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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 2/7/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9 and 15 include limitations to “an electrode including an electrolyte ceramic, and an anode electrode and a cathode electrode …” The examiner finds that the term “electrode” is used incorrectly, and further finds that it is likely that Applicant intended to claim an “electrode unit” as was claimed in originally filed claims 1 and 7. Generally, limitations to “an/the electrode” that do not specify “anode electrode” or “cathode electrode” will be interpreted as “electrode unit.” Appropriate correction is required.
In the last limitation of claim 9, Applicant claims “the electrode includes a reduced thickness portion…” Based on originally filed claim 1, this will be interpreted as “the electrode unit includes…” 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 9-16 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.
The term “high frequency” in claims 9 and 12-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high frequency” 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. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubukco et al. (US 6,074,771) in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0088970).
Regarding claim 9, Cubukco teaches a solid oxide fuel cell (column 4 lines 62-63) comprising:
an electrode unit, or ceramic cell, including an electrolyte ceramic, or ceramic composite material (61), and an anode electrode, or anode (18), and cathode electrode, or cathode (16) (Figure 2);
a metal frame, or frame (54) made of any metal foil, having opposite first and second members (56, 58), sandwiching and contacting the cell, or “secured together to surround, support, and engage components of the cell” (column 6 lines 4-11; column 8 line 66 - column 9 line 14);
a power supply port, or connection to power source (34) (Figure 1), electrically connected to the metal frame (54) to supply AC electric power, which the skilled artisan will easily understand to be high frequency (50-60Hz), to the frame to heat the electrode unit via cell heat elements (Figures 17, 17A, 17B; column 9 line 51 - column 10 line 12; column 21 lines 23-26).
Further regarding claim 9 and with regard to claim 10, Cubukco fails to teach a reduced thickness in the electrode unit in a predetermined concentratedly heated region.
Liu teaches a solid oxide fuel cell having an electrode unit wherein a reduced thickness of the electrolyte (32) is provided (Figure 3, [0030]). Liu further teaches that the reduced thickness is provided in order to create a predetermined concentratedly heated region, or maintain uniform temperature distribution, since it is known that solid oxide fuel cells suffer from unevenness of temperature, i.e. preset regions where heating efficiency is reduced ([0004], [0007]). Thus, Liu teaches, the lifespan is prolonged and the efficiency is improved ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide the electrode unit of Cubukco with a reduced thickness portion at a predetermined concentratedly heated region such as taught by Liu in order to prolong lifespan and improve efficiency.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubukco in view of Liu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Junaedi et al. (US 2019/0229352).
The teachings of Cubukco and Liu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cubukco in view of Liu teaches the solid oxide fuel cell of claim 9 but fails to teach the claimed mesh density.
Junaedi teaches a solid oxide fuel cell wherein the reforming catalyst of the anode and cathode electrodes is applied in a gradient to a mesh, thereby forming a mesh density of the mesh structure in regions with higher amounts of mesh density ([0107]). Junaedi further teaches that the mesh density is controlled in order to control temperature and minimize thermal stresses on the solid oxide cell, i.e. based on predetermined concentratedly heated regions, preset by the known unevenness of temperature of SOFCs ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the mesh densities of the anode and cathode electrodes of Cubukco in view of Liu such as suggested by Junaedi in order to control temperature and minimize thermal stresses.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubukco in view of Liu as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 12,057,561).
The teachings of Cubukco and Liu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cubukco in view of Liu teaches the solid oxide fuel cell of claim 9, including the limitations of claim 12 an electric power controller, or programmable computer controller (36), to control electric power of a high frequency to the power supply port in accordance with a temperature of the electrode unit, i.e. the lower temperature at start-up (Figure 27, column 10 lines 7-9).
Cubukco is silent on a high frequency oscillator.
Du teaches a solid oxide fuel cell including an induction heating element for heating the electrolyte via an electronic oscillator that uses a high-frequency alternating current to heat the material, wherein the alternating current may be pulsed at desired rates or frequencies (i.e. pulse-driving on a time axis) to control the temperature of the electrolyte (column 1 lines 55-57, column 2 line 14, column 38 line 66 - column 39 line 3).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known electronic oscillator and method of Du as discussed above in the fuel cell of Cubukco in view of Liu in order to control the temperature of the electrolyte. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e. control of the electrode unit, is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I A
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubukco in view of Liu and Du as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2015/0188167).
The teachings of Cubukco, Liu, and Du as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cubukco in view of Liu and Du teaches the fuel cell and controller of claim 13 but is silent on switching power supply to different solid oxide fuel cells.
Wu teaches an apparatus for controlling fuel cell heating value wherein a switch circuit, or switching units (100, 400), is controlled by a switch driving controller, or control unit (600), to switch a supply destination of the heating value conditioning units (510, 520) in order to address performance deviation and prevent deterioration of the stacks or modules (Figures 3A and 6, [0007], [0049], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known method of Wu for switching heating to different solid oxide fuel cells in the controller of the solid oxide fuel cell of Cubukco in view of Liu and Du in order to address performance deviation and prevent deterioration of the stacks or modules.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubukco in view of Junaedi.
The teachings of Cubukco and Junaedi as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Cubukco teaches a solid oxide fuel cell (column 4 lines 62-63) comprising:
an electrode unit, or ceramic cell, including an electrolyte ceramic, or ceramic composite material (61), and an anode electrode, or anode (18), and cathode electrode, or cathode (16) (Figure 2);
a metal frame, or frame (54) made of any metal foil, having opposite first and second members (56, 58), sandwiching and contacting the cell, or “secured together to surround, support, and engage components of the cell” (column 6 lines 4-11; column 8 line 66 - column 9 line 14);
a power supply port, or connection to power source (34) (Figure 1), electrically connected to the metal frame (54) to supply AC electric power, which the skilled artisan will easily understand to be high frequency (50-60Hz), to the frame to heat the electrode unit via cell heat elements (Figures 17, 17A, 17B; column 9 line 51 - column 10 line 12; column 21 lines 23-26).
Further regarding claim 15 and with regard to claim 16, Cubukco fails to teach the claimed mesh density.
Junaedi teaches a solid oxide fuel cell wherein the reforming catalyst of the anode and cathode electrodes is applied in a gradient to a mesh, thereby forming a mesh density of the mesh structure in regions with higher amounts of mesh density ([0107]). Junaedi further teaches that the mesh density is controlled in order to control temperature and minimize thermal stresses on the solid oxide cell, i.e. based on predetermined concentratedly heated regions, preset by the known unevenness of temperature of SOFCs ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the mesh densities of the anode and cathode electrodes of Cubukco such as suggested by Junaedi in order to control temperature and minimize thermal stresses.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9 and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 12-14, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/681,937 in view of Liu.
Claim 8 of ‘937 requires all of the elements of instant claim 9 (see, specifically, the preamble and first three limitations of claim 8 of ‘937). Claim 8 of ‘937 is silent on the reduced thickness portion.
Liu teaches a solid oxide fuel cell having an electrode unit wherein a reduced thickness of the electrolyte (32) is provided (Figure 3, [0030]). Liu further teaches that the reduced thickness is provided in order to create a predetermined concentratedly heated region, or maintain uniform temperature distribution ([0004], [0007]). Thus, Liu teaches, the lifespan is prolonged and the efficiency is improved ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide the electrode unit of Cubukco with a reduced thickness portion at a predetermined concentratedly heated region such as taught by Liu in order to prolong lifespan and improve efficiency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights