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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 07/06/2026. Claims 1-27 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 13-18, 21, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Egami discloses a solid oxide cell stack (title; [0014]; [0016]) comprising: a plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0034]); a first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) and including a first fuel electrode (151a), a first electrolyte (152), and a first air electrode (153a) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]); and a second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) disposed to be adjacent to the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) in a lateral direction between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) and including a second fuel electrode (151b), a second electrolyte (152), and a second air electrode (153b) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]), wherein an operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is higher than an operating temperature of the second oxide cell (151b+152+153b) ([0040]). Examiner notes that the sealing members (131, 133) attached to the interconnects (110) can reasonably be considered as part of the interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0046]). Thus, with this interpretation, Egami clearly discloses that each of the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) includes at least one recess in which the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells are disposed (see Modified Figure 4 below), the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells facing a bottom surface (110a) and side surfaces of the at least one recess (see Modified Figure 4 below). Egami further discloses that the bottom surface (110a) includes a mesh section (126) which is connected to a flow path (121) designed to supply fuel (gas) to the first (151a) and second (151b) fuel electrodes (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0038]), reading on the limitation that a flow path is disposed on the bottom surface of the at least one recess. Thus, Egami reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
778
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Egami
Regarding claim 8, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that the first (153a) air electrode is a high-temperature air electrode, and second (153b) air electrode is a medium-temperature air electrode ([0042]). Egami further discloses that in order to create the operating temperature differences between the air electrodes, it is necessary to create the air electrodes with different materials ([0024]; [0040]). Thus, Egami reads on all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that the first and second electrolytes (152) are connected to each other to have an integral structure (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that, when a stacking direction of the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) is referred to as a first direction, the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells are arranged to be adjacent to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 4; [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. For the purposes of claim 14, examiner interprets the sealing members (131, 133) attached to the interconnects (110) as part of the interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0046]). Thus, with this interpretation, it is clear that Egami discloses that the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) include first and second recesses (see space between sealing members 131,133 and interconnects 110) in which the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells are respectively disposed (see Fig. 4; [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Egami further discloses that the first and second recesses are connected to each other (see space between sealing members 131,133 and interconnects 110 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Egami further discloses that the first fuel electrode (151a) faces a bottom surface (110a) of the first recess, and the second fuel electrode (151b) faces a bottom surface (110a) of the second recess (see Fig. 4; [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Egami further discloses that the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) include a plurality of through-holes (123, 124) extending in a stacking direction of the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133), and the plurality of through-holes (123, 124) are arranged outside the first and second recesses (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Egami further discloses that some of the plurality of through-holes (123, 124) are connected to the first recess and the others thereof are connected to the second recess through the flow path (121) and the mesh section (126) on the bottom surface (110a) of the first and second recesses (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 21, Egami discloses a solid oxide cell stack (title; [0014]; [0016]) comprising: a plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0034]); a first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) and including a first fuel electrode (151a), a first electrolyte (152), and a first air electrode (153a) arranged in a first direction (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]); and a second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) and including a second fuel electrode (151b), a second electrolyte (152), and a second air electrode (153b) arranged in the first direction (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]), wherein the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) and the second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) are disposed in a second direction crossing the first direction (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]). Egami further discloses that the first fuel electrode (151a) and the second fuel electrode (151b) are made of different materials with different operating temperatures ([0040]; see also [0024]). Examiner notes that the sealing members (131, 133) attached to the interconnects (110) can reasonably be considered as part of the interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0046]). Thus, with this interpretation, Egami clearly discloses that each of the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) includes at least one recess in which the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells are disposed (see Modified Figure 4 above), the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells facing a bottom surface (110a) and side surfaces of the at least one recess (see Modified Figure 4 above). Egami further discloses that the bottom surface (110a) includes a mesh section (126) which is connected to a flow path (121) designed to supply fuel (gas) to the first (151a) and second (151b) fuel electrodes (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0038]), reading on the limitation that a flow path is disposed on the bottom surface of the at least one recess. Thus, Egami reads on all of the limitations in claim 21.
Regarding claim 26, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 21. Egami further discloses that the first and second electrolytes (152) connected to each other to have an integral structure (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 27, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 21. Egami further discloses another embodiment in which the first (152a) and second (152b) electrolytes are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 9; [0055]).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that the operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is from 600 to 900oC ([0040]), overlapping the claimed range of 750oC or higher. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Egami to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Egami. Egami further discloses that the operating temperature of the second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is 600oC or less ([0040]), suggesting the claimed range of less than 750oC.
Claims 3-5, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Kao et al. (US 2009/0151850) (Kao) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is from 600oC to 900oC, and the operating temperature of the second oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is 600oC or less ([0040]), and that this difference in operating temperatures between the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells is achieved by using different materials for the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells ([0040]; see also [0024] and [0055]). Egami fails to disclose, however, that the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is an electrolyte-supported cell, and the second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is a fuel electrode-supported cell.
However, it is known in the art that electrolyte-supported solid oxide cells and fuel electrode/anode-supported cells have different operating temperatures and are made of different materials. For instance, Kao teaches that common electrolyte-supported cells (ESC) using YSZ in the electrolyte have operating temperatures from 800oC to 1000oC ([0005]). Furthermore, Kao teaches that common anode-supported cells (ASC) using NiO and YSZ as the anode material have operating temperatures from 650oC to 800oC and potentially as low as 500oC to 700oC ([0005]).
Therefore, since the electrolyte-supported cell taught by Kao has an operating temperature corresponding to the intended operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami, and the fuel electrode/anode-supported cell taught by Kao has an operating temperature corresponding to the intended operating temperature of the second solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami as an electrolyte-supported cell and the second solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami as a fuel electrode/anode-supported cell because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an effective way of achieving the intended operating temperatures of the first and second solid oxide cells.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 3 and 11, respectively. Kao further teaches that a thickness of the electrolyte for a fuel electrode/anode-supported cell is thinner than a thickness of the electrolyte for an electrolyte-supported cell (Kao: [0005]). Therefore, since modified Egami includes the teachings from Kao suggesting that the second solid oxide cell (Egami: 151b+152+153b) is a fuel electrode-supported cell, and the first solid oxide cell (Egami: 151a+152+153a) is an electrolyte-supported cell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second electrolyte (Egami: 152) to be thinner than the first electrolyte (Egami: 152).
Regarding claim 5, modified Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Kao further teaches that the fuel electrode/anode of both electrolyte-supported cells and fuel electrode/anode-supported cell include Ni and YSZ (Kao: [0005]). Therefore, since modified Egami includes the teachings from Kao suggesting that the first solid oxide cell (Egami: 151a+152+153a) is an electrolyte-supported cell, and the second solid oxide cell (Egami: 151b+152+153b) is a fuel electrode-supported cell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first (Egami: 151a) and second (Egami: 151b) fuel electrodes to include Ni and YSZ.
Regarding claim 19, Egami discloses a solid oxide cell stack (title; [0014]; [0016]) comprising: a plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0034]); a first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]); and a second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]). Egami further discloses that operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is from 600oC to 900oC, and the operating temperature of the second oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is 600oC or less ([0040]), and that this difference in operating temperatures between the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells is achieved by using different materials for the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells ([0040]; see also [0024] and [0055]). Examiner notes that the sealing members (131, 133) attached to the interconnects (110) can reasonably be considered as part of the interconnects (110+131+133) (see Fig. 4; [0046]). Thus, with this interpretation, Egami clearly discloses that each of the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) includes at least one recess in which the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells are disposed (see Modified Figure 4 above), the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) oxide cells facing a bottom surface (110a) and side surfaces of the at least one recess (see Modified Figure 4 above). Egami further discloses that the bottom surface (110a) includes a mesh section (126) which is connected to a flow path (121) designed to supply fuel (gas) to the first (151a) and second (151b) fuel electrodes (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0038]), suggesting the limitation that a flow path is disposed on the bottom surface of the at least one recess. Egami fails to disclose, however, that the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is an electrolyte-supported cell, and the second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is a fuel electrode-supported cell.
However, it is known in the art that electrolyte-supported solid oxide cells and fuel electrode/anode-supported cells have different operating temperatures and are made of different materials. For instance, Kao teaches that common electrolyte-supported cells (ESC) using YSZ in the electrolyte have operating temperatures from 800oC to 1000oC ([0005]). Furthermore, Kao teaches that common anode-supported cells (ASC) using NiO and YSZ as the anode material have operating temperatures from 650oC to 800oC and potentially as low as 500oC to 700oC ([0005]).
Therefore, since the electrolyte-supported cell taught by Kao has an operating temperature corresponding to the intended operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami, and the fuel electrode/anode-supported cell taught by Kao has an operating temperature corresponding to the intended operating temperature of the second solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami as an electrolyte-supported cell and the second solid oxide cell disclosed by Egami as a fuel electrode/anode-supported cell because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an effective way of achieving the intended operating temperatures of the first and second solid oxide cells.
Regarding claim 20, modified Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 19. Modified Egami further discloses that, when a stacking direction of the plurality of interconnects (Egami: 110+131+133) is referred to as a first direction, the first (Egami: 151a+152+153a) and second (Egami: 151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells are arranged to be adjacent to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 4; [0039]-[0040]).
Claims 5-7 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Naoumidis (DE 19630843 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 22, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 21, respectively. Egami further discloses that operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is from 600oC to 900oC, and the operating temperature of the second oxide cell (151b+152+153b) is 600oC or less ([0040]), and that this difference in operating temperatures between the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells is achieved by using different materials for the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells ([0040]; see also [0024] and [0055]). Egami fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the first (151a) and second (151b) fuel electrodes include Ni and YSZ, wherein the first fuel electrode (151a) has a lower content ratio of Ni than the second fuel electrode (151b).
However, these materials are common in the art for use in fuel electrodes. For instance, Naoumidis teaches a similar solid oxide fuel cell (title; [0002]) in which the fuel electrode (anode) includes a Ni-YSZ composite material because it has suitable conductivity properties ([0004]-[0006]). However, Naoumidis further teaches that an increased Ni content in the fuel electrode has adverse effects, such as cracks at the electrolyte-fuel electrode interface or reduced performance due to Ni agglomeration, at higher operating temperatures ([0009]; [0012]-[0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first and second fuel electrodes disclosed by Egami to include Ni and YSZ, as taught by Naoumidis, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to suitable conductivity. Furthermore, given that the first fuel electrode has a higher operating temperature than the second fuel electrode, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first fuel electrode disclosed by Egami to have a lower content ratio of Ni than the second fuel electrode because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would reduce the risk of cracks at the electrolyte-fuel electrode interface and decreased performance due to Ni agglomeration.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, modified Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 6 and 22, respectively. Modified Egami further discloses that the first (Egami: 152) and second (Egami: 152) electrolytes have substantially a same thickness (Egami: see Fig. 4).
Claims 9-10 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Baron et al. (US 2008/0160379) (Baron) (of record).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 8 and 21, respectively. Egami further discloses that the first (153a) air electrode is a high-temperature air electrode (operating temperature from 600 to 900oC), and second (153b) air electrode is a medium-temperature air electrode (operating temperature of 600oC or less) ([0042]; see also [0040]). Egami further discloses that in order to create the operating temperature differences between the air electrodes, it is necessary to create the air electrodes with different materials ([0024]; [0040]). Egami fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the first air electrode (153a) includes a LaMg-based ceramic, and the second air electrode (153b) includes a LaCo-based ceramic.
However, these materials are common in the art for use in air electrodes depending on their operating temperature. For instance, Baron teaches a similar solid oxide fuel cell (title; abstract), wherein air electrodes used in higher operating temperatures (750 to 1000oC) include LSM (a LaMg-based ceramic), and air electrodes used in lower operating temperatures (600 to 800oC) include LSCF (a LaCo-based ceramic) ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first air electrode disclosed by Egami to include a LaMg-based ceramic and the second air electrode to include a LaCo-based ceramic, based on the teachings from Baron, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an effective way of achieving the different operating temperatures of the first and second air electrodes.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, modified Egami discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 9 and 24, respectively. Modified Egami further discloses that the first (Egami: 152) and second (Egami: 152) electrolytes have substantially a same thickness (Egami: see Fig. 4).
