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 reply filed 6/9/2026 includes substitute drawings, claim amendments, and corresponding arguments. Some of Applicant’s amendments are not supported by the instant disclosure, see 35 USC 112(a) section in this action for more detail.
Independent Claim 1
Applicant argues anode of the primary reference (Gao) does not disclose all limitations set forth in amended Claim 1. Applicant states Gao’s anode (anode structure 1 having ridge-shaped platforms 9) “is not a single layer but rather a first layer 1 and separate platforms 9 formed on the electrode layer 1.” To overcome Gao, Applicant states “Applicant has amended Claim 1 to clarify that the claimed anode is a single layer in which the first and second ends have a larger thickness than at least one inner portion.”
In response to Applicant's argument that Gao fails to show an anode as a single body, it is noted that multiple features upon which Applicant relies are not recited in the rejected or amended claim(s). Applicant states Claim 1 sets forth the anode is “a single layer,” but the Claim 1 limitation “the anode structure comprising a layer” does not set forth an anode structure that would exclude Gao. Examiner also notes Claim 1 does not establish the relationship between the “first and second ends” and the “first and second thickness” argued by Applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even if Claim 1 recited limitations requiring the anode to be a single body, Gao would likely still
anticipate or be obvious over the “single body” limitation(s). Gao discloses the support electrode/anode 1 and protruding ridge-shaped platforms 9 are formed as a single body (via extrusion molding [0058]; injecting a slurry into a mold to prepare electrode 1 and platforms 9 [0075]). Gao also discloses the electrode 1 and platforms 9 are the same material ([0056]), and are not separate structures (Fig. 6).
Independent Claim 8
Applicant argues the anode of the primary reference (Chung) does not disclose all limitations set forth in amended Claim 8. Applicant states Chung’s anode layer 41 “is merely in contact with the support 10 and one [electrolyte] layer 42,” which is different than the amended Claim 8 limitation “an anode layer provided within the electrolyte layer such that the anode layer is provided between and in contact with the top and bottom portions of the electrolyte layer."
In response to Applicant's argument that Chung fails to show an anode in contact with the top and bottom portions of the electrolyte layer, the basis for Applicant’s argument is not recited in the rejected or amended claim(s). Applicant appears to argue there cannot be any intervening layers (such as Chung’s support 10) between the claimed anode layer and electrolyte layer. However, this requirement is not set forth by the claim, and Chung’s structure still meets the limitations of amended Claim 8. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
After an updated search and consideration of the amended claim(s), the claimed invention remains obvious over the prior art cited in the previous action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 6/9/2026. These drawings are accepted. All drawing
objections set forth in the previous action have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 21 and 22 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.
Claim 21 recites “The anode structure according to claim 1, wherein the first thickness and the second thickness extend in a z direction, a x direction extends perpendicular to the z direction, the layer has a centerline that is substantially parallel to the x direction and the layer is substantially symmetrical about the centerline.”
The instant specification discloses “The anode layer 20 is preferably formed via EPD of the porous anode material on a metal substrate in the Z-direction” ([0031]). The instant specification does not disclose the remainder of Claim 21 (underlined above).
Please identify where support for this limitation can be found, or amend the claim accordingly. Claim 22 is also rejected, as it depends upon Claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “The anode structure according to claim 21, wherein the layer has a porosity ranging from 30% to 50%.” The limitation “the layer” in Claim 22 is in reference to “the anode structure comprising a layer” on line 2 of Claim 1.
Although the instant specification discloses the anode layer is porous (“The anode layer 20 is formed of a porous anode material that can have a plurality of pores formed therein,” see [0031] of the published application), the instant specification does not teach a porosity range for the anode layer. The only porosity range disclosed by the instant specification corresponds to the cathode layer (“The cathode layers 14 and 16 are porous and have a porosity of 30-60%” [0024]). The instant specification does not appear to teach any embodiments where the disclosed porosity of the cathode layer would also apply to the anode layer (e.g., the anode and cathode layers are made of the same material).
Please identify where support for this limitation can be found, or amend the claim accordingly. Examiner notes this limitation is also recited in Claim 20, which is currently withdrawn.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 12 recite the anode has “a first end that is a first fuel channel; a second end that is a second fuel channel.” Examiner interprets “a first fuel channel” and “a second fuel channel” as different sections of the same fuel channel, not two separate and distinct channels. This interpretation is supported by the anode structure of the instant disclosure, which has a first end 38, a second end 40, and “a longitudinal body 42 extending between the first and second ends 38 and 40” ([0033], Figs. 2-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao, CN 2884547 Y (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Gao discloses an anode structure for use in a solid oxide electrochemical device (anode 1 in a planar SOFC [0022, 0056], Figs. 6-7), the anode structure comprising a layer having:
a first end that is a first fuel channel (portion of anode 1 that is the junction of fuel gas inlet pipe 11 and anode gas channel 2 [0056]);
a second end that is a second fuel channel (portion of anode 1 that is the junction of fuel gas outlet pipe 12 and anode gas channel 2 [0056]); and
a longitudinal body extending between the first and second ends (portion of anode 1 that forms the anode gas channel 2 [0056]),
the longitudinal body including at least one first body portion having a first thickness (portions of anode 1 having the protruding platform 9 [0056]) and at least one second body portion having a second thickness that is thinner than the first thickness (portions of anode 1 not having the protruding platform 9, see Annotated Fig. 6), and
the at least one second body portion being provided along the longitudinal body in alternating order with the at least one first body portion (plurality of protruding platforms 9 distributed on the surface of the porous electrode [0010, 0022], Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
1252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 2, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the at least one first body portion includes a plurality of first body portions that are provided along the longitudinal body in alternating order with the at least one second body portion ([0010, 0022, 0056], Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
636
1268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 3, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the at least one second body portion includes a plurality of second body portions that are provided along the longitudinal
body in alternating order with the at least one first body portion ([0010, 0022, 0056], Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
694
1260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 4, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the at least one second body portion includes a plurality of second body portions that are provided along the longitudinal body in alternating order with the at least one first body portion ([0010, 0022, 0056], Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
688
1262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 5, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses a ratio of the
first thickness to the second thickness is between 1.1 to 1.5 (first thickness is anode thickness 1 + protruding platform 9 height, 7.5 mm; second thickness is anode thickness 1, 5.5 mm [0047, 0056, 0071], produces a thickness ratio of 7.5/5.5 = 1.36).
The court has held that "when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 21, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the first thickness and the second thickness extend in a z direction (Annotated Fig. 6), a[n] x direction extends perpendicular to the z direction (Annotated Fig. 6), the layer has a centerline that is substantially parallel to the x direction and the layer is substantially symmetrical about the centerline (Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
666
1106
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 22, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the layer has a porosity ranging from 30% to 50% (the porosity of the porous Ni-YSZ supported anode 1 is approximately
42% [0035]).
The court has held that "when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 23, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao discloses the first thickness and the second thickness extend in a z direction (Annotated Fig. 6), a y direction extends perpendicular to the z direction (Annotated Fig. 6), and the at least one second body portion is provided in the y direction in alternating order with the at least one first body portion (Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
584
1108
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Gao – Annotated Fig. 6
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chung et al., WO 2009096624 A1 (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, Chung discloses a solid oxide electrochemical device (solid oxide fuel cell “SOFC” [0009-0023], Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a first cathode layer and a second cathode layer (second electrode layer 44 applied to upper and lower outer surfaces [0086], Annotated Fig. 4);
an electrolyte layer that is provided between the first and second cathode layers, the electrolyte layer having a top portion and a bottom portion (electrolyte layer 42 [0082], Annotated Fig. 4); and
an anode layer provided within the electrolyte layer such that the anode layer is provided between and in contact with the top and bottom portions of the electrolyte layer (first electrode layer 41 [0080], the electrolyte layer 42 is uniformly applied on the first electrode layer [0081-0082], Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image7.png
708
1004
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chung – Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 9, Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Chung discloses the SOFC further comprises a metal conductive layer (interconnection layer 43 is electrically conductive [0083-0086]) provided over the first cathode layer such the first cathode layer is sandwiched between the electrolyte layer and the metal conductive layer (see Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Chung discloses the metal conductive layer (43) has a plurality of air flow channels provided therethrough (interconnection layer 43 alternates with second gas channels 16/17 [0075-0078], Figs. 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Gao, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao, CN 2884547 Y.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Gao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Gao does not disclose the first thickness is “substantially 80 microns” (Claim 6) and also does not disclose the second thickness is “substantially 60 microns” (Claim 7). However, Examiner notes Gao’s ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness is within the claimed range of 1.1 to 1.5 (first thickness is anode thickness 1 + protruding platform 9 height, 7.5 mm; second thickness is anode thickness 1, 5.5 mm [0047, 0056, 0071], produces a thickness ratio of 7.5/5.5 = 1.36, See Claim 5). Additionally, Gao discloses the size of a prepared single SOFC cell can be large or small, in order to “meet the needs of building battery stacks of different scales” ([0067]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first and second thicknesses, in the SOFC of Gao, in order to build battery stacks of different sizes, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Chesnaud et al., “Corrugated Electrode/Electrolyte Interfaces in
SOFC: Theoretical and Experimental Development,” 2017 ECS Trans. 78 (1), pg. 1851-1863 (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 11, Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Chung does not disclose
the anode layer (41) has a first thickness and a second thickness that is thinner than the first thickness. However, this limitation is taught by Chesnaud et al.
Chesnaud teaches various geometric shapes for an interface between an anode layer and an electrolyte layer in a SOFC, wherein the anode layer has varying thicknesses (pg. 1855, Figs. 1-2). Compared to a flat/planar interface between the anode and electrolyte, Chesnaud teaches multiple benefits are achieved when the interface is patterned, and cites a significant increase in current density and overall improved SOFC performance with a cube-shaped pattern (pg. 1859-1862). Examiner notes Chung’s interface appears to be planed, and Chesnaud’s improved patterned surface has a “first thickness” and “second thickness,” see Examiner’s annotations to Chesnaud Fig. 2.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the anode layer of Chung possess the first and second thicknesses of Chesnaud, as Chesnaud teaches an anode structure having a second thickness thinner than a first thickness will improve the current density and performance of the SOFC.
PNG
media_image8.png
472
1190
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Chesnaud – Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 12, modified Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Chung discloses the anode layer further includes a first end that is a first fuel channel, a second end that is a second fuel channel, and a longitudinal body extending between the first and second ends (Chung, first gas flow channels 6 extend in a longitudinal direction [0072-0077], Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image9.png
534
1202
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Chung – Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Chung discloses the anode layer includes at least one first body portion (see Annotated Chesnaud Fig. 2) and at least one second body portion provided along the longitudinal body (Annotated Chesnaud Fig. 2), the at least one first body portion having the first thickness (Chesnaud, 400 μm, pg. 1852) and the at least one second body portion having the second thickness (Chesnaud, 300 μm, pg. 1852), and the at least one second body portion is provided along the longitudinal body in alternating order with the at least one first body portion (alternating pattern in longitudinal direction in Chung Fig. 4)(Claim 13). Modified Chung also discloses a ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness is 1.33 (Claim 14) (pg. 1852, see Chesnaud Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image10.png
530
1248
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Chesnaud – Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, modified Chung discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Chung discloses the anode electrode layer has a thickness of 400 μm (Chesnaud, pg. 1852), but does not specifically disclose the first thickness is “substantially 80 microns” (Claim 6) and also does not disclose the second thickness is “substantially 60 microns” (Claim 7).
However, modified Chung teaches a benefit of having a patterned anode/electrolyte interface is having a higher current density, and also teaches manufacturing costs are high due to the materials needed to construct a SOFC (Chesnaud, pg. 1851). Examiner also notes modified Chung teaches the claimed ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness (Chesnaud, pg. 1852; see Claim 14).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first and second thicknesses, in the SOFC of modified Chung, in order to reduce SOFC manufacturing cost while still achieving a high energy density, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights