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 .
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.
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 1-13 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Kiefer et al. (“Entwicklung neuer Schutz- und Kontaktierungsschichten für Hochtemperatur-Brennstoffzellen”, citing Table 5 and translated Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Hassan teaches an interconnect for an electrochemical cell stack (Abstract), the interconnect comprising: an interconnect substrate (Results and Discussion Par. 1; interconnect made of Crofer 22 APU and/or SUS 430) having an air side (Fig. 1, one side of the interconnect faces the cathode/oxygen side) and an opposing fuel side Fig. 1, one side of the interconnect faces the anode/fuel side); and a protective layer coated on at least the air side of the interconnect substrate (Abstract, “protective layer for ferritic interconnects”), the protective layer comprising a transition metal oxide comprising copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) (Results and Discussion Par. 1; Cu and Fe are present in the spinel coating of CuFe2O4), wherein the protective layer comprises less than 0.5 wt.% cobalt (Co) (Introduction Par. 5; an inner spinel layer is made of Cr2O3, and an outer spinel layer is made of CuFe2O4; neither comprises Co). Hassan fails to teach the protective layer comprising a transition metal oxide comprising manganese (Mn).
However, Kiefer teaches a protective layer for a fuel cell interconnect comprising a transition metal oxide comprising copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn) (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 4; CuMn2O4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect taught by Hassan by incorporating a copper and manganese transition oxide, as taught by Kiefer. This would be done to form a protective coating which ensure stable stack performance, as stated in Kiefer (Absract).
Regarding claim 2, Hassan teaches the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the transition metal oxide is represented by a formula: Cu(x+1)M(2-x)O4, where M comprises Fe, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Introduction Par. 5 teaches CuFe2O4, where x=0).
Regarding claim 3, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal oxide being represented by Cu(x+1)Mn(2-x)O4.
However, Kiefer teaches a transition metal oxide which is represented by the formula: Cu(x+1)M(2-x)O4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 4 teaches CuMn2O4, where x=0).
Regarding claim 4, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal oxide comprising CuMn2O4.
However, Kiefer teaches a transition metal oxide comprising CuMn2O4 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 4 teaches CuMn2O4).
Regarding claim 5, Hassan teaches a transition metal oxide represented by a formula: Cu1+xFe2-xO4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Results and Discussion, Par. 1; CuFe2O4, x=0).
Regarding claim 6, Hassan teaches the transition metal oxide of claim 5, which comprises CuFe2O4 (Results and Discussion, Par. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal oxide being represented by a formula: CuFexMn2-xO4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.
However, Kiefer teaches a transition metal oxide which is represented by a formula: CuFexMn2-xO4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 13; CuFeMnO4, x = 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal comprising CuFe0.3Mn1.7O4 or CuFeMnO4.
However, Kiefer teaches an interconnect (Abstract) for an electrochemical cell stack (Abstract; solid oxide fuel cell) with a protective coating (Abstract, protective coating), which comprises a transition metal of CuFeMnO4 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect taught by Hassan by incorporating the transition metal CuFeMnO4 into the protective layer, as taught by Kiefer. This would be done to provide the protective layer with a high electrical conductivity and fitting coefficient of thermal expansion through a ternary system comprising Cu, Fe, and Mn, as stated in Kiefer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Hassan teaches the interconnect of claim 7, wherein the transition metal oxide comprises CuFe2O4 (Results and Discussion, Par. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal oxide being represented by a formula: Cu1-xFexMn2O4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.
However, Kiefer teaches a transition metal oxide which is represented by a formula: Cu1-xFexMn2O4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 5; Cu0.5Fe0.5Mn2O4, x = 0.5).
Regarding claim 11, Hassan fails to teach the transition metal comprising Cu0.5Fe0.5Mn2O4.
However, Kiefer teaches a transition metal comprising Cu0.5Fe0.5Mn2O4 (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect taught by Hassan by incorporating the transition metal Cu0.5Fe0.5Mn2O4 into the protective layer, as taught by Kiefer. This would be done to provide the protective layer with a high electrical conductivity and fitting coefficient of thermal expansion through a ternary system comprising Cu, Fe, and Mn, as stated in Kiefer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Hassan teaches the interconnect of claim 2, wherein the protective layer comprises 0 to less than 0.05 wt.% of the cobalt (Results and Discussion Par. 2; an inner spinel layer is made of Cr2O3, and an outer spinel layer is made of CuFe2O4; neither comprises Co).
Regarding claim 13, Hassan teaches the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the transition metal oxide comprises a spinel phase (Results and Discussion Par. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Hassan teaches an electrochemical stack (Fig. 1), comprising: electrochemical cells (Introduction Par. 2); and interconnects of claim 1 located between the electrochemical cells (Introduction Par. 3; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Hassan teaches the electrochemical stack of claim 17, wherein the electrochemical cell stack is a fuel cell stack (Introduction Par. 1-3; multiple cells constitute a stack).
Regarding claim 19, Hassan teaches a method of making an interconnect for an electrochemical cell stack (Abstract), comprising: an interconnect substrate (Results and Discussion Par. 1; interconnect made of Crofer 22 APU and/or SUS 430) having an air side (Fig. 1, one side of the interconnect faces the cathode/oxygen side) and an opposing fuel side Fig. 1, one side of the interconnect faces the anode/fuel side); and a protective layer coated on at least the air side of the interconnect substrate (Abstract, “protective layer for ferritic interconnects”), the protective layer comprising a transition metal oxide comprising copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) (Results and Discussion Par. 1; Cu and Fe are present in the spinel coating of CuFe2O4), wherein the protective layer comprises less than 0.5 wt.% cobalt (Co) (Introduction Par. 5; an inner spinel layer is made of Cr2O3, and an outer spinel layer is made of CuFe2O4; neither comprises Co). Hassan fails to teach the protective layer comprising a transition metal oxide comprising manganese (Mn).
However, Kiefer teaches a protective layer for a fuel cell interconnect comprising a transition metal oxide comprising copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn) (Pg. 45, Table 5, Row 4; CuMn2O4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect taught by Hassan by incorporating a copper and manganese transition oxide, as taught by Kiefer. This would be done to form a protective coating which ensure stable stack performance, as stated in Kiefer (Absract).
Claims 14, 16, & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Kiefer, and further in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2013/0230644 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hassan fails to teach the protective layer further comprising a perovskite material.
However, Armstrong teaches a perovskite layer on a coating of an interconnect substrate (Par. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect coating taught by Hassan by incorporating a perovskite material, as taught by Armstrong. This would be done to limit the diffusion of chromium ions through the interconnect coating materials into the cathode, as stated in Armstrong (Par. 0034).
Regarding claim 16, Hassan fails to teach the interconnect substrate comprising 4-6 wt% iron and 94-96 wt% chromium. Hassan rather teaches a Crofer 22 APU substrate, which is composed of iron and chromium in different percentages.
However, Armstrong teaches an interconnect substrate which comprises 4-6 wt% iron (Par. 0003; 5 wt % Fe) and 94-96 wt% chromium (Par. 0003; 95 wt% Cr).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect substrate taught by Hassan by incorporating iron in 5 wt% and chromium in 95 wt%, as taught by Armstrong. This would be done to ensure retained strength and dimensional stability at typical solid oxide fuel cell operating conditions, as stated in Armstrong (Par. 0003).
Regarding claim 20, Hassan teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the transition metal oxide comprises a spinel which is represented by a formula: Cu(x+1)M(2-x)O4, wherein M comprises at least one of Fe or Mn, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (Abstract teaches CuFe2O4; x=0). Hassan fails to teach the interconnect substrate comprising 4-6 wt% iron and 94-96 wt% chromium. Hassan rather teaches a Crofer 22 APU substrate, which is composed of iron and chromium in different percentages.
However, Armstrong teaches an interconnect substrate which comprises 4-6 wt% iron (Par. 0003; 5 wt % Fe) and 94-96 wt% chromium (Par. 0003; 95 wt % Cr).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect substrate taught by Hassan by incorporating iron in 5 wt% and chromium in 95 wt%, as taught by Armstrong. This would be done to ensure retained strength and dimensional stability at typical solid oxide fuel cell operating conditions, as stated in Armstrong (Par. 0003).
Regarding claim 21, Hassan fails to teach an atmospheric plasma spraying process.
However, Armstrong teaches a protective layer which is formed by an atmospheric plasma spraying process (Par. 0040; the spinel coating comprising Cu and Mn is formed by an air plasma spray coating method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of making an interconnect taught by Hassan by coating the internet by atmospheric plasma spraying, as taught by Armstrong. This would be done to improve the coating density and increase the conductivity of reaction zone oxides, as stated in Armstrong (Par. 0040).
Regarding claim 22, Hassan fails to teach blending the spinel and perovskite powders and providing the resulting powder into a plasma jet.
However, Armstrong teaches blending spinel and perovskite powders (Par. 0037, the LSM perovskite coating forms the spinel phase, thus it is present in the phase; additionally, as stated in Par. 0020, a first powder is formed from the components of the spinel coating, and a second coating comprising LSM components, and they are compacted together) to form a blended feed stock powder and providing the blended feedstock powder into a plasma jet (Par. 0045).
Regarding claim 23, Hassan fails to teach the protective layer comprising a composite protective layer which comprises lamellae of the spinel phase which have a longer axis substantially parallel to an underlying surface of the interconnect substrate embedded in a perovskite phase matrix or alternating with perovskite phase lamellae.
However, Armstrong teaches a protective layer (Par. 0006; interconnect coating) which comprises a composite protective layer comprising lamellae of the spinel phase (spinel phase; Fig. 1) which have a longer axis (Fig. 1) substantially parallel to an underlying surface of the interconnect substrate (Fig. 1; lamellae axes extend in every direction, including parallel to the substrate surface) alternating with perovskite phase lamellae (Fig. 6, Par. 0060; perovskite layer 104 is deposited on spinel layer 102; thus, the layers and lamellae are alternated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective layer taught by Hassan by incorporating spinel phase lamellae parallel to an underlying surface of the substrate alternating with perovskite phase lamellae, as taught by Armstrong. This would be done to prevent Cr and oxygen diffusion, as stated in Armstrong (Par. 0064).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Kiefer and Armstrong, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 2013/0230792 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hassan fails to teach the protective layer comprising 20-40 wt% of the transition metal oxide, and 60-80 wt% of a perovskite material.
However, Wilson teaches a protective layer (Abstract; spinel coating for an air side of an interconnect; Par. 0028, “protective coating”) for an interconnect (interconnect substrate 100) which comprises, based on a total weight of the protective layer: 20-40 wt% of a transition metal oxide (Par. 0045; 40 wt % MCO, which stands for manganese cobalt oxide); and 60-80 wt% of a perovskite material (Par. 0045; 60 wt % LSM, which is a perovskite, as stated in Par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective layer taught by Hassan by incorporating a transition metal oxide in 40 wt%, and a perovskite material in 60 wt%, based on the total weight of the protective layer, as taught by Wilson. This would be done to form an Mn—Cr—Co oxide scale on the interconnect, which results in lower ohmic resistance, as stated in Wilson (Par. 0046).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Kiefer and Armstrong, and further in view of Ashary (US 2015/0194682 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hassan fails to teach a particle size distribution of the feedstock powder.
However, Ashary teaches powder particles for a protective layer of a fuel cell interconnect comprising a transition metal spinel (Par. 0012-14; MCO spinel), which are coated by air plasma spraying (Par. 0015); wherein the air plasma spraying process comprises providing into a plasma jet a feedstock powder comprising the spinel (Par. 0016) having a following particle size distribution: d10: 15 microns, d50: 25 microns, and d95: 45 microns (Table 1, Conventional Example; d10: 12-18 microns, d50: 20-30 microns, d95: 40-50 microns; all claimed values lie within the disclosed ranges). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Ashary fails to teach a d75 particle size distribution. However, the d75 distribution must result in a value somewhere between those of the d50 and d95 distributions, thus in the range of 30-40 microns, and the claimed value of 40 microns resides in the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights