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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US-6485852-B1), hereafter referred to simply as Miller.
Regarding Claim 1, Miller teaches an electrochemical cell device (“The invention relates generally to solid oxide fuel cell systems,” paragraph 2) comprising: an electrochemical cell (“a SOFC stack comprising a plurality of solid oxide bicells,” paragraph 21; 14 in Figs. 1 and 2); and a support member supporting the electrochemical cell (Fig. 1 shows that SOFC stack 14 is supported by the outer layers, including the recuperator 30, heat exchanger 20, and insulative layer 16, among other components that comprise the support member), wherein the support member (including recuperator 30 in Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a first portion located on an upstream side in a first direction in which a reactive gas flows (“oxidant gas enters the recuperator 30 through passage 44,” paragraph 25; 44, 30, and 50 in Fig. 2, where 50 is the first portion being located on an upstream side where the reactive gas flows 44); and a second portion located on a downstream side in the first direction with respect to the first portion (46 in Fig. 2, where 46 is the second portion being located on a downstream side where the reactive gas flows 44), and a reflectance of the first portion for infrared light is different from a reflectance of the second portion for the infrared light [“the recuperator 30 is color graded to provide dark, medium and light channels (or zones) 46, 48, and 50, respectively,” paragraph 21; “"color" as used herein refers to the peak blackbody intensity wavelength of about 2.5 to about 3.2 microns occurring for a blackbody of about 725 to about 800 °C,” paragraph 20; “Black channels 46 are disposed adjacent the SOFC stack 14 to absorb substantially all the SOFC stack 14 radiation. Preferably, the center portion of the black channel 46 is darker than the black channel portions adjacent each end of the SOFC stack 14. Medium gray channels 48 are provided so as to be a "good" admitter of radiation to the oxidant. Bright white channels 50 are provided to reflect radiation back toward the recuperator 30,” paragraph 21].
Claims 1-6, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashi et al. (JP-2021068639-A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to simply as Takashi.
Regarding Claim 1, Takashi teaches an electrochemical cell device (“the cell stack device 100,” paragraph 20) comprising: an electrochemical cell; and a support member supporting the electrochemical cell (“manifold 2,” paragraph 23; "the connecting member 3,” paragraph 58), wherein the support member comprises a first portion located on an upstream side in a first direction in which a reactive gas flows (“manifold 2 has a manifold body 23 and a partition plate 24,” paragraph 23; “The partition plate 24 divides the space within the manifold body 23 into a gas supply chamber 21,” paragraph 24); and a second portion located on a downstream side in the first direction with respect to the first portion (“the connecting member 3 has a connecting passage 30 that connects the first gas passage 41 and the second gas passage 42,” paragraph 58; 3 in Fig. 1; the arrows in Fig. 1 indicate the gas flow and show that connecting member 3 is downstream relative to gas supply chamber 21), and a reflectance of the first portion for infrared light is different from a reflectance of the second portion for the infrared light [“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59; “This dense layer 31 can be formed from the same material as the connecting member 3, the material used in the electrolyte 7 described above, crystallized glass, etc,” paragraph 59; “Electrolyte 7 may be composed of, for example, YSZ (8YSZ) (yttria-stabilized zirconia). Alternatively, it may be composed of LSGM (lanthanum gallate),” paragraph 52; “the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29; “oxide film 25 is composed of, for example, chromium oxide (Cr2O3), manganese chromium spinel (Mn,Cr)3O4, or aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2), manganese oxide (MnO, Mn2O3, Mn3O4), etc.,” paragraph 29]. The disclosed compositions for the respective coatings of the portions are substantively different – ceramics vs metal oxides – and, thus, will clearly have different infrared reflectance values.
Regarding Claim 2, Takashi teaches an electrochemical cell device (“the cell stack device 100,” paragraph 20) comprising: an electrochemical cell; and a support member supporting the electrochemical cell, wherein the support member comprises: a first portion located at a low-temperature portion of the electrochemical cell (“manifold 2 has a manifold body 23 and a partition plate 24,” paragraph 23; “The partition plate 24 divides the space within the manifold body 23 into a gas supply chamber 21 and a gas recovery chamber 22,” paragraph 24; 2 in Figs. 1 and 2); and a second portion located at a high-temperature portion of the electrochemical cell higher in temperature than the low-temperature portion (“the connecting member 3 has a connecting passage 30 that connects the first gas passage 41 and the second gas passage 42,” paragraph 58; 3 in Fig. 1, which shows 3 is located after a series of exothermic reactions take place, unlike gas supply chamber 21, so it’s assumed that 3 is higher temperature than 21; gas recovery chamber 22 in Fig. 1 is shown to be further downstream than 3 after additional exothermic reactions, and thus may alternatively be considered the high-temperature portion, with 3 being the comparatively low-temperature portion in this case) and a reflectance of the first portion for infrared light is different from a reflectance of the second portion for the infrared light [“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59; “This dense layer 31 can be formed from the same material as the connecting member 3, the material used in the electrolyte 7 described above, crystallized glass, etc,” paragraph 59; “Electrolyte 7 may be composed of, for example, YSZ (8YSZ) (yttria-stabilized zirconia). Alternatively, it may be composed of LSGM (lanthanum gallate),” paragraph 52; “the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29; “oxide film 25 is composed of, for example, chromium oxide (Cr2O3), manganese chromium spinel (Mn,Cr)3O4, or aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2), manganese oxide (MnO, Mn2O3, Mn3O4), etc.,” paragraph 29]. The disclosed portions (manifold 2/21/22 and connecting member 3) clearly have different temperatures, and the materials for the respective coatings of the portions are substantively different – ceramic materials vs metal oxides – and, thus, will clearly have different infrared reflectance values.
Regarding Claim 3, the reflectance of the first portion is lower than the reflectance of the second portion [“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59; “This dense layer 31 can be formed from the same material as the connecting member 3, the material used in the electrolyte 7 described above, crystallized glass, etc,” paragraph 59; “Electrolyte 7 may be composed of, for example, YSZ (8YSZ) (yttria-stabilized zirconia). Alternatively, it may be composed of LSGM (lanthanum gallate),” paragraph 52; “the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29; “oxide film 25 is composed of, for example, chromium oxide (Cr2O3), manganese chromium spinel (Mn,Cr)3O4, or aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2), manganese oxide (MnO, Mn2O3, Mn3O4), etc.,” paragraph 29]. The disclosed materials for the respective coatings of the portions are substantively distinct – ceramic materials vs metal oxides – and, thus, will clearly have different infrared reflectance values. Furthermore, manifold body 23 is separated by a partition into “a gas supply chamber 21 and a gas recovery chamber 22,” paragraph 24, both with the same coating that is distinct from the coating layer on connecting member 3. The gas supply chamber 21 is upstream of connecting member 3, whereas gas recovery chamber 22 is downstream of connecting member 3 (3, 21, and 22 in Figs. 1 and 2; arrows in Fig. 1 indicate the gas flows from component 21 to 3 to 22). Thus, Takashi necessarily discloses an electrochemical cell device according to claim 1 where the reflectance of the first portion is lower than the reflectance of the second portion.
Regarding Claim 4, Takashi further teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 1, wherein the support member comprises: a first member supporting a first end portion of the electrochemical cell (manifold 2); and a second member supporting a second end portion of the electrochemical cell (connecting member 3). See Figs. 1 and 2, which show manifold 2 and connecting member 3 on opposite ends of the electrochemical cell device.
Regarding Claim 5, Takashi further teaches that the support member of the electrochemical cell device according to claim 1 comprises: a support base member (manifold 2 and connecting member 3); and a coating layer covering the support base member at the second portion (“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 6, Takashi further teaches that the support member of the electrochemical cell device according to claim 1 comprises: a support base member (manifold 2 and connecting member 3); a first coating layer covering the support base member at the first portion (“the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29); and a second coating layer covering the support base member at the second portion (“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 10, Takashi further teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 2, wherein the reflectance of the first portion is lower than the reflectance of the second portion [“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59; “This dense layer 31 can be formed from the same material as the connecting member 3, the material used in the electrolyte 7 described above, crystallized glass, etc,” paragraph 59; “Electrolyte 7 may be composed of, for example, YSZ (8YSZ) (yttria-stabilized zirconia). Alternatively, it may be composed of LSGM (lanthanum gallate),” paragraph 52; “the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29; “oxide film 25 is composed of, for example, chromium oxide (Cr2O3), manganese chromium spinel (Mn,Cr)3O4, or aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2), manganese oxide (MnO, Mn2O3, Mn3O4), etc.,” paragraph 29]. The disclosed materials for the respective coatings of the portions are substantively distinct – ceramic materials vs metal oxides – and, thus, will clearly have different infrared reflectance values. Furthermore, manifold body 23 is separated by a partition into “a gas supply chamber 21 and a gas recovery chamber 22,” paragraph 24, both with the same coating that is distinct from the coating layer on connecting member 3. The gas supply chamber is upstream of connecting member 3 before any reactions take place, whereas gas recovery chamber is further downstream of connecting member 3 after further exothermic reactions take place (3, 21, and 22 in Figs. 1 and 2). Since the manifold body comprises a portion that is lower temperature than connecting member 3 (gas supply chamber 21) and a portion that is higher temperature than connecting member 3 (gas recovery chamber 22), connecting member 3 can either be considered the first portion or the second portion with respect to manifold 2. Thus, Takashi necessarily discloses an electrochemical cell device according to claim 2 wherein the reflectance of the first portion is lower than the reflectance of the second portion.
Regarding Claim 11, Takashi further teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 2, wherein the support member comprises: a first member supporting a first end portion of the electrochemical cell (manifold 2); and a second member supporting a second end portion of the electrochemical cell (connecting member 3). See Figs. 1 and 2, which show manifold 2 and connecting member 3 on opposite ends of the electrochemical cell device.
Regarding Claim 12, Takashi further teaches the support member of the electrochemical cell device according to claim 2 comprises: a support base member (manifold 2 and connecting member 3); and a coating layer covering the support base member at the second portion (“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 13, Takashi further teaches that the support member of the electrochemical cell device according to claim 2 comprises: a support base member (manifold 2 and connecting member 3); a first coating layer covering the support base member at the first portion (“the manifold body portion 23 has an oxide film 25,” paragraph 29); and a second coating layer covering the support base member at the second portion (“the connecting member 3 has a dense layer 31 that constitutes its outer surface,” paragraph 59).
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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Miller and in further view of Makoto et al. (JP-2006303041-A, see machine translation), hereafter simply referred to as Makoto.
Regarding Claim 7, Takashi teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 6 but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the first coating layer is smaller than the thickness of the second coating layer. Makoto, however, teaches changing a coating layer’s reflectance for infrared light by changing the coating layer thickness (“the reflectivity changes periodically depending on the thickness d of the protective film,” paragraph 4). Makoto does not teach this specifically for electrochemical cell devices. However, Miller teaches an electrochemical cell device operating and includes a support base member with a first and second portion (30, 46, and 50 in Fig. 2) of different reflectance values for infrared light in order to better control the heat exchange mechanisms within an electrochemical cell device (“a white to medium gray to dark color gradient is provided along interior walls of recuperator 30 to effect a positive temperature gradient in the direction of the SOFC stack 14,” paragraph 19; “recuperator 30 is arranged to utilize the color sensitivity of infrared radiation to tailor the heat exchange mechanisms and reformation processes,” paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Takashi and modify the coating layers such that the thickness of the first coating layer is smaller than the thickness of the second coating layer in order to change the infrared reflectance values, as taught by Makoto. Doing so would allow one to adjust the IR reflectance of each portion to better tailor the heat exchange mechanisms for the electrochemical cell device, as taught by Miller.
Regarding Claim 14, Takashi teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 13 but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the first coating layer is smaller than the thickness of the second coating layer. Makoto, however, teaches changing a coating layer’s reflectance for infrared light by changing the coating layer thickness (“the reflectivity changes periodically depending on the thickness d of the protective film,” paragraph 4). Makoto does not teach this specifically for electrochemical cell devices. However, Miller teaches an electrochemical cell device operating and includes a support base member with a first and second portion (30, 46, and 50 in Fig. 2) of different reflectance values for infrared light in order to better control the heat exchange mechanisms within an electrochemical cell device (“a white to medium gray to dark color gradient is provided along interior walls of recuperator 30 to effect a positive temperature gradient in the direction of the SOFC stack 14,” paragraph 19; “recuperator 30 is arranged to utilize the color sensitivity of infrared radiation to tailor the heat exchange mechanisms and reformation processes,” paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Takashi and modify the coating layers such that the thickness of the first coating layer is smaller than the thickness of the second coating layer in order to change the infrared reflectance values, as taught by Makoto. Doing so would allow one to adjust the IR reflectance of each portion to better tailor the heat exchange mechanisms for the electrochemical cell device, as taught by Miller.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Hitohide et al. (JP-2012084411-A), hereafter simply referred to as Hitohide.
Regarding Claim 8, Miller teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 1 but does not teach a module comprising that electrochemical cell device and a storage container housing it. However, Hitohide teaches a fuel cell module that comprises a storage container (31) housing a fuel cell device (1) (“the fuel cell module of the present invention comprises the above-mentioned fuel cell device housed in a storage container,” paragraph 9; 1 and 31 in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Miller and place in a storage container in order to more safely house the electrochemical cell device.
Regarding Claim 9, Hitohide further teaches a module housing device comprising: a module, an auxiliary device configured to operate the module; and an external case housing the module and the auxiliary device [“the fuel cell module 30 shown in Figure 8 and auxiliary equipment (not shown) for operating the fuel cell module 30 are housed in an outer casing,” paragraph 81].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Miller, place the device in a module, and place the module in an external case along with an auxiliary device configured to operate the module in order to more easily operate the electrochemical cell device, as taught by Hitohide.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Hitohide.
Regarding Claim 15, Takashi teaches the electrochemical cell device according to claim 2 but does not teach a module comprising that electrochemical cell device and a storage container housing it. However, Hitohide teaches a fuel cell module that comprises a storage container (31) housing a fuel cell device (1) (“the fuel cell module of the present invention comprises the above-mentioned fuel cell device housed in a storage container,” paragraph 9; 1 and 31 in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Miller and place in a storage container in order to more safely house the electrochemical cell device.
Regarding Claim 16, Hitohide further teaches a module housing device comprising: a module, an auxiliary device configured to operate the module; and an external case housing the module and the auxiliary device [“the fuel cell module 30 shown in Figure 8 and auxiliary equipment (not shown) for operating the fuel cell module 30 are housed in an outer casing,” paragraph 81].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the electrochemical cell device taught by Takashi, place the device in a module, and place the module in an external case along with an auxiliary device configured to operate the module in order to more easily operate the electrochemical cell device, as taught by Hitohide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights