DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 19 is clearly sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejection of those claims. In particular, the change in the preamble from “[a] cell assembly” to “[a] solid oxide electrolysis cell assembly” removes Kang et al as anticipatory prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the separator (either 15 or 25) of Kang et al does not perform the function of preventing air and fuel gas supplied to the first and second unit cells from mixing with each other.
In response, Applicant’s arguments, which cited paragraphs [0045]-[0046] of Kang et al, arguing that the separator plate of normal bipolar cells was not needed in the cell of Kang et al is not the same as saying that the cell structure of Kang et al permitted mixing of the air and fuel streams. Applicant’s attention is further directed to figs. 3A, 3B, and 4 of Kang et al, and the related description at paragraphs [0049]-[0051]. From this passage and the figures, it is clear that the structure of Kang et al maintained the air and fuel streams in separate spaces and did not allow the mixing of the two gases. The combination of the porous layer (15 or 25) with the current collector (16 or 26) and the guide (16’ or 17’) functioned to contain the gas present in the porous separator layer separate from the gas present in the other porous separator layer.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 18-22 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2010/0183940 A1) in view of Echigo et al (US 2019/0341640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0033], and [0038], annotated copy of fig. 2 reproduced herein to point to the “unit” as claimed with an added outline) a solid oxide cell comprising a unit (10+20) including a first unit cell (11) including a first fuel electrode (12), a first electrolyte layer (13) including a solid oxide, and a first air electrode (14), a second unit cell (21) disposed to be spaced apart from the first unit cell and including a second fuel electrode (22), a second electrolyte layer (23) and a second air electrode (24). A first porous conductive layer (15) is disposed between the first unit cell and the second unit cell. A separator (25, more specifically 25b in fig. 1) is disposed outside of the unit and has a passage (internal pores). The second unit cell is disposed “on” the first unit cell (as defined in paragraph [47] of the instant specification) and a stacking order of the first unit cell and the second unit cell are mirror symmetric to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kang et al further teach (see paragraph [0037]) that the mesoporous layers (15b, 25b) were formed of an insulating material. Kang et al further discuss (see figs. 3A, 3B, and 4 and paragraphs [0059]-[0051]) that the structure of the cell assembly, including the porous layers (15b and 25b), along with current collectors (16 and 26) and guides (16’ and 26’) also considered to be part of the “separator” as claimed, acted to maintain separate anode and cathode environments that prevented mixing of the gases present on opposite sides of the membranes (13 and 23).
While the exact structure of the separators of Kang et al differ from the structure of the separators in the instant disclosure, Applicant has elected to claim features of the separators in a functional manner. When the prior art also performs that function, it is considered to meet the scope of the claims even if it has different structure when the claim does not limit the required structure. See MPEP § 2114.
Kang et al differs from the instantly claimed invention because Kang et al teach the solid oxide cell being a fuel cell not an electrolysis cell.
However, Echigo et al (see abstract, paragraphs [0110]-[0114] and [0129], fig. 27 and [0346]) a similar solid oxide cell design (esp. fig. 27), wherein the same structure was capable of functioning as either a fuel cell or an electrolysis cell, merely by (1) feeding hydrogen and air for fuel cell operation or steam and air for electrolysis operation and (2) withdrawing electric current in fuel cell operation or providing electric current in electrolysis operation. Thus, the prior art shows that the structures of solid oxide fuel cells and solid oxide electrolysis cells are generally identical in structure and also obvious variations of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the solid oxide fuel cell of Kang et al to be a solid oxide electrolysis cell according to the suggestion of Echigo et al when it was desired to produce hydrogen gas from steam instead of producing electricity from hydrogen as taught by Echigo et al.
Regarding claim 2, the first air electrode (14) and the second air electrode (24) of Kang et al were both positioned on opposite sides of the first porous conductive layer (15).
Regarding claim 3, the separator of Kang et al included a first separator (25) located adjacent to the first fuel electrode (12) and a second separator (25) located adjacent to the second fuel electrode (22).
Regarding claim 4, Kang et al teach (see fig. 1, paragraphs [0031] and [0034]) providing a second (25a) porous conductive layer disposed between the first fuel electrode and the first separator and a third porous conductive layer (also 25a but located on the opposite side of the unit) between the second fuel electrode and the second separator.
Regarding claim 5, the first porous conductive layer, second porous conductive layer, and third porous conductive layer of Kang et al are taught as being sintered metal powder as best seen in fig. 3a. These porous structures are considered to be foams as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the first air electrode (14) and the second air electrode (24) of Kang et al contacted opposing (i.e. both) sides of the first porous conductive layer (15).
Regarding claim 9, Kang et al show the first fuel electrode (12) and the second fuel electrode (22) being respectively disposed opposite to both sides of the first porous conductive layer (15).
Regarding claim 10, Kang et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0033], [0038], and [0044], annotated copy of fig. 2 reproduced above to point to the “unit” as claimed with an added outline) a cell assembly comprising a stack (40) including a plurality of solid oxide cells stacked on each other, an electrical wire unit (not numbered but shown by the lines connecting to current collectors (16 and 26) with values (e.g. “4qe-“)) connecting the plurality of solid oxide cells, wherein each solid oxide cell included a unit including a first unit cell (11) including a first fuel electrode (12), a first electrolyte layer (13) including a solid oxide, and a first air electrode (14) on the opposite side of the first electrolyte layer from the first fuel electrode, a second unit cell (21) disposed to be spaced apart from the first unit cell and including a second fuel electrode (22), a second electrolyte layer (23) and a second air electrode (24) on the opposite side of the second electrolyte layer from the second fuel electrode. A first porous conductive layer (15) is disposed between the first unit cell and the second unit cell. A separator (25, more specifically 25b in fig. 1) is disposed outside of the unit and has a passage (internal pores). The second unit cell is disposed “on” the first unit cell (as defined in paragraph [47] of the instant specification) and a stacking order of the first unit cell and the second unit cell are mirror symmetric to each other in the stacking direction.
Kang et al further teach (see paragraph [0037]) that the mesoporous layers (15b, 25b) were formed of an insulating material. Kang et al further discuss (see figs. 3A, 3B, and 4 and paragraphs [0059]-[0051]) that the structure of the cell assembly, including the porous layers (15b and 25b), along with current collectors (16 and 26) and guides (16’ and 26’) also considered to be part of the “separator” as claimed, acted to maintain separate anode and cathode environments that prevented mixing of the gases present on opposite sides of the membranes (13 and 23).
While the exact structure of the separators of Kang et al differ from the structure of the separators in the instant disclosure, Applicant has elected to claim features of the separators in a functional manner. When the prior art also performs that function, it is considered to meet the scope of the claims even if it has different structure when the claim does not limit the required structure. See MPEP § 2114.
Kang et al differs from the instantly claimed invention because Kang et al teach the solid oxide cell being a fuel cell not an electrolysis cell.
However, Echigo et al (see abstract, paragraphs [0110]-[0114] and [0129], fig. 27 and [0346]) a similar solid oxide cell design (esp. fig. 27), wherein the same structure was capable of functioning as either a fuel cell or an electrolysis cell, merely by (1) feeding hydrogen and air for fuel cell operation or steam and air for electrolysis operation and (2) withdrawing electric current in fuel cell operation or providing electric current in electrolysis operation. Thus, the prior art shows that the structures of solid oxide fuel cells and solid oxide electrolysis cells are generally identical in structure and also obvious variations of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the solid oxide fuel cell of Kang et al to be a solid oxide electrolysis cell according to the suggestion of Echigo et al when it was desired to produce hydrogen gas from steam instead of producing electricity from hydrogen as taught by Echigo et al.
Regarding claim 11, the first air electrode (14) and the second air electrode (24) of Kang et al were both positioned on opposite sides of the first porous conductive layer (15).
Regarding claim 12, the separator of Kang et al included a first separator (25) located adjacent to the first fuel electrode (12) and a second separator (25) located adjacent to the second fuel electrode (22).
Regarding claim 13, Kang et al teach (see fig. 1, paragraphs [0031] and [0034]) providing a second (25a) porous conductive layer disposed between the first fuel electrode and the first separator and a third porous conductive layer (also 25a but located on the opposite side of the unit) between the second fuel electrode and the second separator.
Regarding claim 14, the electrical wire unit of Kang et al connected each of the units of solid oxide cells in parallel to each other. Kang et al show wires connecting to the plurality of first porous conductive layers (15) and wires connecting to the plurality of second and third porous conductive layers (25a, through porous layer 25).
Regarding claim 15, the first electrical wire connected each of the first porous conductive layers together.
Regarding claim 16, the first electrical wire included a plurality of sub-wires (i.e. branches) connecting from the main wire to the plurality of porous conductive layers.
Regarding claim 18, Kang et al fail to teach a case surrounding the stack. Echigo et al teach (see figs. 9 and 10, paragraphs [0176]-[0177] and [0181]-[0195]) providing a case (40) around, but spaced apart from, a solid oxide cell stack to provide an air moving path between the case and the stack to supply air to the air electrodes of the solid oxide cells. At least some of the electrical wires taught by Echigo et al (see fig. 7) were located within the air moving path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the case surrounding, but spaced apart from, the stack forming the air moving path and to have located the electrical wire unit in the air moving path because the case of Echigo provided heat insulation of the solid oxide cells from ambient conditions and to have contained the exhaust gas products.
Regarding claim 19, Kang et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0033], [0038], and [0044], annotated copy of fig. 2 reproduced above to point to the “unit” as claimed with an added outline) a cell assembly comprising a solid oxide cell assembly that included a first unit cell (11) including a first fuel electrode (12), a first electrolyte layer (13) including a solid oxide, and a first air electrode (14) on the opposite side of the first electrolyte layer from the first fuel electrode, a second unit cell (21) disposed to be spaced apart from the first unit cell and including a second fuel electrode (22), a second electrolyte layer (23) and a second air electrode (24) on the opposite side of the second electrolyte layer from the second fuel electrode, a separator (25, more specifically 25b in fig. 1) is disposed outside of the unit and has a passage (internal pores), a first porous conductive layer (15) is disposed between the first unit cell and the second unit cell, and, an electrical wire unit (not numbered but shown by the lines connecting to current collectors (16 and 26) with values (e.g. “4qe-“)) connected to the first unit cell, the second unit cell, and the first porous conductive layer. The first porous conductive layer is disposed “below” the first unit cell or “on” the second unit cell (as defined in paragraph [47] of the instant specification) and a stacking order of the first unit cell and the second unit cell are mirror symmetric to each other in the stacking direction.
Kang et al further teach (see paragraph [0037]) that the mesoporous layers (15b, 25b) were formed of an insulating material. Kang et al further discuss (see figs. 3A, 3B, and 4 and paragraphs [0059]-[0051]) that the structure of the cell assembly, including the porous layers (15b and 25b), along with current collectors (16 and 26) and guides (16’ and 26’) also considered to be part of the “separator” as claimed, acted to maintain separate anode and cathode environments that prevented mixing of the gases present on opposite sides of the membranes (13 and 23).
While the exact structure of the separators of Kang et al differ from the structure of the separators in the instant disclosure, Applicant has elected to claim features of the separators in a functional manner. When the prior art also performs that function, it is considered to meet the scope of the claims even if it has different structure when the claim does not limit the required structure. See MPEP § 2114.
Kang et al differs from the instantly claimed invention because Kang et al teach the solid oxide cell being a fuel cell not an electrolysis cell.
However, Echigo et al (see abstract, paragraphs [0110]-[0114] and [0129], fig. 27 and [0346]) a similar solid oxide cell design (esp. fig. 27), wherein the same structure was capable of functioning as either a fuel cell or an electrolysis cell, merely by (1) feeding hydrogen and air for fuel cell operation or steam and air for electrolysis operation and (2) withdrawing electric current in fuel cell operation or providing electric current in electrolysis operation. Thus, the prior art shows that the structures of solid oxide fuel cells and solid oxide electrolysis cells are generally identical in structure and also obvious variations of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the solid oxide fuel cell of Kang et al to be a solid oxide electrolysis cell according to the suggestion of Echigo et al when it was desired to produce hydrogen gas from steam instead of producing electricity from hydrogen as taught by Echigo et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 20 and 21, depending upon the portion of the cell stack of Kang et al that is designated as the “unit”, the apparatus of Kang et al meets the limitations of both claims. The Office has provided an additional annotated version of fig. 2 of Kang et al to show how a different unit designation would meet the limitations of claim 21, where the “unit” designation seen above would meet the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, the first porous conductive layer of the unit is in contact with the first unit cell and the second unit cell.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2010/0183940 A1) in view of Echigo et al (US 2019/0341640 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 19, respectively, above, and further in view of Rehg et al (US 2007/0111069 A1).
Kang et al is silent with respect to an electrically conductive adhesive being located between the air electrodes and the first porous conductive layer.
Rehg et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0017]-[0018]) that adhesive layers are used in a solid oxide cell between the electrodes and the adjacent interconnect layers. The adhesive layers provided for a stronger and more reliable bond with good electrical contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added adhesive layers as taught by Rehg et al to the cell of Kang et al for the purpose of providing a stronger and more reliable bond with good electrical contact between the air electrodes and the first porous conductive layer (which is equivalent to the interconnect of Rehg et al).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 2010/0183940 A1) in view of Echigo et al (US 2019/0341640 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR 10-2265486 B1).
Kang et al do not teach providing circuit breakers in the first or second electrical wires being configured to stop operation of the plurality of units.
Kim et al teach (see English abstract and figs. 3-4 in copy provided by Applicant, and paragraphs [0050]-[0055] of machine translation cited herewith) providing a plurality of switches (611) connected to a plurality of solid oxide electrolysis cells and configured to stop operation of a plurality of the cells upon detection of a problem or fault with the current, potential, temperature, or other system variables by a sensor “S”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a plurality of switches (which are controlled circuit breakers) as taught by Kim et al to the wires of Kang et al to permit bypassing of cell units in which a fault has been detected as taught by Kim et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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 tele phone 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.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights