the porous metal body. As discussed above, Suda teaches ceramic powder materials consisting of oxide-ion conductors [0042]. Suda further teaches performing a heat treatment to sinter the ceramic materials and obtain a desired dense or porous body [0082]. Thus, Suda expressly contemplates forming a porous ceramic body of an ion-conductive material within the fuel electrode structure in order to increase ionic conductivity [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katayama’s fuel electrode, as modified by Marinha, to further include a porous ceramic ion conductor as taught by Suda and to dispose the porous ceramic body within the pores of the porous metal body in a manner similar to modified Katayama’s disposition of YSZ within the porous structure, thereby enhancing ionic conductivity [0042].
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama, as modified by Marinha, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weimer et al. (US 20220127198 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Katayama teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Katayama fails to disclose a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion. However, Weimer teaches the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion ([0084]: Al2O3 coating on YSZ particle). Specifically, Weimer discloses coating YSZ particles with a thin film of alumina (Al₂O₃) using atomic layer deposition (ALD) to form a conformal coating on the particle surfaces ([0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2). Weimer explains that the ALD coating forms a uniform film on the surface of the YSZ particles, and that the coating may cover a large portion of the particle surface area ([0070]). Weimer further teaches that the deposited Al₂O₃ film remains present during and after sintering, , While Al₂O₃ material distributed at or near grain boundaries after sintering, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in [0080–0085]. Weimer further teaches the addition of small quantities of Al₂O₃ to YSZ alters the rate of YSZ grain growth ([0004]). Further, modified Katayama, and Weimer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solid oxide fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier portion of modified Katayama to include a protective alumina film on its surface as taught by Weimer, in order to improve material stability and controlling grain growth ([0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, teaches all claim limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Weimer further teaches an additional limitation wherein the protective film includes at least one of B and Al. As discussed above with respect to claim 13, Weimer teaches applying Al2O3 film onto YSZ particles to control grain growth ([0004], [0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2, Fig. 6). Specifically, Weimer discloses coating YSZ particles with a thin film of alumina (Al₂O₃) using atomic layer deposition (ALD) to form a conformal coating on the particle surfaces ([0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2). Weimer explains that the ALD coating forms a uniform film on the surface of the YSZ particles, and that the coating may cover a large portion of the particle surface area ([0070]). Weimer further teaches that the deposited Al₂O₃ film remains present during and after sintering, , While Al₂O₃ material distributed at or near grain boundaries after sintering, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in [0080–0085]. Weimer further teaches the addition of small quantities of Al₂O₃ to YSZ alters the rate of YSZ grain growth ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier portion of modified Katayama to include a protective alumina film on its surface as taught by Weimer, in order to improve material stability and controlling grain growth ([0004]).
Claims 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (JP 2019091584 A, citations from enclosed machine translation), and further in view of Marinha et al. (Marinha et al. "Mixed-ionic and electronic conduction and stability of YSZ-graphene composites." Journal of the European Ceramic Society 39, no. 2-3 (2019): 389-395.) and Weimer et al. (US 20220127198 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Katayama teaches a solid oxide cell (Fig.5, the unit cell 110 can be a solid oxide fuel cell [0029], electrolysis single cell [0088], and other types of electrochemical reaction single cells [0007]) comprising: a fuel electrode ([0028], Fig. 5, fuel electrode 116) including: a porous metal body having pores (fuel electrode 116 is a porous layer [0031] which includes active layer 320 with Ni, a transition metal [0032], and pores (PO in Fig. 7) [0042]), and a barrier portion disposed in the pores of the porous metal body ([0032] and [0042], oxygen ion conductive material YSZ which is labeled Py in Fig. 7 are disposed in pores of active layer 320); an air electrode ([0028], air electrode 114 in Fig. 5); and an electrolyte disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode ([0028], electrolyte layer 112 in Fig. 5). With respect to the barrier portion, the specification of the instant application does not define specific structural or compositional limitations for the barrier portion. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term “barrier portion” encompasses any structure or particle disposed in the pores that can function as a barrier. Under this interpretation, the YSZ particles (Py) disclosed by Katayama and shown in Fig. 7, which are disposed within the pores of the fuel electrode structure, reasonably correspond to the claimed barrier portion.
Furthermore regarding barrier portion, the specification of the instant application states that the barrier portion may be selected in consideration of the material transfer blocking function and electrical conductivity, and in the present embodiment, a conductor of a carbon material is used ([0035] of instant application). Thus, the claims reasonably encompass barrier portions containing carbon-based materials such as graphene. Katayama does not disclose that the barrier portion includes carbon. However, Marinha teaches composites of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) incorporating graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ improves mechanical and tribological properties and increases electrical conductivity of the composite material (p. 389, Introduction and p. 395, Conclusion). Marinha also explains that graphene may improve microstructural characteristics such as grain boundary behavior (Fig.2, first paragraph of page 391). Because graphene consists entirely of carbon, Marinha teaches a YSZ-based material incorporating carbon in the form of graphene nanoplatelets. Although Marinha is directed to ceramic composite materials and electrochemical applications, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in Katayama, namely improving the functional properties of YSZ-based materials used in electrochemical devices. In both references, YSZ materials are used in electrochemical systems and their functional properties are important for device performance. Accordingly, Marinha constitutes analogous art to Katayama, as it addresses improving the properties of YSZ materials used in electrochemical environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles of Katayama to include graphene (carbon) as taught by Marinha, in order to improve the electrical conductivity and functional properties of the YSZ barrier material (p. 389, Introduction; Fig.2, first paragraph of page 391; and p. 395, Conclusion).
Further regarding claim 15, although modified Katayama teaches a barrier portion, modified Katayama is silent regarding a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion. However, Weimer teaches the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion ([0084]: Al2O3 coating on YSZ particle). Specifically, Weimer discloses coating YSZ particles with a thin film of alumina (Al₂O₃) using atomic layer deposition (ALD) to form a conformal coating on the particle surfaces ([0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2). Weimer explains that the ALD coating forms a uniform film on the surface of the YSZ particles, and that the coating may cover a large portion of the particle surface area ([0070]). Weimer further teaches that the deposited Al₂O₃ film remains present during and after sintering, , While Al₂O₃ material distributed at or near grain boundaries after sintering, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in [0080–0085]. Weimer further teaches the addition of small quantities of Al₂O₃ to YSZ alters the rate of YSZ grain growth ([0004]). Further, modified Katayama, and Weimer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solid oxide fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier portion of modified Katayama to include a protective alumina film on its surface as taught by Weimer, in order to improve material stability and controlling grain growth ([0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. As stated above with respect to claim 15, Marinha discloses a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a conductor including carbon. Marinha explicitly teaches a composite of Yttria-stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) incorporating graphene nano-platelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ increases the electronic conductivity of the material (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion). Because graphene consists entirely of carbon and function as an electrically conductive material, Marinha teaches a conductor including carbon within a YSZ-based material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles of modified Katayama to include graphene (carbon) as taught by Marinha in order to increase electronic conductivity (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 17, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer teaches all claim limitations of claim 16 as stated above. As stated above with respect to claims 15 and 16, Marinha teaches an additional limitation that the conductor includes graphene. As discussed above, Marinha teaches a composite of YSZ incorporating graphene nano-platelets (GNPs) (page 390, first paragraph of Materials and methods). Marinha further teaches that the addition of graphene to YSZ increases the electronic conductivity of the material (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion). Marinha teaches a conductor including graphene within a YSZ-based material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier particles of modified Katayama to include graphene as taught by Marinha in order to increase electronic conductivity (p. 395, section 5, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 18, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein the barrier portion is spaced apart from a surface of the pores in the porous metal body (Fig. 7 shows at least one Py particle that is isolated from surrounding particles and, therefore, is spaced apart from a surface of the pores).
Regarding claim 21, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Weimer further teaches an additional limitation wherein the protective film includes at least one of B and Al. As discussed above with respect to claim 15, Weimer teaches applying Al2O3 film onto YSZ particles to control grain growth ([0004], [0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2, Fig. 6). Specifically, Weimer discloses coating YSZ particles with a thin film of alumina (Al₂O₃) using atomic layer deposition (ALD) to form a conformal coating on the particle surfaces ([0070–0071, 0076], and Fig. 2). Weimer explains that the ALD coating forms a uniform film on the surface of the YSZ particles, and that the coating may cover a large portion of the particle surface area ([0070]). Weimer further teaches that the deposited Al₂O₃ film remains present during and after sintering, , While Al₂O₃ material distributed at or near grain boundaries after sintering, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in [0080–0085]. Weimer further teaches the addition of small quantities of Al₂O₃ to YSZ alters the rate of YSZ grain growth ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the YSZ barrier portion of modified Katayama to include a protective alumina film on its surface as taught by Weimer, in order to improve material stability and controlling grain growth ([0004]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Suda et al. (US 20110111320 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Modified Katayama fails to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor as an additional component distinct from the barrier and metal portion. Modified Katayama teaches YSZ-graphene as an oxygen-ion conductive material incorporated with graphene, which is interpreted as the barrier portion. To the extent that claim 19 requires that the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor in addition to the barrier and metal components, modified Katayama does not expressly disclose such an arrangement. However, Suda teaches that the fuel electrode may be formed from a mixture of metal catalysts (e.g., nickel) and ceramic powder material consisting of an ion conductor, or composite powder thereof [0042]. Suda further teaches that one or more such ion conductor ceramic materials may be used to enhance ionic conductivity [0042]. Further, modified Katayamas, and Suda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solid oxide fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Katayama’s fuel electrode to further include another ion conductor as taught by Suda in order to enhance ionic conductivity [0042].
Regarding claim 20, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 19 as stated above. Suda further teaches an additional limitation wherein the ion conductor includes a ceramic porous body disposed in the pores of the porous metal body. As discussed above with respect to claim 19, Suda teaches ceramic powder materials consisting of oxide-ion conductors [0042]. Suda further teaches performing a heat treatment to sinter the ceramic materials and obtain a desired dense or porous body [0082]. Thus, Suda expressly contemplates forming a porous ceramic body of an ion-conductive material within the fuel electrode structure in order to increase ionic conductivity [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to improve modified Katayama’s fuel electrode to further include a porous ceramic ion conductor as taught by Suda and to dispose the porous ceramic body within the pores of the porous metal body in a manner similar to Katayama’s disposition of YSZ within the porous structure, thereby enhancing ionic conductivity [0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728