Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1, B2, and C1 and claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-22 in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Following search, the restriction of 7/7/2026 for Genus C (how the spacer is connected to the interconnect, whether by welding or diffusion bonding) is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 7 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains reference to multiple elements and is written without line breaks / indentions. Per MPEP § 608.1(m) “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
See below for specific examples and 112(b) rejections.
As an introductory statement regarding the following 112(b) rejections, it is noted that throughout the claim set phrases involving parts and edges are used repeatedly. It is unclear how these parts/edges interact with the whole because it is unclear at which times the parts/edges are the same or different parts/edges. Furthermore, the terms interconnect and spacer are used as separate elements and they also comprise an interconnect layer as an integrated interconnect and spacer leading to further lack of clarity. Claim 1 references either one or two spacers. Some claim’s, such as claim 3, refer to “the spacer” while other claims, such as claim 11, refer to “the spacer of the integrated interconnect and spacer”. The following are examples of indefiniteness; applicant must carefully go through the claim set to ensure the claims are clear regarding how each element is defined and interacts with the other elements.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interconnect layer comprises an integrated interconnect and spacer" in line 4 then states “a spacer” in line 6. It is unclear if the second spacer is the same as the first spacer. It is then unclear in lines 8 and 9 which said spacer is referenced. As a result, for all dependent claims which state “the spacer” it is unclear what spacer is referenced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interconnect" in line 5. It is unclear if this is the interconnect layer or the integrated interconnect and spacer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a part of the edges of the interconnect which is bent 180° a number, N, of times to provide a spacer covering at least a part of the edges of the interconnect" beginning in line 5. It is unclear how a part of the edges can cover a part of the edges, it is also unclear how many edges are bent (an edge, multiple edges, or all edges?).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said spacer and interconnect together form an edge of at least a part of the integrated interconnect and spacer and wherein at least a part of said spacer”, beginning in line 6. It is unclear if “an edge” is the same or different than previous edge(s). It is further unclear whether “a part of the integrated interconnect and spacer” is the same or different part than that of “a part of said spacer”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an adjacent cell layer.”, in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same as “the adjacent cell layer” of claim 1, notably it could be an opposite adjacent cell layer.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a part of the spacer”, in line 2. It is unclear how this part is different or the same as claim 1’s “a part of said spacer”. Furthermore, in line 4 the claim recites the limitation "said part of the spacer and the interconnect” and it is again unclear what spacer and what part is referenced as each of the spacer, the interconnect, and the integrated interconnect and spacer all have parts.
Claim 4 similarly recites “a part of the spacer and the interconnect” and it is again unclear if this is a new part and if it references the spacer, the interconnect, or the integrated interconnect and spacer.
Claim 5 and 6 each recite “a part of the edge of the spacer” and it is unclear which edge is being referenced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least part of the edges of the interconnect is bent”. It is unclear what edge and how many edges are bent.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a spacer”. It is unclear in what manner this spacer differs from the spacer(s) of claim 1. It is therefore unclear if the 180° bend of claim 10 is a different bend, or the same bend as that of claim 1 where N of claim 1 equals one.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a part of the edges of the interconnect”. It is unclear in what manner this part of these edges differ from those of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 13 recite the limitation "the spacer of the integrated interconnect and spacer is at least partly formed by a contiguous fluid tight edge”. It is unclear if “the spacer of the integrated interconnect and spacer” is a different spacer than “said spacer” of claim 1. It is unclear in what manner the boundaries (or edges) of the spacer and presumably the interconnect (which together potentially form the integrated interconnect and spacer) are “contiguous” where the term contiguous does not have a special definition in the instant and has an accepted definition of “touching along a boundary or at a point” (citation: “Contiguous.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contiguous. Accessed 4 Sep. 2026).
Furthermore, the claim set has antecedent basis issues created by use of “the” without an associated “a/an”. Examples include:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent cell”, in line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thickness” in contrast with claim 9 which recites “a thickness”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the side of the spacer”, in line 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bent part”, in line 2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the surface”, in line 3.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 13-14 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YANO (US 20090017354 A1).
Fig. 2 of YANO below with examiner annotations:
PNG
media_image1.png
635
1373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, YANO discloses a Solid Oxide Cell stack (“solid polymer electrolyte” [0085] as well as oxide catalyst per [0040]) comprising a plurality of stacked cell units (“fuel cell N is constructed by stacking a number of the unit cells 105” [0004]), each cell unit comprises a cell layer, a contact enabling layer and an interconnect layer (as shown in Fig. 2, “a unit cell UC is constructed of a solid polymer electrolyte 1, one pair of electrode plates 2, 3, and one pair of metal plates 4, 5” [0055]), one interconnect layer separates one cell layer from the adjacent cell layer in the cell stack (metal plate 5), wherein the interconnect layer comprises an integrated interconnect and spacer made from one piece of plate with the thickness, T, the spacer is formed by at least a part of the edges of the interconnect which is bent 180° a number, N, of times to provide a spacer covering at least a part of the edges of the interconnect (metal plate 5 bent to create space, as shown in Fig. 2), so said spacer and interconnect together form an edge of at least a part of the integrated interconnect and spacer and wherein at least a part of said spacer further provides a fixture for said contact enabling layer which ensures the position of said contact enabling layer on at least one side of the integrated interconnect and spacer (metal plate 4 held by bend as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, YANO discloses a part of the spacer overlaps at least a part of the contact enabling layer and ensures the position of said contact enabling layer by fixing said part of the contact enabling layer between said part of the spacer and the interconnect (metal plate 4 held by bend as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, YANO discloses said contact enabling layer provides a gas tight sealing between at least a part of the spacer and the interconnect (“a fuel cell in which sealing can be reliably made for each unit cell” [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, YANO discloses at least a part of the edge of the spacer comprises one or more indentations adapted to provide said fixture for the contact enabling layer (metal plate 5 which forms the spacer has multiple bends and voids reading on indentations, as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, YANO discloses said indentations are made on the side of the spacer which is facing the interconnect after said bend (there is a space reading on indentation which insulation material 6 fills as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, YANO discloses the spacer of the integrated interconnect and spacer is at least partly formed by a contiguous fluid tight edge (“a fuel cell in which sealing can be reliably made for each unit cell” [0009] thus the cells and therefore edges of YANO are fluid tight and connected).
Regarding claim 13, YANO discloses the spacer of the integrated interconnect and spacer is at least partly formed by a contiguous fluid tight edge adapted to form a fluid tight seal around an internal manifold (“a fuel cell in which sealing can be reliably made for each unit cell” [0009] thus the cells and therefore edges of YANO are fluid tight and connected).
Regarding claim 14, YANO discloses the spacer is connected to the interconnect not only by the bent part, but additionally on at least one further edge or surface of the spacer facing the interconnect (a spacer is created at each side of the interconnect as shown in Fig. 2, as such a spacer is connected to the interconnect not only at the said bent part but also at a secondary bent part).
Regarding claim 17, YANO discloses the interconnect has grooves on at least one side adapted to facilitate and guide said 180° a number, N, of times bend (as shown in Fig. 2 the interconnect has structures reading on grooves that are incorporated into the area of the 180° bend).
Regarding claim 18, YANO discloses the interconnect has grooves on at least one side adapted to form flow fields for process fluid (as shown in Figs. 2 and 9, the interconnect has grooves for fluid).
Regarding claim 19, YANO discloses the interconnect has grooves formed by etching or coining or embossing on at least one side to form flow fields for process fluid (“forming grooves on metal plates 4, 5 by etching” [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, YANO discloses the contact enabling layer is a mesh or a foil (“a thickness of metal plates 4, 5 … 50 to 500 μm” [0047] reading on foil).
Regarding claim 21, YANO discloses the contact enabling layer is a nickel mesh or a nickel foil (“metal plates 4, 5, any metal may be used … nickel are preferable” [0044]).
Claims 1, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZERFASS (US 20070231664 A1, supplied with an IDS).
ZERFASS Fig. 5 below with examiner annotations:
PNG
media_image2.png
685
1511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, ZERFASS discloses a Solid Oxide Cell stack (“SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) fuel cell unit” [0046]) comprising a plurality of stacked cell units (“fuel cell stack” [0002]), each cell unit comprises a cell layer (102), a contact enabling layer (118) and an interconnect layer (110), one interconnect layer separates one cell layer from the adjacent cell layer in the cell stack (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the interconnect layer comprises an integrated interconnect and spacer (folded edge 138) made from one piece of plate with the thickness, T, the spacer is formed by at least a part of the edges of the interconnect which is bent 180° a number, N, of times to provide a spacer covering at least a part of the edges of the interconnect (folded edge 138 bent one time as shown in Fig. 5; alternatively the spacer may be the combination of folded edge 138 of lower housing part 110 along with upper housing part 108 that has folded edge 124), so said spacer and interconnect together form an edge of at least a part of the integrated interconnect and spacer and wherein at least a part of said spacer further provides a fixture for said contact enabling layer which ensures the position of said contact enabling layer on at least one side of the integrated interconnect and spacer (folded edge 138 provides a fixture for upper housing 108 and in turn the structure reading on contact enabling layer).
Regarding claim 9, ZERFASS discloses the integrated interconnect and spacer has a thickness which is equal to or less than (1 + N) times the thickness of the plate T (as shown in Fig. 5, the combined thickness at folded edge 138 is twice the thickness of the plate).
Regarding claim 10, ZERFASS discloses the at least part of the edges of the interconnect is bent 180° one time to provide a spacer covering at least a part of the edges of the interconnect, so said spacer and interconnect together form an edge of at least a part of the integrated interconnect and spacer with a thickness equal to or less than 2 times the thickness of the plate T (as shown in Fig. 5, the combined thickness at folded edge 138 is twice the thickness of the plate).
Regarding claim 16, ZERFASS discloses the spacer is connected to the interconnect by welding on at least a part of the surface of the spacer facing the interconnect (“fixed together in gas-tight manner by a welding and/or brazing process for example” [0075]).
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO.
Regarding claim 2, YANO discloses “a cathode-side metal plate 4 which is arranged on a surface of a cathode-side electrode plate 2” [0043].
While YANO does not disclose metal plate 4 is arranged on the anode-side, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the anode and cathode of YANO because each is provided with “flow path groove 9, and inlets 4 c, 5 c and outlets 4 d, 5 d communicating therewith” [0043] as shown in Fig. 2, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Therefore, YANO teaches said contact enabling layer is located on a fuel side of the integrated interconnect and spacer which faces a fuel side of an adjacent cell layer.
Regarding claim 6, YANO discloses metal plates 4, 5 with circumferential parts 4a, 5a as shown in Figs. 2 and 9 that have varying thicknesses and structures of bends and grooves. YANO further teaches “By forming grooves on metal plates 4, 5 by etching, it becomes possible to easily form grooves also on a metal plate having high rigidity and, due to the rigidity, it becomes easy to apply a pressure to a membrane electrode assembly, gas leakage can be reduced” [0066]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that indentations / grooves / voids may be made by etching.
Therefore, YANO teaches said indentations are made by etching away a part of the edge of the spacer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZERFASS.
Regarding claim 22, ZERFASS discloses the stack is that of a “SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) fuel cell unit” [0046].
While ZERFASS does not disclose a SOEC, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that a SOEC is the reverse process of that of a SOFC, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Therefore, ZERFASS teaches the Solid Oxide Cell stack is a Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell stack.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZERFASS in view of YAMANIS (US 20080107948 A1).
Regarding claim 15, ZERFASS discloses “folded edges 124 and 138 are fixed together in gas-tight manner by a welding and/or brazing process for example” [0076]. However, ZERFASS does not specifically teach diffusion bonding.
YAMANIS is directed to a solid oxide fuel cell, like ZERFASS.
YAMANIS discloses “the diffusion-bonding process step … establishing strong connections with minimal resistance to electron flow” [0023] as well as “can also be bonded by welding processes known in the art, such as resistance seam welding and brazing” [0023]. As such YAMANIS teaches diffusion bonding, welding, and brazing are all known methods of bonding applicable to solid oxide cells and specifically that diffusion bonding has a strong connection with low resistance.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the welding and/or brazing process of ZERFASS for the diffusion bonding process of YAMANIS because as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent process of bonding recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Therefore, modified ZERFASS discloses the spacer is connected to the interconnect by diffusion bonding on at least a part of the surface of the spacer facing the interconnect (as taught by YAMANIS).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ALLEN (US 20040151975 A1) manufacture of the bipolar separator plate involving a fold creating a fixture, as shown in at least Fig. 20.
DIEZ (US 20040086769 A1) directed to a cell unit involving a fold creating a fixture, as shown in at least Fig. 9 as well as a structure reading on spacer bonded to an interconnect layer as shown in at least Fig. 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights