DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claim 2. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(a) and 103 rejections are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn. However, the claim is newly rejected under 35 USC 103 herein. This action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruettinger et al (US 20130189606) in view of Jeng et al (US 20080115875) and WO2016/43328. Echigo et al (US 20170309941) is taken as an English equivalent of WO ‘328.
Ruettinger et al. teach a solid oxide fuel cell comprising a substrate with an electrode layer comprising a porous metal support (S), an electrode layer (A) formed on the support, and an adaptation layer (“intermediate layer”) (AD) formed on the electrode layer (Fig. 5, [0046] et seq.). The adaptation layer has a root mean square surface roughness (Rq) of preferably no more than 1.0 micron ([0020]). The adaptation layer is free of irregular surfaces ([0032]). The reference teaches an intermediate layer heating step of heating the intermediate layer, which is performed at 950-1300C ([0037]). The reference further teaches an electrolyte step of forming the electrolyte by PVD or sol-gel method on the adaptation layer ([0038], [0039]).
Although Ruettinger is not anticipatory of the range of the intermediate layer heating step recited in claim 2 (800-1100C), the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range and therefore renders it obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934).
Ruettinger does not expressly teach that the arithmetic roughness (Ra) is 0.224 micron or less as recited in claim 2.
However, the skilled artisan would first recognize that the Rq and Ra values are related (see [0011] for discussion of these values and how they are calculated). The skilled artisan would recognize that the smaller a value for Rq, the smaller the corresponding value for Ra. Thus, although the reference does not expressly teach an Ra value for the adaptation layer, it is reasonable to interpret the teaching of Rq being less than 1.0 microns as disclosing an Ra of similar scope. Furthermore, the Ra value may even be smaller than Rq because as explained in [0011], the Rq value takes into account more outlying values. The claimed range of 0.224 micron or less lies inside the disclosed range of 1 micron or less. Therefore, the reference renders obvious the claimed range for the reasons noted above.
Ruettinger further does not expressly teach an intermediate layer smoothing step of smoothing the intermediate layer through mechanical smoothing as also recited in claim 2.
Jeng et al. is directed to a fuel cell electrode comprising a catalyst layer coated on a base substrate (abstract). The catalyst layer is subject to a smoothing step via pressing (mechanical smoothing) at 2-10 atm prior to its inclusion in a membrane electrode assembly ([0022]).
Therefore, the limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because a particular known technique (pressing/mechanical smoothing) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). That is, in the fuel cell art, the use of a pressing or compression step was a known method of providing a smooth fuel cell electrode layer. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use such a step to perform a smoothing step in Ruettinger, thereby providing for the smooth intermediate layer prior to deposition of the electrolyte layer.
Ruettinger further do not expressly teach that the electrolyte layer is formed by spray coating, at a temperature of 1100 C or lower as also recited in claim 2.
Echigo is directed to a metal-supported fuel cell. In [0095] and [0096], the reference teaches an electrolyte layer forming step that is a low-temperature sintering method, and may be a thermal spraying method or an aerosol deposition method, which are spray coating methods. The method is conducted at a temperature lower than a “high temperature range at 1400C, etc”.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because a particular known technique (thermal spraying or aerosol deposition, which are types of spray coating) were recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Furthermore, Echigo et al. teach that with the methods, “it is possible to produce a dense and highly-gastight electrochemical element without performing heat treatment at a high temperature. Thus, it is possible to suppress the mutual diffusion of elements between the metal substrate 2 and the electrode layer 2 without providing an additional diffusion preventing layer, and to realize an electrochemical element that has excellent durability.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use a spray coating step to perform the electrolyte deposition step in Ruettinger. In addition, the recited temperature is not considered to distinguish over the references. Although the exact range of 1100 C or less is not explicitly disclosed, Echigo et al. teach that a low temperature process is advantageous for the above reasons. Therefore, the artisan would be motivated to perform the temperature at less than 1100C, and the claimed range is rendered obvious.
Note: the filing of a verified translation of the instant priority document would be sufficient to overcome the rejection. This is because the WO reference was published less than a year before the filing date of the priority application and lists the same inventive entity (six inventors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered and are persuasive with respect to the previous grounds of rejection. However, relative to the new ground of rejection, the arguments are but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights