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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending in application.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “[…] configured to operate […]” in claim 10, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the gas transmitting member " in line 2 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Applicant is referring to “a gas permeable member,” however; it is not clear whether or not an additional element is being recited aside from the gas permeable member. For the purposes of examination, the gas transmitting member has been considered to be the gas permeable member.
Regarding claim 2, the term “near” in line 2 of claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the distance between the recited first layer of the electrically conductive member to the metal member is rendered indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "element portions" in line 2 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “element portions” is referring back to a previously recited element in claim 1 or 7 or if a new element is being claimed.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation “[…] configured to operate the module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “auxiliary device” is disclosed in para. [0077] – [0079] of the specification; however, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-10 which depend on claim 1, claim 3 which depends alternately on claim 2, and claims 9-10 which depend alternately on claim 8 are similarly rejected.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuo (US PG Pub 2002/0187379 A1) as evidenced by “SUS304 Stainless Steel Material Properties, Chemical Composition, Meaning” and “AISI 316 Stainless Steel Properties, SS 316 Grade Density, Composition, Yield Strength, Thermal Conductivity” – Datasheets by The World Material as well as “Thermodynamic data NiO” – Datasheet by Japan Atomic Energy Agency.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuo discloses an electrochemical cell (fuel cell, title) comprising a gas permeable member through which a reducing gas is permeable (anode, para. [0042], ref. 22, Fig. 1), the gas transmitting member having electrical conductivity. Protons and electrons are generated in the fuel cell anode from hydrogen (para. [0047]) and therefore electrons must flow from the anode the fuel cell. Yasuo further discloses a metal member containing SUS 304 or SUS 316 stainless steel (substrate, para. [0051], ref. 31, Fig. 2) which contains chromium (Datasheets – The World Material). Yasuo also describes an electrically conductive member (conductive and intermediate layers, para. [0046], ref. 32 - 33, Fig. 3) interposed between the anode and the substrate which comprises a porous structure composed of metal particles (para. [0057] – [0058]). Furthermore, the conductive member may contain a first element, Ni in the metal layer (para. [0053], ref. 321, Fig. 3) whose first ionization energy and free energy of formation of an oxide per mole of oxygen is smaller (in absolute value) than that of chromium according to the thermodynamic database referred to in para. [0029] of the specification of the instant application (Datasheet - Japan Atomic Energy Agency). The values can be calculated as seen below:
4 Cr + 3 O2
→
2 Cr2O3 (Gibbs energy [=] J/mol = -1.16 X 106 (298 K) to -1.72 X 106 (2500 K))
Gibbs energy Cr2O3 per mole of O2- [=] J/mol = -3.87 x 105 (298 K) to -5.73 X 105 (2500 K)
Ni + O2
→
2NiO (Gibbs energy [=] J/mol = -2.5 X 105 (298 K) to -5.06 X 105 (2500 K))
Regarding claim 2, Yasuo discloses a first layer (conductive layer, (para. [0046], ref. 33, Fig. 3) near the metal member (substrate, (para. [0051], ref. 31, Fig. 2)) and contains the first element (Ni, (para. [0058])).
Regarding claim 3, the metal particles contain nickel (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, the electrochemical device comprises a cell stack with an interposing separator between adjacent elements (para. [0113], ref. 24, Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 8, the metal member (substrate, (para. [0051], ref. 31, Fig. 2)) serves as an interconnector electrically connecting adjacent element portions via the separator (para. [0113]).
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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US PG Pub 2014/0377683 A1) in view of Narendar (US PG Pub 2009/0186249 A1) and further in view of Higashino (US PG Pub 2017/0098841 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches an electrochemical cell (solid oxide fuel cell, (title)) with a gas permeable member (porous conductive supporting body, (para. [0043] – [0050], ref. 1, Fig. 3A)) which is permeable to reducing gas which flows through the fuel gas passages (ref. 2, Fig. 3A). Inoue also teaches an interconnecting member (ref. 8, Fig. 3A) which is connected to the supporting body and an electrically conductive member (adhesion layer, (para. [0052] – [0057], ref. 7, Fig. 3A)) interposed between the interconnecting member and porous conductive supporting body. The adhesion layer is composed of the same material as the fuel electrode (para. [0052], ref. 3, Fig. 3A) and is therefore a porous, electrically conductive ceramic structure containing ZrO2 or CeO2 (para. [0023]). Zr and Ce are considered to be first elements whose first ionization energy and free energy of formation of an oxide per mole of oxygen are smaller than those of chromium according to the examples listed in para. [0029], Lines 18-20 of the specification of the instant application. The interconnector (ref. 8, Fig. 3A) is formed of conductive ceramics and is required to have both reduction and oxidation resistance (para. [0054]).
However, Inoue does not teach that the interconnecting member is a metal member containing chromium.
Narendar teaches an interconnect for a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) (abstract) which includes a first layer (para. [0024], ref. 36, Fig. 2) comprised of a metal (including Cr-based alloys) and a second layer (ref. 38, Fig. 2) including a doped M-titanate. Furthermore, Narendar teaches that metal interconnectors are known in the art to have a compatible coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) with solid oxide fuel cells and good electrical conductivity (para. [0003]-[0010]) and that M-titanates can function as effective oxidation barriers to extend the life of SOFC’s (para. [0010)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the two layered interconnect taught by Narendar which contains a metal member for the interconnecting member of Inoue with the predictable result of having both reduction and oxidation resistance while in contact with fuel gas and gas containing oxygen while also having good electrical conductivity (MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Inoue also fails to teach that the adhesion layer (ref. 7, Fig. 3A) contains metal particles.
Higashino teaches a porous electrically conductive member (abstract, ref. 9, Fig. 1) which also serves as the current collector. The conductive member is made of a porous metal network (para. [0070] – [0073]) containing nickel catalyst particles (para. [0093], ref. 21, Fig. 3) capable of generating protons from hydrogen gas. Furthermore, Higashino teaches that the presence of a catalyst on the current conducting member complements the proton generating function of the fuel electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the nickel catalyst particles taught by Higashino on the surface of the metal member taught by Narendar to improve catalytic function.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches an electrically conductive member comprising a first layer located near the metal member (the adhesion layer) (ref. 7, Fig. 3A) and containing the first element (Zr, or Ce) (para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Higashino teaches the metal particles containing nickel (para. [0093], ref. 21, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the adhesion layer (ref. 7, Fig. 3A) being an electrically conductive ceramic structure with the first element being Ce (para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Inoue and Narendar teaches an interconnect containing a second layer (Narendar para. [0038], ref. 38, Fig. 2) which includes a doped M-titanate (titanium oxide). The second layer is considered a part of the electrically conductive member of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Inoue and Narendar teaches a metal member comprising a base member (second layer of Narendar, para. [0038], ref. 38, Fig. 2) facing the electrically conductive member (adhesion layer of Inoue, (para. [0052] – [0057], ref. 7, Fig. 3A) and a coating layer (first layer of Narendar, ref. 36, Fig. 2) exposed to an oxidizing atmosphere (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches a fuel cell stack device comprising a plurality of cells (para. [0067] – [0070], ref. 11, Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Inoue and Narendar teach an interconnector in said fuel cell stack device electrically connecting adjacent element portions. Inoue teaches an interconnector between adjacent fuel cells electrically connecting them (ref. 8, Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches a module comprising said fuel cell stack device (para. [0071] – [0075], ref. 18, Fig. 5) and a storage container housing the fuel cell stack device (ref. 19, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches a module housing device (para. [0076] – [0082], ref. 23, Fig. 6) comprising the module of claim 9 (ref. 18, Fig. 6), an auxiliary device configured to operate the module (para. [0077]) and an external case housing the module and auxiliary device, including outer boards (ref. 25, Fig. 6) and supporting columns (ref. 24, Fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Ruka (US Patent 5,908,713) discloses a solid oxide fuel cell with a layered fuel cell electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/N.A.M/
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
07/20/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights