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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/30/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2020/0176803 A1) in view of Li et al in Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering.
Hall et al teaches using additive manufacture, e.g. binder jetting [0037], to make an interconnect [0039] for a fuel cell stack [0007]. A fuel cell is an electrochemical apparatus [0003]. However, Hall et al does not teach debinding and sintering as claimed.
Li et al teaches metal binder jetting additive manufacturing as represented below in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
242
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of metal binder jetting of Li et al as the binder jetting in Hall et al, since Li et al teaches relatively low machine costs, ability to print a wide range of materials, high scalability, and no explicit support structure are required (page 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Li et al teaches depositing liquid binding agents onto a powder bed or build platform; forming the cross section of each layer; and curing. The process is repeated until the green part is completed (pages 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Li et al teaches leveling the powder as represented below:
PNG
media_image2.png
378
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Li et al teaches a printhead with a part (page 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Hall et al teaches a fuel cell stack [0111] as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image3.png
212
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Hall et al teaches solid oxide fuel cells [0005].
Regarding Claim 10, Hall et al teaches a fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 13, Hall et al teaches the interconnect is make with ferrite steel [0121].
Regarding Claims 14 and 17, Hall et al teaches ferritic stainless steel [0121].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2015/027255 A1.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Though Hall et al teaches the interconnect is chromium, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the metal alloy or powder comprises a pre-alloyed chromium iron powder with 4-6 wt% Fe and 94-96 wt% Cr as in Claim 5.
WO 2015/027255 Al (WO ‘255) teaches a powder or granulated powder having a Cr content of > 80 wt% and 2-20 wt% Fe that can be used as interconnectors (abstract; page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alloy powder of WO ‘255 to make the interconnector, since WO ‘255 teaches this powder has significantly improved compaction behavior and allows the production of sintered components having a very homogeneous distribution of the alloying elements (abstract).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perry et al (US 2008/0199738 A1).
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the interconnect comprises a fuel side comprising fuel-side ribs and an air side comprising air-side ribs as in Claim 6.
Perry et al teaches an interconnect as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image4.png
462
730
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The ribs are for air and for fuel [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interconnector of Perry et al in Hall et al in view of Li et al, since Perry et al teaches substantially the same type of material, i.e. an interconnect for a fuel cell [0003].
Regarding Claim 7, Perry et al teaches openings or holes for fuel and air to flow [0004].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Minh et al in The Electrochemical Society Interface.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the electrochemical stack comprises a solid oxide electrolyzer cell stack as in Claim 11.
Minh et al teaches a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) is a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) operated in reverse mode and is traditionally derived from the SOFC. A reversible SOFC (RSOFC) is typically based on the more technologically advanced SOFC with materials such as stainless steels for the interconnect. Like the SOFC, the RSOFC operates in the temperature range of 600-1000 °C (page 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the fuel cell in Hall et al in view of Li et al could be used as a SOEC as in Claims 11 and 12, since Minh et al teaches the ROSOFC is fundamentally and technologically based on SOFC technology (page 55).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claims 1, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Fergus in Materials Science and Engineering A.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the ferritic stainless steel of Hall et al comprises 11-30 wt% Cr and 70-89 wt% Fe as in Claim 15.
Fergus teaches solid oxide fuel cells with metallic interconnects of iron-based alloys in Table 1 on page 272. Fergus teaches Alloy 1.4724 with 13% Cr, 1% Al, and balance Fe). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alloy composition taught in Fergus as the ferritic alloy in Hall et al in view of Li et al, since Fergus teaches using an interconnect material that is stable both in oxidizing and reducing atmospheres, minimizing reactions with the electrode materials and/or the atmosphere, and avoiding the generation of excessive stresses during thermal cycling (page 271).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claims 1, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of CA 2659596 A1.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the ferritic stainless steel contains the composition as recited in Claim 16.
CA 2659596 A1 (CA ‘596) teaches a ferritic chromium stainless steel with 20-25 wt % Cr, 0.1-1 wt% Mn, max 0.3 wt% REM, max 0.5 wt% Ti for use in solid oxide fuel cells (abstract) for use as interconnects (page 1, line 6). REM includes La (page 2, line 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ferritic chromium stainless steel of CA ‘596 in Hall et al in view of Li et al, since CA ‘596 teaches very good corrosion resistance, proper thermal expansion, a good adhesion of the oxide formed on the surface material, and very low contact resistance (page 4, lines 5-8).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Fergus.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the ferritic stainless steel of Hall et al comprises at least 10.5 wt% Cr and at least 50 wt% Fe as in Claim 18.
Fergus is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alloy composition taught in Fergus as the ferritic alloy in Hall et al in view of Li et al, since Fergus teaches using an interconnect material that is stable both in oxidizing and reducing atmospheres, minimizing reactions with the electrode materials and/or the atmosphere, and avoiding the generation of excessive stresses during thermal cycling (page 271).
Regarding Claim 19, Fergus teaches the Alloy 1.4724 reads on 11-30 wt% Cr and 70-89 wt% Fe.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al as applied to claims 1 and 17-19 above, and further in view of CA ‘596.
Hall et al in view of Li et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Li et al does not teach the ferritic stainless steel contains the composition as recited in Claim 20.
CA ‘596 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ferritic chromium stainless steel of CA ‘596 in Hall et al in view of Li et al, since CA ‘596 teaches very good corrosion resistance, proper thermal expansion, a good adhesion of the oxide formed on the surface material, and very low contact resistance (page 4, lines 5-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733