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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
the Restriction Requirement has not identified another process that is materially different than the claimed process. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner document a viable example where either (A) the process as claimed is not an obvious process of making the product and the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product; or (B) the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process, or withdraw the requirement pursuant to MPEP 806.05(f).
This is not found persuasive because The restriction requirement has identified another process that is materially different than the claimed process. Vacuum molding is a specific manufacturing method that is different from other methods. Specifying a method specifically using vacuum molding versus stating an open ended statement including all molding methods including injection molding is considered “another process that is materially different than the claimed process”
Applicant further submits that any search for the identified Group I invention will necessarily include the method for manufacturing of the identified Group II invention. Thus, there would be no serious search burden on the Examiner to examine claims 1-16 together. The requirement for restriction between Groups I and II must therefore be withdrawn, and claims 1-16 must be examined together.
This is not found persuasive because regardless of search method, inventions having different limitations will require different search strategies, and the time to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionally, as well.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-3 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo et al. CN104659397 in view of Okamoto (US 2014/0377684)
With respect to claim 1, Kazuo et al. discloses an electrolyte sheet for solid oxide fuel cells [Abstract], the electrolyte sheet comprising:
a ceramic plate body including ceramic grains containing sintered zirconia. [0049-0050; 0057-0058]
Kazuo et al. does not disclose wherein the ceramic grains have a number-based cumulative particle size distribution with a difference of 2.5 μm or more between a particle size D90 at a 90% cumulative probability and a particle size D10 at a 10% cumulative probability.
Okamoto discloses a support sheet for solid oxide fuel cells [Abstract] comprising:
a plate body including containing zirconia [0034-0050],
wherein the ceramic grains have a number-based cumulative particle size distribution with a difference of 2.5 μm or more between a particle size D90 at a 90% (5-12µm) cumulative probability and a particle size D10 at a 10% (84-101 µm) cumulative probability. [0051-0056; Abstract]
Therefore it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrolyte sheet of Kazuo et al. to include wherein the ceramic grains have a number-based cumulative particle size distribution with a difference of 2.5 μm or more between a particle size D90 at a 90% cumulative probability and a particle size D10 at a 10% cumulative probability, as disclosed in Okamoto, in order to allow for a support of a solid oxide fuel cell that hardly deteriorates conductivity and strength thereof through repetitive exposure to reducing atmosphere/oxidizing atmosphere.
With respect to claim 2, Kazuo et al. discloses wherein the sintered zirconia is sintered yttria-stabilized zirconia. [0030-0034; 0050]
With respect to claim 3, Kazuo et al. discloses wherein the sintered zirconia is sintered cubic zirconia. [Abstract]
With respect to claim 8, Kazuo et al. discloses a unit cell for solid oxide fuel cells, the unit cell comprising: a fuel electrode; an air electrode; and the electrolyte sheet for solid oxide fuel cells according to claim 1 between the fuel electrode and the air electrode. [Abstract; 0046-0047; 0114-0116]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights