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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2, Claims 8–14 in the reply filed on 30 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of Species 1 and 2 are sufficiently related such that an undue burden would not be presented to the Examiner by maintaining all of the claims in this application. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 3 June 2026, Species 1 (Claims 1–7) and Species 2 (Claims 8–14) are directed to mutually exclusive configurations of the concentration distributions of the oxygen storage particles in the electrode with respect to the flow direction of the fuel when viewed on a surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed on the solid electrolyte layer, and are also directed to two different types of electrochemical cells; as such, the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); therefore, a serious search and/or examination burden would exist if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1–7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 June 2026.
For the purposes of this office action, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s statement in the response filed 30 June 2026 that FIG. 1–4 and 7–12 are generic to, or facilitate the understanding of Species 2 and should remain under consideration.
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
Claims 1–14 are pending in the application. Claims 1–7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification, “O2-” should instead read “O2-” (charges should be superscript).
[0006] line 25, the following correction should be made: “FIG. 5A is a diagram illustrating a surface of a
[0006] line 37, the following correction should be made: “FIG. 6A is a diagram illustrating a surface of a
[0083] discloses in part “In the electrochemical cell of Sample 2C, the oxygen storage powder is added to the material for forming the fuel electrode, but the oxygen storage material does not remain as particles in the formed fuel electrode and is decomposed”. However, [0080] discloses in part “A fuel electrode and an electrochemical cell of Sample 2C were produced in a manner similar to the production of the fuel electrode and the electrochemical cell of Sample 1 except that the LCZ powder was not added at the time of producing the fuel electrode forming sheet”, which appears to be contradictory to the disclosure of [0083]. It is respectfully submitted that “Sample 2C” in the portion of [0083] above may be a typo and should actually read “Sample 1C”; this appears to be supported by [0080] as set forth above as well as the description of Sample 1C found in e.g. [0082].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao et al. (CN107732257A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claims 8 and 14, Tao discloses a fuel electrode (see fuel electrode, [0043], specifically fuel electrode layer 230, [0046], FIG. 2) to be adopted to an electrochemical cell (see solid oxide battery, [0046]) that includes a solid electrolyte layer having oxide ion conductivity (see electrolyte layer 210, [0046], FIG. 2), and to be supplied with a fuel (see electrode reaction gas, [0052]), the fuel electrode comprising:
ion conductive particles having oxide ion conductivity (see ion conductor, [0060], [0066], specifically zirconium oxide doped with Ce, zirconium oxide co-doped with Y and Ce, and zirconium oxide co-doped with Sc and Ce, [0078]);
metal particles (see catalyst particles, [0055], i.e. active catalyst, [0066], specifically Ni catalyst, [0078]);
oxygen storage particles having oxygen storage capacity (note that as the instant specification ([0025], [0084], FIG. 10) discloses that Ce–Zr, Y–Ce–Zr, and Sc–Ce–Zr oxides have oxygen storage capacity, the ion conductive particles of Tao as set forth above are considered to also act as the claimed oxygen storage particles having oxygen storage capacity); and
pores (see gas transport pores, [0017]); wherein
the electrochemical cell is a solid oxide electrolysis cell (see solid oxide electrolytic cell, [0045]),
when viewed on a surface of the fuel electrode located opposite another surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed on the solid electrolyte layer, the fuel electrode has a concentration distribution in which a concentration of the oxygen storage particles is higher in a portion of the fuel electrode located upstream in a flow direction of the fuel with respect to a central portion of the fuel electrode than in a portion of the fuel electrode located downstream with respect to the central portion ([0055] discloses that the fuel electrode is a gradient electrode wherein the content of the metal particles in the fuel electrode increases along the flow direction of the fuel, i.e. increases upstream to downstream; further, [0066] discloses that this gradient can be achieved by varying the proportion of the metal particles in the fuel electrode; as the metal particles and the ion conductive/oxygen storage particles are disclosed in [0066] and [0078] to be the two components present in the fuel electrode, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that increasing the proportion of metal particles in the fuel electrode from upstream to downstream will necessarily result in decreasing the proportion, i.e. the concentration, of the ion conductive/oxygen storage particles in the fuel electrode from upstream to downstream, such that Tao satisfies the limitation).
Further regarding Claim 14, Tao further discloses an electrochemical cell (see solid oxide battery, [0046]) comprising:
a solid electrolyte layer having oxide ion conductivity (see electrolyte layer 210, [0046], FIG. 2);
the fuel electrode as set forth above; and
an electrode (see oxygen electrode layer 220, [0046], FIG. 2) disposed on another surface of the solid electrolyte layer and paired with the fuel electrode ([0077], FIG. 2), wherein
the electrochemical cell is a solid oxide electrolysis cell (see solid oxide electrolytic cell, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 9, Tao discloses the fuel electrode as set forth above. Tao further discloses wherein
the fuel electrode has a microstructure in which the oxygen storage particles are in contact with the ion conductive particles, the metal particles, and the pores (see three-phase interface, [0020]; note [0017] discloses that the reaction gas, i.e. fuel, is present in the pores; thus one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that [0020] discloses contact between the oxygen storage/ion conductive particles, the metal particles, and the pores).
Regarding Claim 11, Tao discloses the fuel electrode as set forth above. Tao further discloses wherein
the oxygen storage particles are made of an oxygen storage material that is an oxide containing Zr and at least one element selected from a group consisting of Ce, Y, and Sc (as set forth above, see ion conductor, [0060], [0066], specifically zirconium oxide doped with Ce, zirconium oxide co-doped with Y and Ce, and zirconium oxide co-doped with Sc and Ce, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tao discloses the fuel electrode as set forth above. Tao further discloses wherein
the metal particles are Ni particles (as set forth above, see catalyst particles, [0055], i.e. active catalyst, [0066], specifically Ni catalyst, [0078]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN107732257A; see attached machine translation), as applied to Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 above, in view of Yoshikata (US20090092877A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Tao discloses the fuel electrode as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein
the oxygen storage particles have a pyrochlore structure or a fluorite structure. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the oxygen storage particles of Tao must necessarily have some structure.
Yoshikata teaches a fuel electrode (see anode 43, [0061], FIG. 1) configured to be adopted to an electrochemical cell (see solid oxide fuel cell 1, [0061], FIG. 1) that includes a solid electrolyte having oxide ion conductivity (see plate-like electrolyte 41, [0061], FIG. 1), and to be supplied with a fuel (see fuel gas, [0076]), the fuel electrode comprising: ion conductive particles having oxide ion conductivity (see oxide-ion conductor, [0067]); metal particles (see metal catalyst, [0067]); and pores (see porous, [0061]). Yoshikata teaches ([0067]) that the ion conductive particles preferably have a fluorite structure, and that examples of ion conductive particles having a fluorite structure include zirconia-based oxides containing scandium and yttrium.
Tao and Yoshikata are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fuel electrodes for electrochemical cells. KSR Rationale D (MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. Yoshikata teaches a preference for zirconia-based oxides to have a fluorite structure when used as ion conductive particles in a fuel electrode; Tao uses zirconia-based oxides as ion conductive particles in a similar fuel electrode. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the zirconia-based oxide ion conductor particles of Tao such that they have a fluorite structure, as taught by Yoshikata, to yield the predictable result of a functional fuel electrode (note that as the ion conductive particles of Tao also serve as oxygen storage particles, such a modification will necessarily result in satisfaction of the above limitation).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN107732257A; see attached machine translation), as applied to Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 above, in view of Hoshino et al. (US20050221140A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Tao discloses the fuel electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein
when viewed in a cross section along a thickness direction of the fuel electrode, the fuel electrode further has a concentration distribution in which a surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed on the solid electrolyte layer has a higher concentration of the oxygen storage particles than another surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed opposite the solid electrolyte layer.
Hoshino teaches a fuel electrode (see fuel electrode layer 4, [0032], FIG. 2) configured to be adopted to an electrochemical cell (see electric power generation cell 1, [0032], FIG. 2) that includes a solid electrolyte layer having oxide ion conductivity (see solid electrolyte layer 3, [0032], FIG. 2), and to be supplied with a fuel (see fuel, [0032]), the fuel electrode comprising: ion conductive particles having oxide ion conductivity (see CeSmO2, [0044]; note [0059] discloses other oxide ion conductors such as stabilized zirconia can be used in place of CeSmO2); metal particles (see Ni, [0044]); and pores ([0002]). Hoshino further teaches ([0044], FIG. 2) wherein when viewed in a cross section along a thickness direction of the fuel electrode, the fuel electrode has a concentration distribution in which a surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed on the solid electrolyte layer (see fuel electrode layer 4a, [0044], FIG. 2) has a higher concentration of the ion conductive particles than another surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed opposite the solid electrolyte layer (see fuel electrode layer 4c, [0044], FIG. 2). Hoshino teaches ([0047]) that this concentration distribution allows for contact between the fuel electrode and the solid electrolyte layer to be enhanced, and leads to a reduction in the amount of metal particles diffusing into the solid electrolyte layer, improving the electric power generation property and durability of the electrochemical cell.
Tao and Hoshino are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fuel electrodes for electrochemical cells. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel electrode of Tao such that when viewed in a cross section along a thickness direction of the fuel electrode, the fuel electrode has a concentration distribution in which a surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed on the solid electrolyte layer has a higher concentration of the ion conductive particles than another surface of the fuel electrode to be disposed opposite the solid electrolyte layer, as taught by Hoshino, for the purpose of enhancing contact between the fuel electrode and solid electrolyte layer, reducing the amount of metal particles diffusing into the solid electrolyte layer, and improving the electric power generation property and durability of the electrochemical cell (note that as the ion conductive particles of Tao also serve as oxygen storage particles, such a modification will necessarily result in satisfaction of the above limitation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights