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/Restrictions
Claims 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, and 26-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/11/2026
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching all groups would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the different products and methods of making those products would each require different search terms and strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (US 20030207166 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Hara teaches an electrochemical cell comprising an air electrode (Fig. 2B – part 6) which can be viewed as a form of oxygen electrode, an electrolyte (Fig. 2B – part 5), a fuel electrode (Fig. 2B – part 7), a porous metal substrate disposed in a layer defining a first side and a second side and having a porosity ranging from 20 volume % to 50 vol % (Fig. 2B – the metal foil 2 comprises a porous section 4a that can be viewed as the porous metal substrate; 0050, Fig. 2B – the porosity of the porous section is approximately 30 area %. Fig. 2B shows that the pores extend fully through the porous section which means that the area porosity would be equivalent to the volume porosity), and a densified metal reinforcement member disposed along at least a portion of perimeter of the second side of the porous metal substrate, opposite the first side adjacent the fuel electrode (Fig. 2B – the metal foil comprises a nonporous section which is connected to the porous section 4a. The nonporous section can be viewed as the densified metal reinforcement member and extends in the direction opposite the fuel electrode).
Regarding Claim 3, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The densified metal reinforcement member does not comprise pores (Fig. 2B) and would have a porosity of less than 20 volume %.
Regarding Claim 5, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The porous metal substrate and the densified reinforcement member are each independently selected from the group consisting of iron-chromium alloys, iron-nickel-chromium alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-aluminum-chromium alloys, and chromium alloys (0043, 0049, 0058).
Regarding Claim 8, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The cell comprises a metal frame coupled to the densified metal reinforcement member (0052-0053, Fig. 2B – part 3).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The fuel cell can be included in a fuel cell stack (0066-0068; Fig. 6) which comprises a fuel gas flow channel disposed on a first side adjacent the metal frame, and an air flow channel on a second side opposite the first (Fig. 6). Although Hara does not explicitly disclose an interconnect, the electro-conductive separator, corresponding frame, and gas seals can be viewed as an interconnect as they are electrically conductive (separator) and separate the gas and air flow within the cell (0066-0067; Fig. 6). Thus, the metal frame of the cell would be coupled to an interconnect (Fig. 6) (Claim 9), where the interconnect comprises a fuel gas flow channel disposed on a first side adjacent the metal frame, and an air flow channel on a second side of the interconnect opposite the first side (Claim 10). Examiner notes that Fig. 6 uses cells fabricated similarly to Example 2 (which do contain frames) but does not label the frame 3.
Regarding Claim 11, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1 and an electrochemical cell stack comprising a plurality of the cells of Claim 1 (0066-0067; Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Hara teaches the cell stack of Claim 11. Each cell is a metal-supported solid oxide fuel cell (0066).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20030207166 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The porous metal substrate and the densified metal reinforcement member are both made from the same metal foil (0050, Fig. 2B). The metal foil may have a thickness between 10 and 500 microns (0043), which overlaps the claimed range of
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed thickness ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20030207166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erikstrup (US 20090092885 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. The pores have a size of at least 20 microns (Fig. 7) but Hara does not disclose the exact sizes of the pores.
Erikstrup teaches a fuel cell comprising a porous metal support that allows gas to diffuse to an anode or a cathode (0023, 0024). The mean pore size of the porous metal support is in the range from 0.1 µm to 100 µm (0028), which overlaps the claimed range of 3 microns to 75 microns.
Hara and Erikstrup are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the porous metal support to have the pore size of Erikstrup as it is a known pore size for a porous metal support in a fuel cell. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a porous metal support in a fuel cell with a suitable pore size (See MPEP 2143 B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laucournet (US 20120186976, cited in the 6/24/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Hara teaches the cell of Claim 1. Hara does not teach that the cell comprises an interlayer disposed in between the oxygen electrode and the electrolyte or a barrier layer disposed in between the fuel electrode and the porous metal substrate.
Laucournet teaches that a solid oxide fuel cell (0245) may comprise a layer that is a barrier against the diffusion of chromium on between the porous metal support and the fuel electrode (Abstract) and a reaction barrier layer between the electrolyte and the air/oxygen electrode (Abstract). The layer between the fuel electrode and porous metal support provides a barrier against chromium diffusion and may be made of stabilized zirconia (Abstract) and the reaction barrier layer prevents the onset of resistive parasite phases derived from the reaction between the stabilized zirconia and the material of the air/oxygen electrode (0215).
Hara and Laucournet are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
Therefore, 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 cell of Hara to comprise the layer that is a barrier against the diffusion of chromium between the porous metal support/substrate and the fuel electrode and the reaction barrier layer between the electrolyte and the air/oxygen electrode as Laucournet teaches those layers to protect against chromium diffusion and prevent reactions between stabilized zirconia and the air/oxygen electrode.
The layer that is a barrier against the diffusion of Chromium may be viewed as a barrier layer between the fuel electrode and the porous metal substrate (Claim 7) and the reaction barrier layer may be viewed as an interlayer disposed between the oxygen electrode and the porous metal substrate (Claim 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laucournet (US 20120186976, cited in the 6/24/2025 IDS) teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a layered configuration of an oxygen electrode (Abstract – porous oxygen or air electrode layer), an electrolyte (Abstract – dense electrolyte layer), and a fuel electrode (Abstract – hydrogen electrode layer), and a porous metal support (Abstract).
The porous metal support can be formed such that has at least two layers (0153), where the layers have different porosities (0153-0159). This can result in the porous metal support having a high porosity layer with a porosity between 25% and 65% (0155) and a low porosity layer with a porosity of 10% to 40% (0157). The order of these layers may be swapped (0159).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights