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 Objections Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the phrase “the fuel cell is operated” should be written as “the molten carbonate fuel cell is operated.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the average cathode gas lateral diffusion length." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the average cathode gas lateral diffusion length." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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: 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 1-4, 6- 7 , 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. (US 20200176783, provided by Applicant in the 04/24/24 IDS). Regarding Claim 1, Rosen teaches a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0002], [0087]). As illustrated in Figure 9, Rosen teaches that the molten carbonate fuel cell comprises an anode (330) (“anode”), an anode side separator plate (310) (“first separator plate”), and an anode collector (320) (“anode collector”) in contact with the anode and the anode side separator plate to define, between the anode and the anode side separator plate, a zone for introduction and exhaust of anode gases (“anode gas collection zone”) ( [0009], [0087]). As illustrated in Figure 9, Rosen teaches that the molten carbonate fuel cell further comprises a cathode (350) (“cathode”) having a “cathode surface” (i.e. the surface of the cathode in contact with cathode collector (360)), a cathode side separator plate (311) (“second separator plate”), and a cathode collector (360) (“cathode current collector”) in contact with the cathode side separator plate and adjacent to the cathode surface to define, between the cathode and the cathode side separator plate, a zone for introduction and exhaust of cathode gases (“cathode gas collection zone”) ( [0009], [0087]). As illustrated in Figure 9 , Rosen teaches that the molten carbonate fuel further comprises an electrolyte matrix (340) (“electrolyte matrix”) comprising an electrolyte (342) (“electrolyte” between the anode and the cathode ( [0009], [0087]). As illustrated in Figure 7, Rosen teaches that a mesh screen (750) (“structural mesh layer” especially given that the mesh screen imparts or provides, to at least some level or degree or in at least some manner , structure to the molten carbonate fuel cell) is disposed between the cathode surface and the cathode collector ([0065]). Rosen teaches that the cathode current collector may exhibit a contact area overlapping with the range of less than 55% , that the mesh screen may exhibit a contact area overlapping with the range of 55-75%, and that the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 100 openings/cm 2 or more) ([0026], [0064] -[ 0067]). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 2, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 1), the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 10 0 openings/cm 2 or more). Regarding Claim 3, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 1), the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 100 openings/cm 2 or more). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 4, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 1), the cathode current collector may exhibit a contact area of, for example, less than 55%. I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 6, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Rosen teaches that an average contact area diffusion length is 0.3 mm or less ([0065]). Regarding Claim 7, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Rosen teaches that an average cathode gas lateral diffusion length is, 0.3 mm or less ([0026]). Regarding Claim 10, Rosen teaches a molten carbonate fuel cell, and a method of producing electricity in a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0002], [0008], [0087]). Rosen teaches that the method comprises the following: (1) introducing an anode input stream comprising H 2 , a reformable fuel, or a combination thereof into an anode gas collection zone def by an anode surface, a first separator plate, and an anode collector providing support between the anode surface and the separator plate, (2) introducing a cathode input stream comprising O 2 and CO 2 into a cathode gas collection zone defined by a cathode surface, a second separator plate, and a cathode collector adjacent to the cathode surface and in contact with the second separator plate, and (3) operating the molten carbonate fuel cell at an average current density of 60 mA/cm 2 or more to generate electricity, an anode exhaust, and a cathode exhaust ([0008]). As illustrated in Figure 7, Rosen teaches that a mesh screen (750) (“structural mesh layer” especially given that the mesh screen imparts or provides, to at least some level or degree or in at least some manner, structure to the molten carbonate fuel cell) is disposed between the cathode surface and the cathode current c ollector ([0065]). Rosen teaches that the cathode current collector may exhibit a contact area overlapping with the range of less than 55%, that the mesh screen may exhibit a contact area overlapping with the range of 55-75%, and that the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 100 openings/cm 2 or more) ([0026], [0064] -[ 0067]). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 11, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen teaches that an average contact area diffusion length is 0.3 mm or less ([0065]). Regarding Claim 12, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 10), the cathode current collector may exhibit a contact area of, for example, less than 55%. I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 13, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen teaches that an average cathode gas lateral diffusion length is, 0.3 mm or less ([0026]). Regarding Claim 14, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 10), the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 100 openings/cm 2 or more). Regarding Claim 15, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 10), the mesh screen may exhibit a mesh size of, for example, 1.0 mm or less (i.e. the mesh screen may exhibit, for example, 100 openings/cm 2 or more). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 16, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen teaches that the molten carbonate fuel cell is operated, for example, at a CO 2 utilization of 80% or more ([0042], [0079]). Regarding Claim 17, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen teaches that cathode input stream comprises 5.0 vol% or less of CO 2 , or that the cathode exhaust comprises 1.0 vol% or less of CO 2 , or a combination thereof ([0041] -[ 0042], [0106]). Regarding Claim 18, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen teaches that cathode input stream comprises 5.0 vol% or less of CO 2 ([0106]). I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Claims 5, 8- 9, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. (US 20200176783, provided by Applicant in the 04/24/24 IDS), and further in view of Scott et al. (US 2006/0099482, provided by Applicant in the 04/24/24 IDS). Regarding Claim 5, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Rosen does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen provides electrical contact between the cathode collector and the cathode surface. However, Scott teaches a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell may be a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0029]). Scott teaches that the fuel cell comprises a cathode which, for example, has a mesh electrode structure ([0013], [0019]). More specifically, Scott teaches that the cathode comprises a mesh , having a thickness of less than about 1 mm, which enhances the structural integrity of the electrode and permits the flow of electrons therethrough by being formed out of an electrically conductive material such as stainless steel ([0036], [0044], [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the mesh screen of Rosen out of stainless steel and such that it has a thickness of less than about 1 mm, as taught by Scott, given that such a mesh screen would not only help enhance the structural integrity of the molten carbonate fuel cell, particularly at on the cathode side, but also because such a mesh screen would help permit the flow of electrons therethrough due to being formed from electrically conductive stainless steel. Accordingly, it is therefore interpreted that the mesh screen of Rosen, as modified by Scott, due to its position in the molten carbonate fuel cell and its stainless steel construction, “provides electrical contact” between the cathode collector and the cathode surface. Regarding Claim 8, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Rosen does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen comprises a thickness of 0.25-0.8 mm. However, Scott teaches a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell may be a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0029]). Scott teaches that the fuel cell comprises a cathode which, for example, has a mesh electrode structure ([0013], [0019]). More specifically, Scott teaches that the cathode comprises a mesh, having a thickness of less than about 1 mm, which enhances the structural integrity of the electrode and permits the flow of electrons therethrough by being formed out of an electrically conductive material such as stainless steel ([0036], [0044], [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the mesh screen of Rosen out of stainless steel and such that it has a thickness of less than about 1 mm, as taught by Scott, given that such a mesh screen would not only help enhance the structural integrity of the molten carbonate fuel cell, particularly at on the cathode side, but also because such a mesh screen would help permit the flow of electrons therethrough due to being formed from electrically conductive stainless steel. I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 9, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Rosen does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen is composed of stainless steel. However, Scott teaches a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell may be a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0029]). Scott teaches that the fuel cell comprises a cathode which, for example, has a mesh electrode structure ([0013], [0019]). More specifically, Scott teaches that the cathode comprises a mesh, having a thickness of less than about 1 mm, which enhances the structural integrity of the electrode and permits the flow of electrons therethrough by being formed out of an electrically conductive material such as stainless steel ([0036], [0044], [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the mesh screen of Rosen out of stainless steel and such that it has a thickness of less than about 1 mm, as taught by Scott, given that such a mesh screen would not only help enhance the structural integrity of the molten carbonate fuel cell, particularly at on the cathode side, but also because such a mesh screen would help permit the flow of electrons therethrough due to being formed from electrically conductive stainless steel. Regarding Claim 19, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen comprises a thickness of 0.25-0.8 mm. However, Scott teaches a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell may be a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0029]). Scott teaches that the fuel cell comprises a cathode which, for example, has a mesh electrode structure ([0013], [0019]). More specifically, Scott teaches that the cathode comprises a mesh, having a thickness of less than about 1 mm, which enhances the structural integrity of the electrode and permits the flow of electrons therethrough by being formed out of an electrically conductive material such as stainless steel ([0036], [0044], [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the mesh screen of Rosen out of stainless steel and such that it has a thickness of less than about 1 mm, as taught by Scott, given that such a mesh screen would not only help enhance the structural integrity of the molten carbonate fuel cell, particularly at on the cathode side, but also because such a mesh screen would help permit the flow of electrons therethrough due to being formed from electrically conductive stainless steel. I t is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . Regarding Claim 20, Rosen teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described. Rosen does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen provides electrical contact between the cathode collector and the cathode surface. However, Scott teaches a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell may be a molten carbonate fuel cell (Abstract, [0029]). Scott teaches that the fuel cell comprises a cathode which, for example, has a mesh electrode structure ([0013], [0019]). More specifically, Scott teaches that the cathode comprises a mesh, having a thickness of less than about 1 mm, which enhances the structural integrity of the electrode and permits the flow of electrons therethrough by being formed out of an electrically conductive material such as stainless steel ([0036], [0044], [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the mesh screen of Rosen out of stainless steel and such that it has a thickness of less than about 1 mm, as taught by Scott, given that such a mesh screen would not only help enhance the structural integrity of the molten carbonate fuel cell, particularly at on the cathode side, but also because such a mesh screen would help permit the flow of electrons therethrough due to being formed from electrically conductive stainless steel. Accordingly, it is therefore interpreted that the mesh screen of Rosen, as modified by Scott, due to its position in the molten carbonate fuel cell and its stainless steel construction, “provides electrical contact” between the cathode collector and the cathode surface. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM EST M-F . 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 Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728