DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged. As a result of the election, Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al.
Bae et al (“Gadolinium doped ceria-impregnated nickel-yttria stabilized zirconia cathode for solid oxide electrolysis cell,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 9420-9427) is directed toward a SOEC (pg. 9420: title and abstract). Jeong et al.(“Effect of Fe infiltration to Ni/YSZ solid-oxide-cell fuel electrode on steam/CO2 co-electrolysis,“ Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 4949-4958) is directed toward Fe addition to Ni-YSZ electrodes (pg. 4949: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Bae et al. discloses a fuel electrode (i.e.: a cathode as per the title on pg. 9420) for a solid oxide electrolysis cell (pg. 9420: title and abstract). The electrode (i.e.: cathode) of Bae et al. comprises a carrier made of a first particle comprising nickel (i.e.: nickel powder), and a second particle comprising yttria-stabilized zirconia (“YSZ) as per pg. 9421 (in section 2.1. “Three-electrode fabrication). The two particle types were used to form a slurry further containing a binder (e.g.: Butvar B-98), a dispersant (e.g.: PVP), and a plasticizer (e.g.: PEG) which was screen printed onto a YSZ electrolyte and sintered to form the carrier of Claim 1. The aforementioned carrier was then impregnated with a second element (i.e.: gadolinium doped ceria, “GDC”) as explained in section 2.1 on pg. 9421. According to Bae et al., the effect of adding GDC was an improvement in both the electrochemical performance and durability of the cathode (in the electrolysis mode) compared to the GDC-free Ni-YSZ material (pg. 9247: conclusion). However, Bae et al. does not disclose a catalyst comprising a first element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Mo, (and combinations thereof) nor does Bae et al. indicate the first element forms an alloy with the first particle on a surface of the first particle.
Jeong et al. is directed toward Ni-YSZ based electrode for SOEC and SOFC (pg. 4949: title) meaning Jeong et al. and Bae et al. fall into the same art category.
Jeong et al. discloses the formation of a Ni-YSZ material using NiO and YSZ slurry cast into a green tape which was subsequently fired to form the electrode support (pg. 4950: 2. Experimental). Jeong et al. further indicated the slurry contained a binder (ethyl cellulose), plasticizer (dibutyl phthalate), dispersant (Hypermer KD-6), and poly(methyl methacrylate) as pore forming agent in a solvent mixture of ethanol and toluene. In the experimental section, Jeong et al. also describes impregnation of the Ni-YSZ carrier with a suspension Fe-oxide nanoparticles and urea (pg. 4950-4951). After further processing described in detail on pg. 4951 of the experimental section, Jeong et al. teaches the formation of in-situ alloying at an annealing temperature of 800 degrees C resulting in a Ni-Fe alloy. Therefore, Jeong et al. meets the limitations of Claim 1 of “a catalyst comprising a first element that is Fe and the first element (e.g.: Fe) forms an alloy with the first particle (i.e.: Ni) on a surface of the first particle. The explicit support for the formation of the alloy is supported by the XRD spectrum in FIG. 2D and the Fe forming an alloy with the surface of the nickel particles is supported by the SEM/EDS image of FIG. 2C (pg. 4952). In the conclusion section on pg. 4957 and 4958, Jeong et al. indicates the in-situ Fe-Ni alloy formed on the Ni-YSZ support provided the following benefits: increased (product) selectivity, lower overvoltage (pg.4955: FIG. 4), and longer term stability at higher temperatures.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel electrode of Bae et al. by incorporating a Ni-Fe alloy as the catalyst as disclosed by Jeong et al. with the reasonable expectation of increasing the electrochemical performance and durability of the fuel cell electrode and the electrochemical cell as per the advantages described above by Jeong et al. and on pg. 4957-8.
Regarding Claim 4, Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. discloses the fuel electrode of Claim 1, wherein the catalyst (i.e.: Fe alloyed with Ni particle surface) has a diameter of 20 nm to 60 nm as supported by the SEM image after reduction (Fig. 2C of Jeong et al. on pg. 4952) which shows the Fe particles alloyed with Ni present on the surface of the nickel particles are ~50 nm in size (in the red-colored Fe-elemental mapping). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art and claimed range overlap. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
6. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al.
Bae et al (“Gadolinium doped ceria-impregnated nickel-yttria stabilized zirconia cathode for solid oxide electrolysis cell,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 9420-9427) is directed toward a SOEC (pg. 9420: title and abstract). Jeong et al.(“Effect of Fe infiltration to Ni/YSZ solid-oxide-cell fuel electrode on steam/CO2 co-electrolysis,“ Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 4949-4958) is directed toward Fe addition to Ni-YSZ electrodes (pg. 4949: title and abstract). Yu et al. (“Microstructural effects on the electrical and mechanical properties of Ni–YSZ cermet for SOFC anode,” J. Power Sources 2007, 163, 926-932) is directed toward the electrical and mechanical properties of Ni–YSZ cermet for SOFC anodes (pg. 926: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. disclose the fuel electrode of Claim 1, but is silent on the size of first particle’s diameter (i.e.: the particle size of the nickel material).
Yu et al. is analogous art to Jeong et al. and Bae et al. as all three references are directed toward Ni-YSZ based electrodes for electrochemical cells. In particular, Yu et al. is a comprehensive study on the effect of the particle size of the NiO and YSZ starting materials on the electrical and mechanical properties of the resultant Ni-YSZ cermet for solid oxide fuel electrodes (pg. 926: title and abstract). Yu et al. evaluated the effect of mixing coarse and fine precursors of NiO and YSZ as illustrated in Table 1 on pg. 928. Yu et al. denoted the combination of fine NiO powder (particle size of ~850 nm) and fine YSZ powder (particle size of 762 nm) as starting materials FF1-13, FF1-40, and FF2-13. Evaluation of the electrical conductivity of the different coarse/fine starting material mixtures demonstrated that the fine NiO and fine YSZ combinations has the highest electrical conductivity (pg. 930: Fig. 5). Likewise, evaluation of the fracture strength of the different coarse/fine starting material mixtures demonstrated that the fine NiO and fine YSZ combinations has the highest fracture strength (pg. 931: Fig. 6). Yu et al. concludes that the use both fine NiO and fine YSZ powders made a fine microstructure with both phases percolated well and thus good electrical and mechanical properties (pg. 932: Conclusion).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preparation of the fuel cell electrode of Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. by using the fine NiO and fine YSZ starting materials taught in Yu et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an electrode with higher electrical conductivity and fracture strength as indicated in the conclusion of Yu et al.
The particle size of the Ni material (i.e.: the first particle) in the combination of Bae et al., Jeong et al. and Yu et al. is ~750 nm which meets the limitation of Claim 2 for the first particle having a diameter of 1.5 μm or less. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art and claimed range overlap. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 3, Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. disclose the fuel electrode of Claim 1, but is silent on the size of second particle’s diameter (i.e.: the particle size of the YSZ material).
Yu et al. is analogous art to Jeong et al. and Bae et al. as all three references are directed toward Ni-YSZ based electrodes for electrochemical cells. In particular, Yu et al. is a comprehensive study on the effect of the particle size of the NiO and YSZ starting materials on the electrical and mechanical properties of the resultant Ni-YSZ cermet for solid oxide fuel electrodes (pg. 926: title and abstract). Yu et al. evaluated the effect of mixing coarse and fine precursors of NiO and YSZ as illustrated in Table 1 on pg. 928. Yu et al. denoted the combination of fine NiO powder (particle size of ~850 nm) and fine YSZ powder (particle size of 762 nm) as starting materials FF1-13, FF1-40, and FF2-13. Evaluation of the electrical conductivity of the different coarse/fine starting material mixtures demonstrated that the fine NiO and fine YSZ combinations has the highest electrical conductivity (pg. 930: Fig. 5). Likewise, evaluation of the fracture strength of the different coarse/fine starting material mixtures demonstrated that the fine NiO and fine YSZ combinations has the highest fracture strength (pg. 931: Fig. 6). Yu et al. concludes that the use both fine NiO and fine YSZ powders made a fine microstructure with both phases percolated well and thus good electrical and mechanical properties (pg. 932: Conclusion).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preparation of the fuel cell electrode of Bae et al. in view of Jeong et al. by using the fine NiO and fine YSZ starting materials taught in Yu et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an electrode with higher electrical conductivity and fracture strength as indicated in the conclusion of Yu et al.
The particle size of the YSZ material (i.e.: the second particle) in the combination of Bae et al., Jeong et al. and Yu et al. is 762 nm. The commercially available example from Yu et al. and the range of Claim 3 (350 nm to 500 nm) are both in the submicron range. The skilled artisan would have no reason to expect a difference in performance based on the similarity in the particle size of the YSZ starting material (i.e.: the prior art approaches the claimed range). Moreover, the disclosure of the instant application (cited as US Pub. No. 2024/0150913 A1) has not provided any data indicating that the claimed range for the diameter of the second particle provides any particular advantage or unexpected results (see ¶9, ¶47, and ¶91). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as the prior art and claimed range approach each other as per the preceding discussion. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Alternatively, Yu et al. clearly indicates in the conclusion on pg. 932 that the preferred combination for preparing an electrode for SOFC/SOEC is using fine powders for both the first particle (i.e.: NiO) and the second particle (i.e.: YSZ). This preferred combination is superior for good electrical conductivity and good mechanical properties (pg. 932). Yu specifically contemplates only a size of 762 nm (pg. 927: Table 1), but this is exemplary only. Given that Yu et al. expressly teaches that a mixture of fine particles is the preferred combination, it would have been obvious to utilize even smaller particles to achieve these benefits thus rendering the claimed particle size range of the second particle obvious.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khan et al. (“Effect of infiltrated transition metals on nickel morphology change and area-specific resistance of Ni-YSZ based SOFC anode during long-term operation,” J. Electroceram. 2015, 35, 81-89) is directed at the effect of transition metal infiltration on Ni-YSZ electrodes (pg. 81: title and abstract). Mewafy et al. (“Influence of Surface State on the Electrochemical Performance of Nickel-Based Cermet Electrodes during Steam Electrolysis,” ACS Applied Energy Materials 2019, 2(10), 7045-7055) is directed toward Ni-modified cermet electrodes (pg. 7045: title and abstract). Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0368817 A1) is directed toward an anode catalyst for use in an electrolyzer (title). Sarkar et al. (“Microstructure and long-term stability of Ni–YSZ anode supported fuel cells: a review,” Mater. Future 2022, 1(4), article 042101, pg. 1-34) is directed toward Ni-YSZ anode supported fuel cells (pg. 1: title and abstract). Hanifi et al. (“Tailoring the Microstructure of a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Anode Support by Calcination and Milling of YSZ,” Scientific Reports 2016, 6, article 27359, pg. 1-9) is directed toward microstructural understand of YSZ based on processing parameters (pg. 1: title and abstract).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM 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, James Lin can be reached at (571)272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights