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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baffie (US-20120018493) in view of Ono (US-20190085470).
Regarding claim 1, Baffie teaches:
A method of making an electrochemical device comprising:
(a) infiltrating an anode precursor, a cathode precursor, and an electrolyte precursor with a dispersion to produce an infiltrated anode precursor, an infiltrated cathode precursor, and an infiltrated electrolyte precursor ([0043] – [0058] and [0070] – [0083]), wherein the dispersion comprises metal ions and nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of metallic nanoparticles, metal-oxide nanoparticles, ceramic nanoparticles, and combinations thereof; wherein the metal ions percolate each precursor ([0070] – [0072]), and
(b) co-sintering the infiltrated anode precursor, the infiltrated cathode precursor, and the infiltrated electrolyte precursor such that the infiltrated anode precursor becomes a porous anode, the infiltrated cathode precursor becomes a porous cathode, and a gas tight electrolyte is formed between the porous anode and the porous cathode ([0055] – [0057] and [0121] – [0122]).
Baffie does not explicitly teach:
wherein the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor are porous, the electrolyte precursor having an average pore size that is 50% or less of an average pore size of the anode precursor and that is 50% or less of an average pore size of the cathode precursor.
However, Ono, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of making an electrochemical device, teaches:
wherein the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor are porous, the electrolyte precursor having an average pore size that is 50% or less of an average pore size of the anode precursor and that is 50% or less of an average pore size of the cathode precursor ([0014], [0030] – [0031], and [0095] – [0096]; Fig. 1, #23 and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pores of Baffie to incorporate the teachings of Ono and make the electrolyte pores be smaller than the anode/cathode pores. The purpose, as stated by Ono, being the better performance of the gas-liquid separation becomes ([0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the porous anode, the porous cathode, and the gas-tight electrolyte have the same elements ([0062] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Ono further teaches:
wherein the average pore size of the electrolyte precursor is in the range of 10-200 nm ([0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein an average pore size of the anode precursor is 20 nm - 2µm or the average pore size of the cathode precursor is 20 nm - 2 µm ([0030] – [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor comprise YSZ, CGO, SDC, SSZ, LSGM, ScCeSZ, or combinations thereof ([0062] – [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the metal ions comprise nickel ions, copper ions, silver ions, cobalt ions, iron ions, or combinations thereof ([0070] – [0072] and [0159]).
Regarding claim 9, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the nanoparticles comprise nickel nanoparticles, NiO nanoparticles, CGO nanoparticles, CoCGO nanoparticles, YSZ nanoparticles, Copper nanoparticles, Copper Oxide nanoparticles, LST nanoparticles, SCZ nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, LSCF nanoparticles, nickel/iron alloy nanoparticles, cobalt nanoparticles, platinum nanoparticles, ZrO2 nanoparticles, CeO2 nanoparticles, or combinations thereof ([0070] – [0072] and [0159]).
Regarding claim 10, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 10 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein infiltration is prompted by applying a pressure differential, stirring, agitation, sonication, heating, capillary forces, solid-liquid cohesive forces, or a combination of any two or more thereof ([0184]).
Regarding claim 11, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein co-sintering takes place in an inert atmosphere or a reducing atmosphere ([0122] – [0127] and [0136] – [0147]).
Regarding claim 12, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends on. Ono further teaches:
further comprising providing a porous substrate for at least one of the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor as structural support ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Baffie in view of Ono to further incorporate the teachings of Ono and comprise a porous substrate as structural support. The purpose, as stated by Baffie, being the anode is supported by a support ([0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends on. Ono further teaches:
wherein the porous substrate is co-sintered with the infiltrated precursors and remains porous after co-sintering ([0018] and [0029] – [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 14 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the electrolyte precursor has a thickness of no more than 30 µm ([0060]); and wherein the anode precursor has a thickness of no more than 50 µm ([0063]), and wherein the cathode precursor has a thickness of no more than 50 µm ([0063]). The ranges given by Baffie overlap with the ranges claimed in the limitation.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [Sudo's temperature range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 15, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the porous anode and the porous cathode have a porosity of no less than 20 vol.% ([0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 16 depends on. Baffie in view of Ono further teaches:
wherein the electrochemical device comprises no current collector, Baffie does not teach having a current collector, and no interconnect. Ono does not teach having an interconnect therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the combination of Baffie and Ono to not include an interconnect, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 17 depends on. Baffie further teaches:
wherein the porous anode, the porous cathode, and the gas-tight electrolyte are tubular ([0015]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baffie (US-20120018493) in view of Ono (US-20190085470), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US-20230072908).
Regarding claim 3, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on, but does not teach the electrolyte conducting both electrons and ions, however, Huang, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of making an electrochemical device, teaches:
wherein the gas-tight electrolyte conducts electrons and ions ([0003] – [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Baffie in view of Ono to incorporate the teachings of Huang and have it conduct electrons and ions. The purpose, as stated by Huang, being having high efficiency and can use other fuel sources in addition to hydrogen ([0003]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baffie (US-20120018493) in view of Ono (US-20190085470), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall (US-20200259186).
Regarding claim 6, Baffie in view of Ono teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not explicitly teach heating prior to infiltration to vacate pore formers, however, Hall, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of making an electrochemical device, teaches:
wherein the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor are heated prior to the infiltration step such that pore formers present in the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor are vacated to produce pores in the anode precursor, the cathode precursor, and the electrolyte precursor ([0341] – [0346]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Baffie in view of Ono to incorporate the teachings of Hall and heat the materials prior to infiltration to vacate pore formers. The purpose, as stated by Hall, being such that the first pore former and the second pore former become empty spaces ([0341]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights