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 1-26 are pending in the application
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coated interconnect" in line 5. It is unclear if “the coated interconnect” is the interconnect after it has been coated with a metal oxide powder, or if it is a separate interconnect altogether. Positively claiming “a coated interconnect” would clarify the claim and resolve this objection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sintered interconnect" in line 7. It is unclear if “the sintered interconnect” is “the coated interconnect” after it has been sintered, or if it is a separate interconnect altogether. Positively claiming “a sintered interconnect” would clarify the claim and resolve this objection.
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.
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 1-26 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a protective layer” in lines 3-4 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “a protective layer” in lines 3-4 is the same protective layer as “a protective layer” in claim 1 line 1 or a separate protective layer altogether.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the interconnect comprises a chromium-iron alloy or a stainless-steel interconnect comprising an air side comprising air channels and a fuel side comprising fuel channels” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the interconnect comprises “a chromium-iron alloy” or “a stainless-steel interconnect comprising an air side comprising air channels and a fuel side comprising fuel channels,” or if the interconnect comprises “a chromium-iron alloy interconnect comprising an air side comprising air channels and a fuel side comprising fuel channels” or “a stainless-steel interconnect comprising an air side comprising air channels and a fuel side comprising fuel channels.
Claims 2-26 are further rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong et. al. teaches a method of forming a protective layer (interconnect coating) on an interconnect for an electrochemical cell stack (fuel cell) (title and abstract). The method includes coating at least one side of the interconnect with a metal oxide powder to form a protective layer ([0045], the powder is coated via air plasma spray). Next, sintering the coated interconnect (sintering in an N2 atmosphere) and oxidizing the sintered interconnect (treating in an oxidized atmosphere) in an oxidizing atmosphere to oxidize and densify the protective layer ([0052]).
Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach sintering the coated interconnect in an inert atmosphere to at least partially reduce the protective layer; and oxidizing the sintered interconnect in an oxidizing atmosphere to oxidize and densify the protective layer.
Zhu et. al. teaches a method of forming a protective layer on an interconnect for an electrochemical cell stack (abstract, page 6 column 2 paragraph 2, and page 8 column 2 paragraph 2). The method includes coating at least one side of the interconnect with a metal oxide powder to form a protective layer (slurry coating the precursors Co3O4 and Mn2O3 to from a deposited layer), sintering (annealing) the coated interconnect to at least partially reduce the protective layer and oxidizing the sintered interconnect in an oxidizing atmosphere to oxidize and densify the protective layer (page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 1-14). The reduction and oxidation of the metal oxide powder allows for increased sinterability and densification of the coating layer, as well as a high-strength bond between the interconnect and coating at temperatures below 1000 °C (page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 14-24).
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 use the metal oxide powders, as well as the coating, sintering and oxidizing steps of Zhu et. al. in the coating of Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to includes these metal oxide powders and steps for the increased sinterability, densification, and bonding of the coating layer.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Armstrong et. al. further teaches that the step of sintering is conducted at a temperature of 900 °C, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 950 °C. Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Armstrong does not explicitly teach the step of oxidizing is conducted at a temperature of at least 950 ºC
Zhu et. al. further teaches that the step of oxidizing (final air annealing step) is conducted at 800 °C to 1000 °C (page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 6-12), which allows for the formation of a dense spinel layer. This range overlaps with the claimed range of above 950 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
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 use the temperature range for the oxidation of the protecting layer, as taught by Zhu et. al., in the method of Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range to form a dense spinel layer.
With the above ranges of modified Armstrong of the sintering step being 900 °C and the oxidizing step being 800 °C to 1000 °C, there includes a range in which the step of oxidizing is conducted at a higher temperature than the step of sintering (when the is conducted at a temperature greater than 900 °C). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu et. al. further teaches that the above imported steps to modified Armstrong et. al. results in the oxidized protective layer including a spinel phase (page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu et. al. further teaches the above imported metal oxide powder to modified Armstrong et. al. comprises a first component selected from cobalt oxide and a second component selected from manganese oxide (page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 7, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the spinel phase comprises Mn2-xCo1+xO4 ([0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the spinel phase comprises (Mn, Co, Cu)3O4 ([0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the spinel phase comprises Mn1.5Co1.5O4 ([0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the interconnect comprises a chromium-iron alloy (abstract) comprising an air side comprising air channels and a fuel side comprising fuel channels ([0003]).The protective layer is disposed on the air side of the interconnect ([0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the inert atmosphere comprises nitrogen (N2) or an inert gas (argon) ([0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Armstrong et. al further teaches the inert atmosphere contains less than 0.1 volume percent of oxidizing gas (the inert atmosphere has a partial pressure of oxygen of 10-30 atm, which, assuming a standard 1 atmosphere for total pressure, is approximately 0% oxygen [0076]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519), further in view of Wang et. al. (Wang, K. et. al., Interactions Between SOFC Interconnect Coating Materials and Chromia, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 94 [12] 4490-4495).
Armstrong et. al. and Zhu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the sintering comprises reducing at least 95 wt% of the first component and less than 5 wt% of the second component.
Wang et. al. teaches a manganese cobalt spinel oxide coating for an interconnect in solid oxide fuel cells (abstract). Wang further teaches the manganese cobalt spinel oxide is formed with a powder of a first component and a second component, the first component being the cobalt oxide Co3O4 and the second component being the manganese oxide MnO (page 4490, column 2, paragraph 5, lines 1-2). The use of these two components allows for the formation of manganese cobalt spinel oxide coatings with good electrical conductivity (page 4491, column 1, paragraph 3, lines 12-21).
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 use the first and second components of Wang et. al. in the protective coating of modified Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the coating to have good electrical conductivity.
Armstrong et. al does not explicitly teach the sintering comprises reducing at least 95 wt% of the first component.
Zhu et. al. further teaches that the first component, Co3O4, is reduced to Co in order to form the manganese cobalt spinel oxide with improved sinterability over the unreduced Co3O4 (page 8, column 2, paragraph 2, lines 6-14). As the increase of the Co concentration results in an increase of sinterability, the percentage of the first component, Co3O4, that should be reduced is a result-effective variable. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II).
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 the sintering of modified Armstrong et. al. comprise reducing at least 95 wt% of the first component (i.e. the Co3O4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the reduction to this range for the increased sinterability of the protective layer.
With the above imported second component of modified Armstrong et. al., MnO, less than 5% of will be reduced during the sintering step, as MnO cannot be thermally reduced in an inert atmosphere (under which the sintering of modified Armstrong is done, [0052]).
Claims 11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519), further in view of Bradner et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0023957).
Armstrong et. al. and Zhu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the coating comprises a wet coating method
Bradner et. al. teaches a protective coating (ceramic layer structure) for an interconnect of a high-temperature fuel cell (title) containing a spinel structure formed with CoOx and MnOx ([0015]), and a method for forming the same ([0063]). Bradner et. al. further teaches coating the interconnect with a wet coating method (wet spray process, [0026]), which allows for the layer to be applied to the interconnect with high thickness and without a high powder waste ([0026]).
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 use for the coating of modified Armstrong et. al. to include a wet coating method, as taught by Bradner et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this method for the thick coating that can be applied without a high powder waste.
Regarding claim 14, modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the method further comprises assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical cell stack containing electrochemical cells.
Bradner et. al. further teaches the method includes assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical cell stack containing electrochemical cells (coated fuel cells, [0103]). This installation allows for the fuel cell to be assembled, in turn utilizing the interconnects in the system to generate energy.
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 include the step of assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical stack, as taught by Bradner et. al., to the method of modified Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step to afford the energy-generating fuel cell.
Regarding claims 16, modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the sintering comprises sintering the coated interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack; and the oxidizing comprises oxidizing the sintered interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack.
Bradner et. al. further teaches the sintering comprises sintering the coated interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack ([0071]). This allows for the connection of the interconnect to the cathode and the sintering of the layer structure take place in one step, which is advantageous with respect to the efficiency of manufacture and to energy consumption ([0071]).
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 the sintering of modified Armstrong et. al. include sintering the coated interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack, as taught by Bradner et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased efficiency of manufacture and decreased energy consumption.
As the oxidizing step of modified Armstrong et. al. follows the above imported sintering step taught by Bradner, and the sintered connect is in the electrochemical cell stack, the oxidizing step must also include oxidizing the sintered interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack.
Regarding claim 17, modified Armstrong et. al. teaches the sintering comprises sintering the coated interconnect in a furnace containing the inert atmosphere (the sintering step is undertaken at 900 °C in an inert atmosphere, [0076], therefore the container that holds the temperature and atmosphere will be considered a furnace) before assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical cell stack (as Armstrong et. al. teaches forming the coating on the interconnect without individually teaching forming the stack, the sintering must take place before assembling the electrochemical cell stack) and the oxidizing comprises oxidizing the sintered interconnect in a furnace containing the oxidizing atmosphere (the oxidizing step is undertaken at 800-1000 °C in an oxidizing atmosphere, Zhu et. al. page 8 column 2 paragraph 2 lines 6-12, therefore the container that holds the temperature and atmosphere will be considered a furnace) before assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical cell stack (as Armstrong et. al. teaches forming the coating on the interconnect without individually teaching forming the stack, the oxidizing must take place before assembling the electrochemical cell stack).
Regarding claim 18, Armstrong et. al. further teaches the electrochemical cell stack comprises a solid oxide fuel cell stack, and the electrochemical cells comprise solid oxide fuel cells (multiple fuel cells, which would by definition be solid oxide fuel cells) ([0003]).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519) and Bradner et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0023957), further in view of Armstrong (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180366743), hereinafter Armstrong ‘743.
Armstrong et. al., Zhu et. al., and Bradner et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. teaches the sintering occurs before assembling the interconnect into the electrochemical cell stack (as Armstrong et. al. teaches forming the coating on the interconnect without individually teaching forming the stack, the sintering must take place before assembling the electrochemical cell stack).
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the oxidizing comprises oxidizing the sintered interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack.
Armstrong ‘743 teaches a method for fabricating an interconnect for a fuel cell stack (title), the interconnect including a protective layer over at least one surface of an interconnect ([0004]). Armstrong ‘743 further teaches sintering the interconnect before assembling the interconnect into an electrochemical cell stack, followed by oxidizing the sintered interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack (fig. 4 ref. #407, #409, and #410).
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 the oxidizing of modified Armstrong et. al. include oxidizing the sintered interconnect in the electrochemical cell stack, as taught by Armstrong ‘743. This combination of teachings is merely a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of forming the spinel containing protecting layer on the interconnect. The claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519) and Bradner et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0023957), further in view of Perry et. al. (US Patent No. 8,652,691).
Armstrong et. al., Zhu et. al., and Bradner et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the electrochemical cell stack comprises a solid oxide electrolyzer cell stack, and the electrochemical cells comprise solid oxide electrolyzer cells.
Perry et. al. teaches a metallic interconnect for solid oxide fuel cells or electrolyzers (page 5 column 2 lines 26-30). Perry et. al. further teaches that the metallic interconnect may also be used in a reversible fuel cell system, in which the cell stack functions as both a solid oxide fuel cell stack and electrolyzer stack, and the electrochemical cells function as both solid oxide fuel cells and electrolyzer cells (page 5 column 2 lines 26-30). The reversibility of the electrochemical cell stack allows for increased functionality of the cell stack.
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 the electrochemical cell stack include a solid oxide electrolyzer cell stack with solid oxide electrolyzer cells, as taught by Perry et. al., in the electrochemical cell stack of modified Armstrong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased functionality of the electrochemical cell stack.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn, Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519), further in view of Yang et. al. (Yang, Z. et. al., Ce-Modified (Mn,Co)3O4 Spinel Coatings on Ferritic Stainless Steels for SOFC Interconnect Applications, 2008, Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 11 (8) B140-B143.).
Armstrong et. al. and Zhu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the metal oxide powder further comprises an adhesion promoter comprising Mg, Y, Ce, La, Sm, Zr, or a combination thereof.
Yang et. al. teaches (Mn, Co)3o4 spinel coatings on ferritic stainless steels for SOFC interconnect applications (title). Yang et. al. further teaches adding cesium to the (Mn, Co)3O4 coating as an adhesion promoter (the inclusion of Ce leads to an increase in adhesion, abstract). The inclusion of the Ce as an adhesion promoter leads to increased structural stability and electrical performance of the solid oxide fuel cell (abstract).
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 include Ce as an adhesion promoter, as taught by Yang et. al., in the protective coating of modified Armstrong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased structural stability and electrical performance.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519), further in view of Ryu et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0193104).
Armstrong et. al. and Zhu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the protective layer further comprises at least one of an organic material or a carbon material prior to the step of sintering, the protective layer comprises at least 2 wt% of the organic material, nor the organic material comprises 3 wt% to 7 wt% ethyl cellulose.
Ryu et. al. teaches a method of manufacturing a transition metal oxide having a spinel structure (title) that is coated on a fuel cell interconnect ([0012]). The method involves the coating including ethyl cellulose, an organic material ([0033]), in 1 wt% to 20 wt%, prior to a step of sintering ([0028]). This range overlaps with the claimed ranges of at least 2 wt% of the organic material and 3 wt% to 7 wt% ethyl cellulose. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The inclusion of the ethyl cellulose in this amount allows for improved adhesion of the coating over a coating that does not have a binder, as well as affording an electrochemical stack with improved current density and ohmic resistance ([0070]).
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 include the ethyl cellulose in the described range, as taught by Ryu et. al., in the method of modified Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved adhesion, improved current density, and ohmic resistance.
Claims 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519), further in view of Zhu et. al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0101208), hereinafter Zhu et. al. ‘208.
Armstrong et. al. and Zhu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the protective layer further comprises at least one of an organic material or a carbon material prior to the step of sintering, the protective layer comprises at least 0.2 wt% of the carbon material, nor the carbon material comprises 1 wt% to 5 wt% of graphite.
Zhu et. al. ‘208 teaches a method of making a protective coating (spinel-type coating, title) for a fuel cell interconnect ([0013]). Zhu et. al. ‘208 further teaches the protective layer further comprises graphite, a carbon material (pore forming material), in 1 wt% to 20 wt% before a sintering step ([0039]). This range overlaps with the claimed ranges of at least 0.2 wt% and 1 wt% to 5 wt% of graphite. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The inclusion of the graphite in this amount allows for increased porosity in the sintered spinel coating ([0039]), which in turn allows for beneficial exposure of the interconnect to air when applied to the cathode side of the fuel cell ([0038]).
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 include graphite in the range taught by Zhu et. al. ‘208 in the protecting layer of modified Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased porosity of the coating.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230644) in view of Zhu et. al. (J. H. Zhu et al, Review—(Mn,Co)3O4-Based Spinels for SOFC Interconnect Coating Application, 29 November 2021, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 114519) and Ryu et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0193104), further in view of Zhu et. al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0101208), hereinafter Zhu et. al. ‘208.
Armstrong et. al., Zhu et. al., and Ryu et. al. are relied upon as described above.
Modified Armstrong et. al. does not explicitly teach the protective layer further comprises the carbon material prior to the step of sintering.
Zhu et. al. ‘208 teaches a method of making a protective coating (spinel-type coating, title) for a fuel cell interconnect ([0013]). Zhu et. al. ‘208 further teaches the protective layer further comprises graphite, a carbon material (pore forming material), in 1 wt% to 20 wt% before a sintering step ([0039]). This range overlaps with the claimed ranges of at least 0.2 wt% and 1 wt% to 5 wt% of graphite. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The inclusion of the graphite in this amount allows for increased porosity in the sintered spinel coating ([0039]), which in turn allows for beneficial exposure of the interconnect to air when applied to the cathode side of the fuel cell ([0038]).
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 include graphite in the range taught by Zhu et. al. ‘208 in the protecting layer of modified Armstrong et. al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased porosity of the coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 09/22/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights