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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 24, 2023, and January 16, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 18-20 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.
7. Claims 18-20 recites the limitation "the solid oxide cell" in the preamble of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furukawa et al. (US 2007/0138446 A1).
With regard to Claim 17, Furukawa et al. disclose an electron conductor comprising an electron conductive particle of Ni powder including a body having an outer surface, and a plurality of protrusions, called stabber-shaped projections, extending from a surface of the body, wherein at least one of the plurality of protrusion has a shape that tapers from a boundary between the body and the protrusions in a direction toward away from the body, the stabber-shaped projections being formed like quadrangular pyramids, circular cones, etc. (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0062).
With regard to Claims 18-19, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein when a diameter D of the body is 0.1-10 µm, and a height H of at least one of the plurality of protrusions is lower than a quarter (1/4) of the particle diameter (paragraphs 0010-0013) or lower than 25% of the particle diameter, thereby making H 10% or more of D, more specifically meeting the claimed limitation of H being 10% or more and 50% or less of D.
With regard to Claim 20, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein a height of at least one of the plurality of protrusions is lower than a quarter of the particle diameter, calculating it to be lower than 0.025-2.5 µm (paragraphs 0010-0013), thereby meeting the claimed limitation of 50 nm to 1 µm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada et al. (WO 2011/036729 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2007/0138446 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Osada et al. disclose a solid oxide cell comprising: a fuel electrode (12); an air/oxygen electrode (13); and an electrolyte (11) disposed between the fuel electrode (12) and the air electrode (13), wherein the fuel electrode (12) includes an electron-ion mixed conductive particles (16) and Ni particles-supported aluminum composite oxides (17) (paragraphs (0004, 0011-0016). Osada et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the electron conductive particle includes a body and a plurality of protrusions extending from a surface of the body and having a shape that tapers from a boundary between the body and the protrusions in a direction toward away from the body.
Furukawa et al. disclose an electron conductor comprising an electron conductive particle of Ni powder including a body having an outer surface, and a plurality of protrusions, called stabber-shaped projections, extending from a surface of the body, wherein at least one of the plurality of protrusion has a shape that tapers from a boundary between the body and the protrusions in a direction toward away from the body, the stabber-shaped projections being formed like quadrangular pyramids, circular cones, etc. (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0062). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electron conductive particle in the solid oxide fuel cell of Osada et al. to include a body and a plurality of protrusions extending from a surface of the body and having a shape that tapers from a boundary between the body and the protrusions in a direction toward away from the body, because Furukawa et al. teach that this configuration improves the electrical conductivity of the composite material (paragraph 0031).
With regard to Claim 2, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein the body is spherical (paragraphs 0002-0004, 0062).
With regard to Claims 3-4, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein when a diameter D of the body is 0.1-10 µm, and a height H of at least one of the plurality of protrusions is lower than a quarter (1/4) of the particle diameter (paragraphs 0010-0013) or lower than 25% of the particle diameter, thereby making H 10% or more of D, more specifically meeting the claimed limitation of H being 10% or more and 50% or less of D.
With regard to Claim 5, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein a height of at least one of the plurality of protrusions is lower than a quarter of the particle diameter, calculating it to be lower than 0.025-2.5 µm (paragraphs 0010-0013), thereby meeting the claimed limitation of 50 nm to 1 µm.
With regard to Claim 6, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of protrusions has a conical shape, the stabber-shaped projections being formed like quadrangular pyramids, circular cones, etc. (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0062).
With regard to Claim 7, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of protrusions does not have a vertex , the stabber-shaped projections being formed like quadrangular pyramids, circular cones, etc. (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0062).
With regard to Claim 8, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of protrusion has a top having a flat or curved shape, the stabber-shaped projections being formed like quadrangular pyramids, circular cones, etc. (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0062).
With regard to Claim 9, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein in the electron conductive particle, at least two of the plurality of protrusions have different heights (paragraphs 0010-0013, 0053).
With regard to Claim 10, Furukawa et al. disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of protrusions in the electron conductive particle are inherently spaced apart from each other (paragraphs 0010-0013, 005, 0062).
With regard to Claim 11, Osada et al. disclose wherein the fuel electrode (12) includes a plurality of the electron-ion mixed conductive particles (16), and Ni particle-supported aluminum composite oxides (17) having aluminum composite oxides and a plurality of Ni particles forming aggregates with each other (paragraphs 0013-0014).
With regard to Claim 12, Osada et al. disclose wherein the electron conductive particle includes Ni (paragraphs 0011-0016).
With regard to Claims 13-14, Osada et al. disclose wherein the fuel electrode (12) further includes an ion conductor (16), wherein the ion conductor includes at least one of gadolinia doped ceria (GDC), samaria doped ceria (SDC), ytterbia doped ceria (YDC) (paragraph 0016).
With regard to Claims 15-16, Osada et al. disclose wherein the ion conductor (16) is inherently in contact with an end of the protrusion and inherently fills at least a portion of a space between adjacent protrusions among the plurality of protrusions since the ion conductor can be contacted with the Ni particle-supported aluminum oxides (17) (paragraphs 0011-0015, See Figures 1-2).
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725