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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 21 are amended while claims 10 and 19 have been cancelled. New claims 22 and 23 have been added. Support for amended and new claims can be found in original claims and paragraphs [0041], and [0044] of specification; thus, claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-23 are pending and are examined under prior art on their merits below. Of these, claims 1 and 15 are independent, and the remainder are dependent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to independent claim 1 rejection under 35 USC 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of the prior Office Action relying on Katayama. However, a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 relying on Katayama in view of Marinha, Weimer, and Suda (see citations above) is made in light of the claim amendments filed on 06/22/2026.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks at page 6, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to independent claims 1 and 15, particularly the limitation of, “at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of applied references would not have sufficiently guided one of ordinary skill in the art to a barrier portion that has spaces apart from the ion conductor as recited in claims 1 and 15. However, the applied combination of Katayama, Marinha, Weimer, and Suda teaches or renders obvious this limitation.
The rejection relies on Katayama as modified by Marinha for a porous metal body having pores, and a barrier portion comprising a YSZ-based material incorporating carbon in the form of graphene nanoplatelets; the barrier portion being disposed in the pores of the porous metal body. Weimer teaches a protective Al2O3 film covering a large portion of the barrier portion surface area, and Suda teaches an ion conductor. In the proposed combination, the protective Al2O3 film is distinct from the barrier portion and is interposed between at least a portion of the barrier portion and the ion conductor of Suda. Accordingly, the intervening Al2O3 film physically separates that portion of the barrier portion from the ion conductor. Thus, at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor, as recited in claims 1, and 15 (see citations below).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-7, 9, 11-18, 20-22 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.), Weimer et al. (US 20220127198 A1), and Suda et al. (US 20110111320 A1).
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 selected from the group consisting 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).
Furthermore, regarding barrier portion, the specification of the instant application states that the barrier portion may further include a protective film formed on the surface thereof; the protected film may be formed of a metal of B or Al or an oxide of B or Al (see [0041] of specification). Thus, because the claim recites that the fuel electrode includes a barrier portion, and the specification contemplates a protective film disposed on the surface of the barrier portion, it would have been reasonable for the barrier portion comprising YSZ and graphene to further include an Al2O3 protective film disposed on a surface thereof. Katayama, as modified by Marinha, does not disclose that the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion.
However, 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 modified YSZ barrier portion of 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]).
Further regarding claim 1, Katayama, as modified by Marinha and Weimer, does not teach that the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor, and at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor. Modified Katayama teaches YSZ-based oxygen-ion conductive material incorporating graphene, which is interpreted as the barrier portion, and an Al2O3 protective layer disposed on the surface of a barrier portion.
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]. In the proposed combination of modified Katayama, Weimer, and Suda, the protective Al2O3 film is distinct from the barrier portion and is disposed on a surface thereof. Thus, where Suda’s ion conductor is provided adjacent to the Al2O3-coated surface of the barrier portion, the Al2O3 protective film is interposed between at least a portion of the barrier portion and the ion conductor of Suda. Accordingly, the intervening Al2O3 film physically separates that portion of the barrier portion from the ion conductor. Thus, at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor, as recited in claims 1.
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], with the ion conductor disposed adjacent to the Al2O3-coated surface of the barrier portion, such that the intervening Al2O3 protective film spaces at least a portion of the barrier portion apart from the ion conductor.
Regarding claim 2, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Marinha further teaches a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a conductor including carbon (page 389, last paragraph of Introduction).
As stated 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, 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 3, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Marinha further teaches a limitation wherein 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, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all 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, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all 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, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all 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, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all 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, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all 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 11, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Suda further teaches a 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 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 the 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 modified Katayama’s disposition of YSZ within the porous structure, thereby enhancing ionic conductivity [0042].
Regarding claim 12, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Katayama further teaches a limitation wherein the porous metal body contains Ni ([0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weimer further discloses a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion.
As discussed above, 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]).
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, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Weimer further teaches a limitation wherein the protective film includes at least one selected from the group consisting 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]).
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, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, does not teach that the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor and the barrier portion includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the barrier portion, and at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor.
Regarding the protective film limitation, 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 modified YSZ barrier portion of 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]).
Further regarding claim 15, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, and Weimer, does not teach that the fuel electrode further includes an ion conductor, and at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor. Modified Katayama teaches YSZ-based oxygen-ion conductive material incorporating graphene, which is interpreted as the barrier portion, and an Al2O3 protective layer disposed on the surface of a barrier portion.
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]. In the proposed combination of modified Katayama, Weimer, and Suda, the protective Al2O3 film is distinct from the barrier portion and is disposed on a surface thereof. Thus, where Suda’s ion conductor is provided adjacent to the Al2O3-coated surface of the barrier portion, the Al2O3 protective film is interposed between at least a portion of the barrier portion and the ion conductor of Suda. Accordingly, the intervening Al2O3 film physically separates that portion of the barrier portion from the ion conductor. Thus, at least a portion of the barrier portion is spaced apart from the ion conductor, as recited in claims 15.
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], with the ion conductor disposed adjacent to the Al2O3-coated surface of the barrier portion, such that the intervening Al2O3 protective film spaces at least a portion of the barrier portion apart from the ion conductor.
Regarding claim 16, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Marinha further discloses a limitation wherein the barrier portion includes a conductor including carbon.
As discussed with respect to claim 15, 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). 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, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Marinha further teaches a limitation wherein 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, Weimer, and Suda, 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 20, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Suda further teaches a 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 15, 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].
Regarding claim 21, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Weimer further teaches a limitation wherein the protective film includes at least one selected from the group consisting 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]).
Regarding claim 22, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Suda further teaches a limitation wherein the ion conductor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of gadolinia doped ceria (GDC), samaria doped ceria (SDC), ytterbia doped ceria (YDC), scandia stabilized zirconia (SSZ), and ytterbia ceria scandia stabilized zirconia (YbCSSZ).
As discussed above, Suda teaches the use of one or more ion conductive ceramic materials in the fuel electrode to enhance ionic conductivity [0042]. Suda further teaches that oxide-ion conductors having fluorite-type structure may be used as the ion conductor and specifically teaches ceria oxides doped with samarium or gadolinium and zirconia oxides doped with scandium or yttrium and the like ([0039, 0042]). The disclosed ceria oxides doped with gadolinium correspond to the claimed GDC; the disclosed ceria oxides doped with samarium correspond to the claimed SDC; and the disclosed zirconia oxides doped with scandium corresponds to the claimed SSZ.
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 modified Katayama’s fuel electrode, to include ion conductor corresponding to GDC, SDC, or SSZ, as taught by Suda to enhance ionic conductivity of the fuel electrode [0042].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210159528 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Katayama, as modified by Marinha, Weimer, and Suda, 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, modified Katayama, 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the limitation of claim 23, requiring that “the protective film includes an oxide of B”. Weimer teaches an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) protective film on the barrier portion. Although boron and aluminum are both Group 13 elements, their respective oxides, B2O3 and Al2O3, exhibit substantially different properties. Accordingly, the mere placement of boron and aluminum in the same group of the periodic table would not have provided sufficient reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute B2O3 for the Al2O3 taught by Weimer.
Furthermore, no other relevant prior art, either alone or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed protective film including an oxide of B. Therefore, claim 23 is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights