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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/381,877, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application ‘877 does not recite the limitation “without subjecting the metal alloy interconnect to an external pressure … prior to placing the metal alloy interconnect into the electrochemical stack [emphasis added].”
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are currently amended and Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9-20 are as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “without subjecting the metal alloy interconnect to an external pressure … prior to placing the metal alloy interconnect into the electrochemical stack [emphasis added].” The specification as originally filed does not recite this limitation.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2020/0176803 A1) in view of Rishmawi et al in Additive Manufacturing.
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 or the chromium-iron pre-alloy as claimed. Additionally, Hall et al teaches the chamber of the additive manufacturing machine (AMM) can apply pressure to the fuel cell [0043] but does not teach pressure or compression is not used.
Rishmawi et al teaches binder jetting additive manufacturing densification through sintering is difficult to achieve at low temperatures. The process includes additive manufacturing using a build bed with a roller, adding liquid binder, forming a green sample, debinding, and sintering (pages 509 and 510) to form a final density (page 514). For iron powder, the effect of powder compaction on green part density is examined by the action of the rotating roller (powder spreader). The motion of a counter-rotating roller improves compaction and spreading of the powder for water-atomized iron powder (page 509). 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 binder jet printing process of Rishmawi et al to manufacture an interconnect as taught by Hall et al, since Rishmawi et al teaches the green density is increased by minimizing layer thickness and carefully controlling liquid binder level. Increasing the sintering time nearing the melting point is expected to result in densities above 91.3% (page 519).
Regarding Claim 2, Rishmawi et al teaches in Table 1 depositing powder on a build bed in layers (pages 509 and 510), which reads on repeating a plurality of times. Powder is compacted through roller rotation (page 511).
Regarding Claim 3, Rishmawi et al teaches spreading the powder with rollers (page 511).
Regarding Claim 4, Rishmawi et al teaches print-head jets (page 512).
Regarding Claim 8, Hall et al teaches a fuel cell stack [0111] as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
212
468
media_image1.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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Li et al in Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering and Verma et al (US 2021/0313658 A1).
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 or the chromium-iron pre-alloy as claimed.
Regarding debinding and sintering, Li et al teaches metal binder jetting additive manufacturing as represented below in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
242
760
media_image2.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 the chromium-iron pre-alloy, Verma et al teaches forming a fuel cell interconnect with a Cr alloy powder. The powder is pre-alloyed with 4-6 wt. % Fe and 94-96 wt.% Cr (abstract). The interconnects are formed using a powder metallurgy process with a binder, pressed into the shape, and then sintered [0033] including 3D printing [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fuel cell interconnect metal alloy or powder in Hall et al reads on the pre-alloy powder taught by Verma et al, since Verma et al teaches iron rich regions may be formed at the top of the fuel-side ribs [0024] and those regions may operate to reduce area specific resistance degradation between the interconnect at an adjacent anode [0031].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al in view of Rishmawi 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 Rishmawi et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Rishmawi 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_image3.png
462
730
media_image3.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 Rishmawi 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 Rishmawi 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 Rishmawi et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hall et al in view of Rishmawi 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 Rishmawi et al could be used as a SOEC as in Claims 11 and 12, since Minh et al teaches the RSOFC is fundamentally and technologically based on SOFC technology (page 55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 have been considered 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are free from prior art rejections but are not in allowable form based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding Claims 13 and 17, Rishmawi et al does not suggest the binder getting additive manufacturing process with a ferritic alloy. Rishmawi et al teaches an iron powder.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights