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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, I, and Z, in the reply filed on 5/18/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 12 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species. Currently, claim 1 is generic / linking for all species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP2005285451A machine translation (Muranaka).
Muranaka teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A solid oxide cell (paragraph 26; figures 2A & 2B: solid oxide fuel cell) comprising:
a fuel electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: fuel electrode 12);
an air electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: air electrode 11); and
an electrolyte (paragraphs 27 & 29; figures 1-2B: electrolyte membrane 1) disposed between (figures 2A & 2B) the fuel electrode (12) and the air electrode (11) and including a plurality of rods (paragraph 27; figures 1-2B: columnar crystals 4),
wherein at least one of the fuel electrode (12) or the air electrode (11) is disposed along surfaces (paragraphs 29 & 68; figures 2A & 2B) of the plurality of rods (4)
With regard to claim 2, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Muranaka also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the plurality of rods are regularly arranged in columns and rows (figure 3)
With regard to claim 4-6 & 8-9, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Muranaka also teaches the following limitations of claims 4-6:
Claim 4
the electrolyte (1) includes a base layer (paragraph 27; figures 2A & 2B: base portion 2) having a first surface and a second surface (Figure A & Figure B below) positioned on respective sides of the fuel electrode (12) and the air electrode (11), and the plurality of rods (4) are disposed on at least one of the first surface (Figure A below) or the second surface (Figure B below) of the base layer (2)
Claim 5
the plurality of rods (4) are disposed on the first surface (Figure A below) of the base layer (2), and the fuel electrode (12) is disposed along surfaces (Figure A below) of the base layer (2) and the plurality of rods (4)
Claim 6
a surface of the fuel electrode (12) has an irregular shape (Figure A below)
Claim 8
the plurality of rods (4) are disposed on the second surface (Figure B below) of the base layer (2), and the air electrode (11) is disposed along surfaces (Figure B below) of the base layer (2) and the plurality of rods (4)
Claim 9
a surface of the air electrode (11) has an irregular shape (Figure B below)
Figure A: Annotated Muranaka Figure 2A
PNG
media_image1.png
568
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Annotated Muranaka Figure 2B
PNG
media_image2.png
558
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 7 & 10, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 8 as discussed above. Claims 7 & 10 state:
Claim 7
the fuel electrode (12) does not include an ion conductor
Claim 10
the air electrode (11) does not include an ion conductor
Muranaka doesn’t mention an ion conductor for the fuel electrode 12 or for the air electrode 11; therefore, presumably they don’t include an ion conductor.
With regard to claim 13, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Muranaka also teaches the following claim 13 limitation:
the plurality of rods include a rod having a shape of at least one of a cylinder or a triangular prism (paragraph 35; figure 3)
Muranaka teaches the following claim 18 limitations:
A solid oxide cell (paragraph 26; figures 2A & 2B: solid oxide fuel cell) comprising:
an electrolyte (paragraphs 27 & 29; figures 1-2B: electrolyte membrane 1) including a base layer (paragraph 27; figures 2A & 2B: base portion 2) having a first surface and a second surface opposing each other (Figure A & Figure B below), the electrolyte further including a plurality of columns (paragraph 27; figures 1-2B: columnar crystals 4) protruding from at least one of the first surface or the second surface (Figure C & Figure D below) of the base layer (2);
a fuel electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: fuel electrode 12); and
an air electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: air electrode 11),
wherein the electrolyte (1) is disposed between (figures 2A & 2B) the fuel electrode (12) and the air electrode (11)
Figure C: Annotated Muranaka Figure 2A
PNG
media_image3.png
559
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure D: Annotated Muranaka Figure 2B
PNG
media_image4.png
556
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 20, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above. Muranaka also teaches the following claim 20 limitation:
each of the plurality of columns is in a form of a cylindrical shape (paragraph 35; figure 3), a triangular prism, or a tube shape including a through-hole
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 3, 16-17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005285451A machine translation (Muranaka).
Muranaka teaches the following claim 16 limitations:
A solid oxide cell (paragraph 26; figures 2A & 2B: solid oxide fuel cell) comprising:
a fuel electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: fuel electrode 12);
an air electrode (paragraph 29; figures 2A & 2B: air electrode 11); and
an electrolyte (paragraphs 27 & 29; figures 1-2B: electrolyte membrane 1) disposed between (figures 2A & 2B) the fuel electrode (12) and the air electrode (11) and including a plurality of rods (paragraph 27; figures 1-2B: columnar crystals 4)
Claim 16 also states that the rods have an aspect ratio of 2 or more. Muranaka fails to describe an aspect ratio; however Muranaka’s rods / columnar crystals 4 are illustrated with > 2 aspect ratio. A larger aspect ratio provides more surface for reaction. With a larger aspect ratio, however, manufacturing is more difficult and the rods are weaker. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have rods with aspect ratio ≥ 2 based on the teachings of Muranaka, and to achieve a balance between increased surface area for reaction, ease of manufacturing, and rod strength
With regard to claims 3 & 19, Muranaka teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 18, as described above. Claims 3 & 19 require a rod / column to have an aspect ratio of 2 or more. As discussed under claim 16 above, a ≥ 2 aspect ratio would have been obvious.
With regard to claim 17, modified Muranaka teaches the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Muranaka also teaches the following claim 17 limitation:
the plurality of rods are regularly arranged in columns and rows (figure 3)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005285451A machine translation (Muranaka), as applied to claims 1 & 4, and further in view of US20180191009A1 (Palumbo) and US20130122717A1 (Green).
Muranaka fails to teach the following claim 11 limitation, which is taught by Palumbo:
the base layer is a ceramic sintered body (Paragraph 223: catalyzing body 3030 has a ceramic substrate. Paragraph 37: ceramic can be sintered.)
Palumbo is directed to a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) with a catalyzing body (paragraphs 17 & 22 and claim 18). The catalyzing body 3030 has a sintered ceramic substrate and a rod 9005 (paragraph 223; figure 9). Palumbo’s SOFC improves operating performance, safety, and reliability by providing thermally conductive pathways (paragraph 4). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Muranaka’s solid oxide fuel cell base portion 2 to be sintered ceramic, as taught by Palumbo, for improved operating performance, safety, and reliability by providing thermally conductive pathways.
Muranaka fails to teach the following claim 11 limitation, which is taught by Green:
the plurality of rods have a single crystal structure (paragraph 140)
Green is directed to single crystal pillars for fuel cells (paragraphs 1, 140, & 142), and methods of making such pillars with acceptable quality (paragraph 25). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Muranaka’s columnar crystals 4 to be single crystal, as taught by Green, for fuel cell pillars with acceptable quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights