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 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22-23, and 26 are amended while claim 21 has been cancelled. Support for amended claim 20 can be found in original claim 21, paragraph [0043] of specification, and Fig. 2; thus, claims 1-20, and 22-26 are pending and are examined under prior art on their merits below. Of these, claim 20 is independent, and the remainder are dependent.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 8-11, 14, and 15 of the previous Office action, are overcome by the amendment; however, in light of the amendment, new 35 USC 112 rejections are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks at page 9, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to amended claim 20, particularly the limitation of, “the first array of pores include a pore including a curved upper surface having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests “a pore including a curved upper surface having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte”, as recited in amended claim 20. However, as acknowledged by Applicant, Hu teaches the limitations of claim 20 except for the specific pore configuration. However, Pang teaches a porous fuel electrode having a plurality of gas passages (pores), wherein gas passages extend through the electrode and gradually decrease in cross-sectional area toward the electrolyte. Thus, Pang teaches the recited pore having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte.
Although Applicant asserts that none of the references cures the alleged deficiency regarding the curved upper surface, Hegenbart, which is relied upon in the rejection of claim 5, teaches this feature. Specifically, Hegenbart teaches a porous bipolar plate including a plurality of axial openings formed in a main boundary surface and further teaches that the axial openings may be circular in shape ([0014]). A circular opening necessarily defines a curved boundary when viewed in cross-section along the relevant structure. Therefore, the circular configuration provides the claimed curved surface of the pore.
Accordingly, the references are relied upon in combination for what each reference teaches: Hu teaches the underlying structure of claim 20, Pang teaches a pore having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte, and Hegenbart teaches the curved configuration of the pore.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the curved opening geometry taught by Hegenbart in the narrowing gas passages taught by Pang, in the porous-electrode structure of Hu, because the references teach known pore/opening geometries for conveying reactant gas through porous electrochemical components. The resulting pore would have a curved upper surface and a width that narrows toward the electrolyte, as required by amended claim 20. Therefore, the combined teachings of Hu, Pang, and Hegenbart teach or suggest the specific pore limitation of amended claim 20. Applicant’s assertion that none of the cited references teaches or suggests this limitation is therefore not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 20 is written under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Hu in view of Pang and further in view of Hegenbart (see citation below).
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 2, 4-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 22-26 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 2 recites “a first horizontal direction” and “a second horizontal direction” of the fuel electrode; however, It is unclear what constitutes the claimed first and second horizontal directions because the claim does not define the orientations of these directions or their relationship to one another. For example, it is unclear whether the first and second horizontal directions are required to be perpendicular, merely different or crossing directions, or may constitute any two directions extending in a horizontal plane of the fuel electrode. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed first and second horizontal directions are indefinite. For purpose of examination, the “first horizontal direction” is interpreted as a first direction extending along the plane of the fuel electrode, and the “second horizontal direction” is interpreted as a different direction extending along the plane of the fuel electrode and crossing the first horizontal direction, as illustrated in the annotated Fig. 6 below.
Claims 4-5, 7, 14, and 22-26 are similarly rejected for similar reason. These claims also recite the unclear phrase “a first horizontal direction” and/or “a second horizontal direction”. This creates the same ambiguity regarding the orientations of these directions or their relationship to one another.
Claims 8-11 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 7.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for depending upon claim 14.
Claim 24-25 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 23.
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 20, 1-5, 7-11, 14-19, 22-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 112467165 A, from IDS 04/18/2024, citations from enclosed machine translation), and further in view of Pang et al. (WO 2017092085 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation), and Hegenbart et al. (US 20230378485 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hu teaches a solid oxide cell (page 10, lines 16-20 and line 28-39, Figs. 2, 6) comprising:
a fuel electrode (inner electrode 2 including active internal electrode 202, and supporting internal electrode 201);
an air electrode (outer electrode 3);
and an electrolyte (electrolyte 1) disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode (in Fig 6, electrolyte 1 is disposed between electrode 3 and active internal electrode 202),
wherein the fuel electrode includes a first array of pores (embedded regularly arranged air passage 11) embedded in the fuel electrode and spaced apart from each exterior surface of the fuel electrode (Fig. 6; page 10, lines 28-31),
Specifically, Hu discloses air channels (pores) 11 embedded within the electrode structure between the active inner electrode 202 and the supporting inner electrode 201 (Fig. 6; page 10, lines 28-31). These channels are surrounded by electrode material and further enclosed at lateral sides by a side sealing member 4, such that the channels are not exposed to the exterior and are fully embedded within the electrode structure.
Hu further acknowledges in its discussion of conventional solid oxide cells that the geometric shape and cross-sectional shape of air channels may be designed and manufactured as required, indicating that selection of air-channel geometry was known to be a design parameter in the art (page 4, lines 2-10). In addition, Hu teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Hu, however, does not teach a limitation wherein the first array of pores include a pore including a curved upper surface having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte.
However, the combined teaching of Pang and Hegenbart teach this limitation.
Pang teaches a porous fuel electrode (page 1, line 54, and page 2, line 31) including an electrode body having a porous structure with a plurality of gas passages (pores) distributed (page 2, lines 1-8). Pang additionally discloses, as shown in Fig. 6, an electrode body 4 having a porous structure disposed on the electrolyte layer 3, wherein gas passages extend in the thickness direction of the electrode and electrolyte body. The gas passages 41 are open at one end, away from the electrolyte layer, and closed at the end near the electrolyte layer. Pang further teaches that the cross-sectional area of the gas passage gradually becomes smaller from one end away from electrolyte to the other end close to electrolyte (Fig. 6, page 5, lines 48-53). Such a structure discloses a pore having a shape in which a width narrows toward the electrolyte. Pang further teaches that this design is used to control the diffusion of the optimized gas inside the electrode (page 3, lines 33-36).
Hegenbart teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a porous bipolar plate including a plurality of axial openings 18 formed in a main boundary surface 4 and a plurality of lateral opening 20 and 24 in delimiting surfaces 8, 10, 12, 14 (Fig. 1a, [0044-0047]). Hegenbart further teaches that the axial openings may be circular in shape [0014]. A circular opening necessarily defines a curved boundary when viewed in cross-section along the relevant structure, and thus teaches the claimed curved surface of the pore. Hegenbart further teaches that the invention aims to provide a structure which allows a particularly uniform reactant flow while leading to reduced mechanical stress ([0006]).
Further, Hu, Pang, and Hegenbart are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all references are in the same field of fuel cell.
Accordingly, the references are relied upon in combination for what each reference teaches: Hu teaches the underlying structure of claim 20, Pang teaches a pore having a width narrowing toward the electrolyte, and Hegenbart teaches the curved configuration of the pore.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel electrode of Hu to include pores having a shape in which a width narrows toward the electrolyte as taught by Pang and having a curved surface as taught by Hegenbart in order to control diffusion of gas within the electrode and improve uniformity of reaction and temperature distribution, as suggested by Pang (page 3, lines 33-36; page 4, lines 22-24 of Pang), and also to allow a particularly uniform reactant flow while reducing mechanical stress, as taught by Hegenbart ([0006]).
PNG
media_image1.png
917
1623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
1430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the fuel electrode further includes a second array of pores, and the first array of pores and the second array of pores are stacked in a thickness direction of the fuel electrode (page 6, lines 19-24; page 7, lines 38-44; see annotated Figs. 3, and 6).
Specifically, Hu teaches a plurality of regularly arranged micro air passages (pores) 11 embedded within the supporting internal electrode 201 (page 6; lines 19-32; page 7, lines 38-45; Figs. 3 and 6).
Hu expressly teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains. As illustrated in the annotated cross-sectional view of Fig. 3 and further shown in annotated Fig. 6, the regularly arranged pores 11 are disposed at different positions through the thickness of supporting internal electrode 201, thereby defining at least a first array of pores and a second array of pores stacked in the thickness direction of the fuel electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the second array of pores are arranged a grid structure in first and second horizontal directions of the fuel electrode (see annotated Figs. 3, and 6; illustrating the grid structure of the second array of pores).
Regarding claim 3, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores are arranged on substantially the same level with respect to a thickness direction of the electrolyte (see annotated Fig. 3).
Specifically, as shown in the cross sectional view of Fig. 3, a plurality of regularly arranged pores 11 are aligned at substantially the same position along the thickness direction, thereby defining an array pf pores arranged at substantially the same the same level with respect to a thickness direction of the electrolyte 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the second array of pores include pores having a shape in which a width in a first horizontal direction or a second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode narrows toward the electrolyte in the thickness direction.
Hu teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Hu further acknowledges in its discussion of conventional solid oxide cells that the geometric shape and cross-sectional shape of air channels may be designed and manufactured as required, indicating that selection of air-channel geometry was known to be a design parameter in the art (page 4, lines 2-10).
As discussed with respect to claim 20, Pang teaches that the cross-sectional area of the gas passage gradually becomes smaller from one end away from electrolyte to the other end close to electrolyte (Fig. 6, page 5, lines 48-53). Such a structure discloses a pore having a shape in which a width narrows toward the electrolyte. Pang further teaches that this design is used to control the diffusion of the optimized gas inside the electrode (page 3, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel electrode of modified Hu to include the second array of pores having a shape in which a width narrows toward the electrolyte as taught by Pang in order to control diffusion of gas within the electrode and improve uniformity of reaction and temperature distribution, as suggested by Pang (page 3, lines 33-36; page 4, lines 22-24 of Pang).
Regarding claim 5, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Modified Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include pores having a shape in which a maximum length in a first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode and a maximum length in a second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode are substantially the same.
Hu teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Hu further acknowledges in its discussion of conventional solid oxide cells that the geometric shape and cross-sectional shape of air channels may be designed and manufactured as required, indicating that selection of air-channel geometry was known to be a design parameter in the art (page 4, lines 2-10).
In addition, Hegenbart teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a porous bipolar plate including a plurality of axial openings 18 formed in a main boundary surface 4 and a plurality of lateral opening 20 and 24 in delimiting surfaces 8, 10, 12, 14 (Fig. 1a, [0044-0047]). Hegenbart further teaches that the axial openings may be circular in shape [0014]. A circular opening inherently has substantially equal dimensions in all in-plane directions, and therefore teaches pores having a shape in which a maximum length in a first horizontal direction and a maximum length in a second horizontal direction are substantially the same. Hegenbart further teaches that the invention aims to provide a structure which allows a particularly uniform reactant flow while leading to reduced mechanical stress ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous fuel electrode of modified Hu such that the plurality of pores include pores having a shape in which a maximum length in the first horizontal direction and a maximum length in a second horizontal direction are substantially the same as taught by Hegenbart in order to allow a particularly uniform reactant flow while reducing mechanical stress, as expressly taught by Hegenbart ([0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include a first line pore having a shape in which a maximum length in a second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode is twice or more a maximum length in a first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode (see annotated Fig. 6).
Specifically, Hu teaches that the plurality of gas passages 11 are arranged side by side to form elongated, line-like structures extending in one direction across the electrode body. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the gas passages are formed as long, narrow channels having a length in one lateral direction that is significantly greater than their width in the perpendicular lateral direction. Hu further teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Such elongated gas passages correspond to pores having a shape in which a maximum length in one direction (corresponding to the claimed second horizontal direction) is more than a maximum length in the perpendicular direction (corresponding to the claimed first horizontal direction). As it is apparent from annotated Fig. 6, the depicted elongated gas passages have a maximum dimension in one horizontal direction that is at least twice the maximum dimension in the perpendicular horizontal direction. Based on the images it is obvious that one dimension is at least twice as other. In addition, adjusting the relative dimensions of the disclosed elongated gas passages such that a maximum length in a second horizontal direction is twice or more a maximum length in a first horizontal direction constitutes a change in size or proportion, which is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first line pore is provided as a plurality of first line pores regularly arranged in the first horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 6).
Specifically, Hu expressly teaches a regular arrangement of a plurality of micro air passages (pores) 11 within supporting internal electrode 201 (page 7, lines 38-45). As further illustrated in annotated Fig. 6, a plurality of the elongated air passages 11 are arranged adjacent to and regularly spaced from one another along the first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode. Each elongated air passage corresponds to a first line pore, and the plurality of such passages corresponds to the claimed plurality of first line pores regularly arranged in the first horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 9, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 8, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include a second line pore having a shape in which a maximum length in the first horizontal direction is twice or more a maximum length in the second horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 6).
Specifically, Hue teaches that the plurality of gas passages 11 are arranged side by side to form elongated, line-like structures extending in one direction across the electrode body. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the gas passages are formed as long, narrow channels having a length in one lateral direction that is significantly greater than their width in the perpendicular lateral direction. Hu further teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Such elongated gas passages correspond to pores having a shape in which a maximum length in one direction (corresponding to the claimed first horizontal direction) is more than a maximum length in the perpendicular direction (corresponding to the claimed second horizontal direction). As it is apparent from annotated Fig. 6, the depicted elongated gas passages have a maximum dimension in one horizontal direction that is at least twice the maximum dimension in the perpendicular horizontal direction. Based on the images it is obvious that one dimension is at least twice as other. In addition, adjusting the relative dimensions of the disclosed elongated gas passages such that a maximum length in a first horizontal direction is twice or more a maximum length in a second horizontal direction constitutes a change in size or proportion, which is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the second line pore is provided as a plurality of second line pores regularly arranged in the second horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 6).
Specifically, Hu expressly teaches a regular arrangement of a plurality of micro air passages (pores) 11 within supporting internal electrode 201 (page 7, lines 38-45). As further illustrated in annotated Fig. 6, a plurality of the elongated air passages 11 are arranged adjacent to and regularly spaced from one another along the second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode. Each elongated air passage corresponds to a second line pore, and the plurality of such passages corresponds to the claimed plurality of second line pores regularly arranged in the second horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 11, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first line pore and the second line pore cross each other (see annotated Fig. 6; showing the crossing arrangement of air passages 11).
Regarding claim 14, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein d is greater than t, in which t is a distance between the first array of pores and the second array of pores in the thickness direction and d is a maximum length of the pore in a first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode (see annotated Figs. 3, and 6).
As illustrated in annotated Figs. 3, and 6, the air passages 11 extend in the first horizontal direction by a distance d that is greater than the distance t separating the first and second arrays of pores in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 15, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein d is equal to twice or more of t (see annotated Figs. 3, and 6).
Although Hu does not expressly disclose that d is twice or more than t, Hu teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). In addition, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the gas passages are formed as long, narrow channels having a length in one lateral direction that is significantly greater than their dimension in the perpendicular direction.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative dimensions of d and t, such that d is equal to twice or more of t, because such an adjustment constitutes a change in size or proportion of the pore geometry. A change in size or proportion is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the fuel electrode further includes a third array of pores, and the first to third arrays of pores are regularly arranged in the thickness direction (see annotated Figs. 3, and 6).
Specifically, Hu teaches a regular arrangement of a plurality of micro air passages (pores) 11 within supporting internal electrode 201 (page 7, lines 38-45), and that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32). Thus, Hu teaches providing additional air passages at different positions through the thickness of the inner electrode. As illustrated in annotated Figs. 3, and 6, an additional array of pores has been added in accordance with Hu’s teaching to illustrate first, second, and third array of pores arranged at different positions in the thickness direction of the fuel electrode.
Regarding claim 17, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein among the first to third arrays of pores an array closest to the electrolyte in the thickness direction is spaced apart from the electrolyte in the
Specifically, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 6, the array of air passages 11 closest to electrolyte 1 is disposed within supporting electrode 201 and spaced apart from electrolyte 1 in the thickness direction by active internal electrode 202.
Regarding claim 18, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein among the first to third arrays of pores, an array farthest from the electrolyte in the thickness direction is embedded in the fuel electrode.
Hu discloses air channels (pores) 11 embedded within the electrode structure between the active inner electrode 202 and the supporting inner electrode 201 (Figs. 3 and 6; page 10, lines 28-38). These channels are surrounded by electrode material and further enclosed at lateral sides by a side sealing member 4, such that the channels are not exposed to the exterior and are fully embedded within the electrode structure. Accordingly, the pore arrays located farthest from the electrolyte 1 in the first direction (thickness direction in Fig. 3) are embedded within the fuel electrode.
Regarding claim 19, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Modified Hu further teaches a limitation wherein among the first to third arrays of pores, an array farthest from the electrolyte in the thickness direction is exposed to a surface of the fuel electrode.
Hu teaches that the number and position of the air passages can be adjusted as required and the greater the inner electrode’s thickness, the more air passages it contains (page 6; lines 19-32).
Pang specifically teaches a porous fuel electrode (page 1, line 54, and page 2, line 31) including an electrode body having a porous structure with a plurality of gas passages (pores) distributed (page 2, lines 1-8). Pang additionally discloses, as shown in Fig. 6, an electrode body 4 having a porous structure disposed on the electrolyte layer 3, wherein gas passages extend in the thickness direction of the electrode and electrolyte body. The gas passages 41 are open at one end, away from the electrolyte layer, and closed at the end near the electrolyte layer. Thus, Pang teaches pores that are exposed to a surface of the fuel electrode at the side farthest from the electrolyte. Pang further teaches that this design is used to control the diffusion of the optimized gas inside the electrode (page 3, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the array of pores of modified Hu farthest from the electrolyte such that the pores are exposed to the surface of the fuel electrode, in order to control diffusion of gas within the electrode and improve uniformity of reaction and temperature distribution, as suggested by Pang (page 3, lines 33-36; page 4, lines 22-24 of Pang).
Regarding claim 22, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include pores spaced apart from each other in first and second horizontal directions of the fuel electrode such that the pores have a grid structure (page 10, lines 28-30, regularly arranged air channels 11; see annotated Figs. 3, and 6; illustrating the grid structure of the first array of pores).
Regarding claim 23, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include pores spaced apart from each other in a first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode (page 10, lines 28-30, regularly arranged air channels 11; see annotated Figs. 3, and 6).
Regarding claim 24, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 23, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein one of the pores has a line shape extending in a second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode crossing the first horizontal direction (see annotated Figs. 3 and 6; line-shaped elongated air channels 11 extending in a second horizontal direction and crossing channels extending in a first horizontal direction). Hu discloses a plurality of air channels 11 arranged in first and second directions, such that at least one line-shaped pore of the first array of pores extends across the second horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 26, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the first array of pores include a first pore having a line shape extending in a first horizontal direction of the fuel electrode, and a second pore having a line shape extending in a second horizontal direction and crossing the first pore (see annotated Figs. 3 and 6; a first set of line-shaped elongated air channels 11 extending in a first horizontal direction and a second set extending in a second horizontal direction, the channels intersecting).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20210328233 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Modified Hu does not teach a limitation wherein the pore including the curved upper surface having the width narrowing toward the electrolyte has a hemispherical shape.
However, Zhu teaches a fuel cell 10 including a plurality of fuel layers layer 18 stacked along a stacking axis (Figs. 2-3, [0035]). Specifically, Zhu teaches a fuel cell 18 including a separator plate 20 having a plurality of curved portions 34 to define a plurality of anode flow channels 30 (Figs. 2-3, [0036], [0038]). Zhu further teaches the fuel cell layers 18, including separator plate 20, may have various geometries, including polygonal, circular, elliptical or oval in shape [0035]. In view of the disclosure of circular, elliptical, and curved geometries ([0035], [0038]) and the depiction of rounded, dome-like features in the figures (Figs. 2-3), it would be reasonable to interpret the disclosed curved structures as including hemispherical shapes, or at least suggesting hemispherical geometries as one of the predictable variations of such rounded structures. Zhu further teaches the separator plate 20 is compliant and lightweight and the waveform shape of it with the plurality of curved portions 34 allows for greater levels of fuel flow coverage to the anode 24 [0038]. Further, modified Hu, and Zhu 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous fuel electrode of modified Hu such that the plurality of pores include a hemispherical pore as taught by the rounded and curved geometries taught by Zhu in order to improve flow distribution, and decrease the weight as taught by Zhu ([0036, 0038]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Shibata et al. (US 20100323270 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 20, as stated above. Modified Hu does not teach a limitation wherein the fuel electrode includes a protrusion partially disposed in the first array of pores. .
However, Shibata teaches a fuel electrode (Figs. 22-24, [0176-0178], anode 2200 including dispersion plate 2102) includes a protrusion partially disposed in the plurality of pores ([0178]). Specifically, Shibata teaches that the dispersion plate 2102 is provided with protrusions 2102t for forming a channel on the upstream side of the dispersion plate 2102, and pores 2112 are formed in side surfaces of the protrusions 2102t. Since the pores 2112 are formed in the protrusions 2102t and fuel gas passes through the pores 2112 and then through internal spaces of the protrusions 2102t ([0178]), the protrusions 2102t extend into and are at least partially disposed within the porous region defined by the plurality of pores. Shibata further teaches that such a structure improves sufficient gas dispersibility [0178]. Further, modified Hu, and Shibata 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous fuel electrode of modified Hu wherein the fuel electrode includes a protrusion partially disposed in the plurality of pores as taught by Shibata in order to improve sufficient gas dispersibility ([00178]).
Regarding claim 13, Hu, as modified by Pang, Hegenbart, and Shibata, teaches all limitations of claim 12, as stated above. Modified Hu further teaches a limitation wherein the protrusion overlaps one or more pores of the first array of pores in a thickness direction of the fuel electrode.
As discussed with respect to claim 12, Shibata discloses a dispersion plate 2102 including protrusions 2102t, wherein pores 2112 are formed in side surfaces of the protrusions 2102t (Figs. 23–24; [0176-0178]). The pores 2112 extend through the thickness (stacking direction) of the electrode structure ([0176]). Because the protrusions 2102t include pores 2112 formed in their side surfaces and define internal spaces through which fuel gas flows after passing through the pores ([0178]), the protrusions necessarily extend across and intersect portions of the pore structure along the thickness direction. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this configuration corresponds to the protrusion overlapping at least some of the plurality of pores in the thickness direction. Shibata further teaches that such a structure improves sufficient gas dispersibility [0178].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous fuel electrode of modified Hu wherein the protrusion overlaps some of the plurality of pores in the thickness direction as taught by Shibata in order to improve sufficient gas dispersibility ([0178]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Arvay et al. ("Characterization techniques for gas diffusion layers for proton exchange membrane fuel cells–A review.", 2012, Journal of Power Sources, 213, 317-337).
Regarding claim 25, Hu, as modified by Pang, and Hegenbart teaches all limitations of claim 23, as stated above. Hu further teaches a limitation wherein one of the pores has line portions extending in a second horizontal direction of the fuel electrode crossing the first horizontal direction, and connection portions connecting the line portions to each other (air channels 11 in annotated Fig.6 )
Modified Hu fails to teach that the connection portions connecting the line portions to each other have a width greater than a width of the line portions.
However, Arvay teaches this limitation wherein connection portions connecting the line portions to each other having a width greater than a width of the line portions (pore network model of pore-throat in Fig. 13, page 328). Specifically, Arvay discloses a pore network model in which relatively larger pore regions are connected by narrower throat regions (Fig. 13; page 328), thereby teaching a structure in which connection portions (pores in Fig. 13) have a width greater than that of line portions (throats in Fig. 13). Arvay further teaches that fluid transport in porous media is governed by capillary forces dependent on pore–throat geometry, where narrower throat regions increase capillary resistance and larger pore regions facilitate fluid transport (page 328, last paragraph). This configuration facilitates efficient transport of gas and liquid within the porous structure (page 328) . Further, modified Hu, and Arvay 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 to modify the fuel electrode of Hu such that the connection portions connecting the line portions have a width greater than a width of the line portions, as taught by Arvay, in order to optimize transport pathways within the porous electrode by controlling capillary forces and pressure-driven flow, thereby facilitating efficient gas and water transport and improving electrode performance (page 328, last paragraph).
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