Claims 1-2, 8, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 6,656,625) (Thompson) (of record) in view of Egami (JP 2012003934 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a solid oxide cell stack (title; abstract): comprising: a plurality of interconnects (11+30+40) (see Figs. 1 and 4A; Col. 5, line 43-Col. 6, line 26); a first solid oxide cell (15) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (11+30+40) and including a first fuel electrode (18), a first electrolyte (16), and a first air electrode (17) (see Figs. 1 and 4A; Col. 5, lines 51-67); and a second solid oxide cell (15) disposed to be adjacent to the first solid oxide cell (15) in a lateral direction between the plurality of interconnects and including a second fuel electrode (18), a second electrolyte (16), and a second air electrode (17) (see Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 51-67). Thompson further discloses that each of the plurality of interconnects (11+30+40) includes at least one recess in which the first and second solid oxide cells (15) are disposed (see Modified Figure 4A below), the first and second solid oxide cells (15) facing a bottom surface (22) and side surfaces of the at least one recess (see Modified Figure 4A below), wherein a flow path (20) is disposed on the bottom surface (22) of the at least one recess (see Fig. 4A; Col. 6, lines 1-9). Thompson fails to disclose, however, that an operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (15) is higher than an operating temperature of the second solid oxide cell (15).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4A, Thompson
However, it is known in the art to configure adjacent solid oxide cells with different operating temperatures. For instance, Egami teaches a similar solid oxide cell stack (title; [0014]; [0016]) comprising: a plurality of interconnects (110) (see Fig. 4; [0034]); a first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) disposed between the plurality of interconnects (110) and including a first fuel electrode (151a), a first electrolyte (152), and a first air electrode (153a) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]); and a second solid oxide cell (151b+152+153b) disposed to be adjacent to the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) in a lateral direction between the plurality of interconnects (110) and including a second fuel electrode (151b), a second electrolyte (152), and a second fuel electrode (153b) (see Figs. 3, 4, and 6; [0039]), wherein an operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (151a+152+153a) is higher than an operating temperature of the second oxide cell (151b+152+153b) ([0040]). Egami further teaches that configuring the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells to have different operating temperatures allows the overall power generation efficiency of the solid oxide cells to be maintained at a high level ([0012]; [0032]; [0053]; [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second solid oxide cells disclosed by Thompson such that the first solid oxide cell has a higher operating temperature than the second solid oxide cell, as taught by Thompson, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to maintain the overall power generation efficiency of the solid oxide cells at a high level.
Regarding claim 2, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further teaches that the operating temperature of the first solid oxide cell (Egami: 151a+152+153a) is from 600 to 900oC (Egami: [0040]), overlapping the claimed range of 750oC or higher. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, since modified Thompson includes the teachings from Egami regarding the operating temperatures of the first and second solid oxide cells, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thompson to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further teaches that the first (Egami: 153a) air electrode is a high-temperature air electrode, and second (Egami: 153b) air electrode is a medium-temperature air electrode (Egami: [0042]). Egami further teaches that in order to create the operating temperature differences between the air electrodes, it is necessary to create the air electrodes with different materials (Egami: [0024]; [0040]). Therefore, since modified Thompson includes the teachings from Egami regarding the operating temperatures of the first and second solid oxide cells, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thompson to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Egami further discloses that the first and second electrolytes (Egami: 152) are connected to each other to have an integral structure (Egami: see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]; [0041]). Therefore, since modified Thompson includes the teachings from Egami regarding the first and second solid oxide cells, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thompson to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Thompson further discloses that, when a stacking direction of the plurality of interconnects (Thompson: 11+30+40) is referred to as a first direction, the first (Thompson: 15) and second (Thompson: 15) solid oxide cells are arranged to be adjacent to each other in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (Thompson: see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Thompson further discloses that the plurality of interconnects (Thompson: 11+30+40) include first and second recesses in which the first (Thompson: 15) and second (Thompson: 15) solid oxide cells are respectively disposed (see Modified Figures 1 and 4A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
370
761
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Thompson
PNG
media_image4.png
234
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4A, Thompson
Regarding claim 15, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Modified Thompson further discloses that the first and second recesses are connected to each other (see Modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
570
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Thompson
Regarding claim 16, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Modified Thompson further discloses that the first fuel electrode (Thompson: 18) faces a bottom surface (Thompson: 22) of the first recess, and the second fuel electrode (Thompson: 18) faces a bottom surface (Thompson: 22) of the second recess (Thompson: see Figs. 1 and 4A; Col. 6, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 17, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Modified Thompson further discloses that the plurality of interconnects (Thompson: 11+30+40) include a plurality of through-holes (Thompson: 24, 25, 26, 27) extending in a stacking direction of the plurality of interconnects (Thompson: 11+30+40), and the plurality of through-holes (Thompson: 24, 25, 26, 27) are arranged outside the first and second recesses (Thompson: see Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 18, modified Thompson discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Thompson further discloses that some of the plurality of through-holes (Thompson: 24, 25, 26, 27) are connected to the first recess and the others thereof are connected to the second recess (Thompson: see Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 16-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every claim objection and drawing objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/03/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Egami fails to disclose the claimed recess in amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that since the void space created from the sealing members (131, 133) and the metal support portion (110) (identified together in the office action as corresponding to the claimed interconnects) only exists as the sealing members (131, 133) are stacked on the metal support portion (110), Egami does not disclose the claimed recess. However, the claims do not preclude the plurality of interconnects from being a composite structure, and the fact that Egami may disclose a method of making the plurality of interconnects (110+131+133) that differs from how the claimed interconnects are made is irrelevant since the claims are directed toward a product, not a method of making. Thus, examiner can reasonably consider the combination of the sealing members (131, 133) and the metal support portion (110) disclosed by Egami as corresponding to the claimed interconnects, and since a void space is clearly present between the sealing members (131, 133) and the bottom surface (110a) of the metal support portion (110) in which the first (151a+152+153a) and second (151b+152+153b) solid oxide cells are disposed (see Modified Figure 4 above), Egami reads on the claimed recess. Applicant further argues that Egami fails to disclose the claimed flow path disposed on the bottom surface (110a) of the recess. However, as noted in the above Office Action, Egami expressly discloses that the bottom surface (110a) includes a mesh section (126) which is connected to a flow path (121) designed to supply fuel (gas) to the first (151a) and second (151b) fuel electrodes (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]-[0038]). Since this mesh section (126) on the bottom surface (110a) allows gas to flow through the bottom surface (110a) of the interconnects, it reads on the claimed flow path. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Egami reference are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Thompson in view of Egami fails to make obvious the newly claimed recess and flow path. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the arguments presented above, examiner notes that it is reasonable to consider the combination of the glass-ceramic insulation (30) layer, the sealing layer (40), and the separator plate (11) as corresponding to the claimed interconnects since the claims do not preclude the interconnects from being a composite structure. Thus, with this interpretation, it is clear that Thompson discloses the claimed recess in which the first and second solid oxide cells (15) are disposed, facing both the bottom (22) and side surfaces of the recess (see Modified Figure 4A above). Applicant further argues that Thompson fails to disclose the claimed flow path since the flow channels (20) disclosed by Thompson are formed below the solid oxide cells (15) and do not allow gas to flow in a lateral path through both the recess and the flow path. However, examiner notes that the claims only require a flow path disposed on the bottom surface of the recess; they do not require any further structure or limitation preventing the flow path from existing below the solid oxide cells. What’s more, any arguments based on the location or intended direction of the flow of gas within the flow path are merely based on the intended use of the interconnects and do not structurally differentiate the claimed recess from the one disclosed by Thompson. Thus, since Thompson clearly discloses flow channels (20) on the bottom surface (22) of the recess, Thompson reads on the claimed flow path.
Finally, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the Thompson and Egami references because Thompson and Egami disclose structurally different fuel cells. However, this is not persuasive because both Thompson and Egami are directed towards solid oxide fuel cells (Thompson: title; abstract; Egami: title), disclose solid oxide cells disposed on metal supports (Thompson: Col. 3, lines 56-61; Egami: [0039]), and are intended to function under high temperatures (Thompson: Col. 5, lines 16-19; Egami: [0040]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly recognized the two references as analogous art. Furthermore, the teachings from Egami regarding the different operating temperatures of the solid oxide cells would not require changing the glass-ceramic structure taught by Thompson since it would only require making changes to the solid oxide cells themselves (Egami: [0024]; [0040]). Thus, since the teachings from Egami would not make Thompson unsuitable for its original purpose and would achieve the benefit of maintained power generation efficiency at a high level (Egami: [0012]; [0032]; [0053]; [0056]), examiner maintains that the combination of Thompson and Egami would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
As such, claims 1-27 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights