DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the surface of the porous metal foam, which is opposite to the surface in contact with the solid oxide.” It’s not clear if, or how, the surface “which is opposite” is different than the previously recited surface that contacts the solid oxide. It appears applicant is using the same to refer to two different surfaces.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the protective layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is viewing this a typographical error in which the applicant intended to limit “the protective film”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraiwa et al. (US 20180205095 A1) in view of Fu et al. US (20180358629 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiraiwa discloses a solid oxide cell stack comprising (para 29, fig.1 “fuel cell 10”): first and second interconnects (para 29, fig 1, “interconnector 3a and 3b”); a solid oxide cell 1 disposed between the first and second interconnects (para 29-30, fig 1); and a porous metal foam 2a/2b between the first interconnect and the solid oxide cell (para 29 fig. 1 “a porous metal body”).
Hiraiwa fails to disclose porous metal foam which includes a carbon nanostructure on a surface of the porous metal foam.
Fu et al. discloses porous metal foam 110 which includes a carbon nanostructure 120 on a surface of the porous metal foam (para 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the solid oxide cell stack of Hiraiwa such that the porous metal foam includes a carbon nanostructure on a surface of the porous metal foam as disclosed by Fu above as doing such increases the mechanical strength and toughness of the fuel stack (para 23).
Regarding claim 2, Fu discloses carbon nanostructure includes at least one of carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers (para 29).
Regarding claim 3, Fu discloses porous metal foam comprises the carbon nanostructure on the surface of the porous metal foam (fig 5, 7, para 28-29). Since the carbon structure is on the surface of the porous metal foam, in the modified cell stack the nanostructure will be in contact with solid oxide.
Regarding claim 4, Fu discloses the number and placement of the carbon nanostructures can be varied as required by the design specifications (para 49-53). The metallic foam has a finite number of surfaces, and choice of the specific surface onto which the carbon nanotube structure is placed is a design within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the carbon nanostructure to be on the surface of the porous metal foam, opposite to the porous metal foam surface in contact with the solid oxide as such has a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Fu discloses the porous metal foam comprises the carbon nanostructure on the surface and an entire interior of the porous metal foam (para 29).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Fu discloses the carbon nanostructure is disposed perpendicular to the surface of the porous metal foam and the carbon nanostructure is disposed in a random direction with respect to the surface of the porous metal foam. (para 52 and 53).
Regarding claim 8, Hiraiwa discloses the porous metal foam includes Ni (para 53).
Regarding claim 10, Hiraiwa discloses the solid oxide cell includes a fuel electrode and an air electrode (para 29, “anode 1a” and “cathode 1c”), and an electrolyte disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode, and the fuel electrode is disposed on a surface of the electrolyte closer to the first interconnect, and the air electrode is disposed at the second interconnect side (para 29 and fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, Hiraiwa discloses the porous metal foam is referred to as a first porous metal foam, a second porous metal foam disposed between the second interconnect and the solid oxide cell (para 32).
Regarding claim 12, Hiraiwa discloses the second porous metal foam includes a Cu alloy (para 53 and para 62).
Regarding claim 13, Hiraiwa discloses the solid oxide cell stack further comprising: first and second end plates, wherein the first and second interconnects, the solid oxide cell, and the porous metal foam are disposed between the first and second end plates (fig. 5 “a plate member 23A and 23B”).
Regarding claim 14, Hiraiwa discloses the solid oxide cell stack has a structure in which the first interconnect, the porous metal foam, the solid oxide cell, and the second interconnect are sequentially and repeatedly formed two or more times in a direction oriented from the first end plate to the second end plate (para 38).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraiwa et al. (US 20180205095 A1) and Fu et al. US (20180358629 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gasda et al. (US 2022/0278341 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hiraiwa discloses the porous metal foam is an elastic body (para 40, “porous metal bodies that can be used include “Aluminum CELMET”).
Hiraiwa does not explicitly disclose the porous metal foam is compressed by the first interconnect and the solid oxide cell.
Gasda discloses the porous metal foam is compressed by the first interconnect and the solid oxide cell (para 35 “compression assembly 306 may apply pressure to the stack”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the solid oxide cell stack of Hiraiwa and Fu such that the porous metal foam is compressed by the first interconnect and the solid oxide cell as disclosed by Gasda above as doing such maintains pressure (para 35).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraiwa et al. (US 20180205095 A1) and Fu et al. US (20180358629 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018-0212256).
Regarding claim 15, Hiraiwa and Fu fail to disclose the porous metal foam further includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the carbon nanostructure. Lee discloses a protective film disposed on a surface of a carbon nanostructure (claim 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the solid oxide cell stack of Hiraiwa and Fu such that the porous metal foam further includes a protective film disposed on a surface of the carbon nanostructure.as disclosed by Lee above as doing such prevents side reactions in the fuel stack (claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the side reaction prevention layer includes at least one of B or Al (claim 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US 20130171496 A1) discloses current collector with a carbon nanotube layer consisting of a plurality of carbon nanotubes (para 29-31).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746