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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 9. The pending claims are claims 1-11.
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.
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 1-11 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.
The term “does not melt” in independent claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “does not melt” is not defined by the claim; the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification and the Examiner interprets “should not melt” (0062), of the Specification of the PG Pub, as it “might not melt”, but “it might melt.”
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is a difference between “does not melt” and “should not melt”; as “does not melt” is a definite term, while “should not melt” means that it may or may not melt (it is not a definite term)..
. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification and the Examiner interprets “should not melt” (0062), of the Specification of the PG Pub, as it “might not melt”, but “it might melt.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko et al., US 2005/0147866.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al., US 2005/0147866.
Regarding claim 1, Ko et al., teaches a seal material (abstract) for an electrochemical reaction cell (abstract) for separating fuel gas and oxidizing gas in the electrochemical reaction cell (0048), comprising: a plurality of ceramic particles (ceramic fibrous particles; 0035-0038); and a hardener for hardening the plurality of ceramic particles (0020; 0024), wherein the seal material has an apparent porosity (0020; 0024; 0026) of 10 to 25% (0037) (Table 4: porosity 4-23%).
Regarding the amendment, “wherein the plurality of ceramic particles does not melt at an operating temperature of the electrochemical reaction cell,” there is a difference between “does not melt” and “should not melt”; as “does not melt” is a definite term, while “should not melt” means that it may or may not melt (it is not a definite term). . Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification and the Examiner interprets “should not melt” (0062), of the Specification of the PG Pub, as it “might not melt”, but “it might melt.”
Regarding claim 2, Ko et al., teaches seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell (abstract) according to the seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell according to wherein the plurality of ceramic particles includes different particle sizes (0048).
Regarding claim 3, Ko et al., teaches wherein the plurality of ceramic particles includes different types (0026; 0035-0038).
Regarding claim 4, Ko et al., teaches wherein the plurality of ceramic particles includes at least one of A1203 (0028; 0035), ZrO2 (028; 0039) or MgO (0019-0020; 0024; 0028).
Regarding claim 5, Ko et al., teaches wherein the hardener (0020; 0024) includes at least one of a Si-Ca-Al-O-based cement hardener (0020).
Regarding claim 7, Ko et al., teaches wherein the plurality of ceramic particles further includes ZrSiO2 (0011).
Regarding claim 9, Ko et al., teaches method of producing a seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell (abstract) for separating fuel gas and oxidizing gas in the electrochemical reaction cell (separator; 0043; 0048), comprising a step of hardening a plurality of ceramic particles with a hardener (0020; 0024) so as to have an apparent porosity of 10 to 25% (0037) (Table 4: porosity 4-23%).
Regarding the amendment, “wherein the plurality of ceramic particles does not melt at an operating temperature of the electrochemical reaction cell,” there is a difference between “does not melt” and “should not melt”; as “does not melt” is a definite term, while “should not melt” means that it may or may not melt (it is not a definite term). Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification and the Examiner interprets “should not melt” (0062), of the Specification of the PG Pub, as it “might not melt”, but “it might melt.”
Regarding claim 11, Ko et al., teaches method of producing a seal material (abstract) for an electrochemical reaction cell (abstract) according to the method of producing a seal material (abstract) for an electrochemical reaction cell according to wherein the hardener is a cement-based hardener (0020; 0023).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al., US 2005/0147866, in view of Tsukuda et al., US 6562505.
Regarding claim 8, Ko et al., does not teach a current collector member for collecting power generated by the at least one electrochemical reaction cell stack; and a seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell according to claim 1, wherein the seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell is disposed between a fuel gas passage and an oxidizing gas passage of the at least one electrochemical reaction cell stack.
Tsukuda et al., teaches a current collector member for collecting power generated by the at least one electrochemical reaction cell stack (col. 2, lines 57-67); and a seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell according to claim 1 (abstract), wherein the seal material for an electrochemical reaction cell is disposed between a fuel gas passage and an oxidizing gas passage of the at least one electrochemical reaction cell stack (col. 2, lines 57-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Tsukuda et al., into the teachings of Ko et al., because Tsukuda teaches a sealing structure designed to increase the sealability of the cell tube “thereby enhancing the electrical characteristics” of the electrochemical cell.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al., US 2005/0147866, in view of Blackburn et al., US 2021/0143448.
Regarding claim 6, Ko et al., teaches wherein the plurality of ceramic particles include MgO (0019-0020; 0024; 0028).
Ko does not teach the hardener includes a phosphoric acid-based hardener.
Blackburn teaches a phosphoric acid-based hardener (phosphoric acid; 0161) (cements; 0141; 0143).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Blackburn into the teachings of Ko because Blackburn teaches that “Such seals 320 may be advantageous for the sealing of metallic materials to ceramic materials and/or for the sealing together of two different metallic or ceramic materials.” (0139).
Regarding claim 10, Ko et al., teaches the method of producing a seal material (0010-0012) with the plurality of ceramic particles including MgO (0019-0020; 0024; 0028).
Ko does not teach for an electrochemical reaction cell according to wherein magnesium phosphate is synthesized as the hardener by mixing phosphoric acid.
Blackburn teaches an electrochemical reaction cell according to wherein magnesium phosphate is synthesized as the hardener by mixing phosphoric acid (0161).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Blackburn into the teachings of Ko because Blackburn teaches that “Such seals 320 may be advantageous for the sealing of metallic materials to ceramic materials and/or for the sealing together of two different metallic or ceramic materials.” (0139).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “apparent porosity in Ko refer to values obtained upon firing the glass/ceramic fiber gasket and do not represent values during operation.”
However, the porosity in the seal material of Ko teaches a porosity of 4% to 23% in Table 4 of Ko et al. (0037). Independent claim 1 is a product claim so the method of making the porous seal material is not dependent on the product.
The Applicant argues that “by clarifying that the ceramic particles do not melt in claim 1, the patentable distinction from Ko is evident.”
However, the term “does not melt” in amended claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “does not melt” is not defined by the claim; the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification. Instead, “should not melt” is in paragraph 0062 of the Specification of the PG Pub.
Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, “does not melt” is not in the specification and the Examiner interprets “should not melt” (0062), of the Specification of the PG Pub, as it “might not melt”, but “it might melt.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights