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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/23/2024, 06/13/2025, 07/23/2025, and 06/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 04/23/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 04/23/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/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 8 recites the limitations “the second surface” in line 2 and “the first surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 2013/0230788 A1; hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
a first electrode layer (anode 3);
a second electrode layer (cathode 6);
and a solid electrolyte layer (electrolyte 4) located between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (as shown in Fig 2), the solid electrolyte layer having oxide ion conductivity (see [0025] which describes the electrolyte layer comprising zirconia as a main component, e.g. yttria-stabilized zirconia, which has oxide ion conductivity, as evidenced by the Instant Specification [0023]); wherein
the first electrode layer contains an electron conductive material (see [0020] which describes the anode including NiO, which is an electron conductive material, as evidenced by the Instant Specification [0050]) and a first material containing, as a main component, a first element having an electronegativity smaller than that of zirconium (see [0020] which describes the anode including CaZrO3 (CZO) as a main component, and [0021] which describes the molar ratio of Ca to Zr being greater than 1 and non-stoichiometric, thus requiring more Ca than Zr in the anode, and with Ca having a smaller electronegativity than Zr, as evidenced by the Instant Specification [0051]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Okamoto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okamoto further discloses that the first element contains an alkaline earth metal, specifically Ca (Ca in CZO, [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Okamoto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okamoto further discloses that the first material comprises first particles ([0049]) containing an oxide containing the first element (CZO, [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Okamoto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okamoto further discloses an electrochemical cell device (solid oxide fuel cell 1, [0016]) comprising a cell stack (as shown in Fig 2) comprising the recited electrochemical cell (as noted above).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2013/0230788 A1; hereinafter “Okamoto”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Takeda et al. (JP 2021141019 A; hereinafter “Takeda”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Okamoto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okamoto does not disclose that the first element contains one or more rare earth elements selected from Y and La.
Takeda teaches a method for manufacturing a solid oxide fuel cell (Title). Takeda teaches that the anode of the fuel cell comprises an inorganic powder having oxygen ion conductivity, and gives examples of yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), calcia stabilized zirconia (CSZ), or a metal oxide of e.g. La (pg. 20, ¶3-5).
Okamoto and Takeda are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anode materials for solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that YSZ, CSZ, and an La based oxide are all obvious variants of appropriate ion conductive anode materials used in solid oxide fuel cells, as suggested by Takeda, and would thus find it obvious to routinely select either YSZ or a La based oxide as the “first element”, i.e. ion conductive material, of Okamoto because doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2013/0230788 A1; hereinafter “Okamoto”), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Ozawa et al. (US 2022/0416273 A1; hereinafter “Ozawa”).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Okamoto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okamoto does not disclose any particular use for the fuel cell, and therefore does not disclose a module comprising the recited electrochemical cell device and a storage container housing the electrochemical cell device, nor a module housing device comprising the recited module, an auxiliary device configured to operate the module, and an external case housing the module and the auxiliary device.
Ozawa teaches a fuel cell system (Title). Ozawa teaches that a plurality of fuel cell stacks (101) are housed within SOFC cartridges (203), which are in turn housed within a pressure vessel (205) to form a SOFC module (201) (as shown in Fig 2) in order to supply power to a power consumer, e.g. electric load equipment or a power grid (0064]). Ozawa further teaches that the fuel cell system is controlled by a control unit (20) ([0066]).
Okamoto and Ozawa are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fuel cell of Okamoto to provide power to a power consumer, as suggested by Ozawa, and would thus find it obvious to routinely design the system with SOFC cartridges in a pressure vessel to form a module and control such with a control unit, as suggested by Ozawa. The skilled artisan would find it further obvious that all such components should be contained within an external case, i.e. module housing device, because doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known structure for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, an electrochemical cell wherein the first electrode layer comprises a first surface located on a side opposite to the solid electrolyte layer and a second surface in contact with the solid electrolyte layer, and the first element is contained in a larger amount in a site closer to the second surface than to the first surface.
Okamoto et al. (US 2013/0230788 A1; hereinafter “Okamoto”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 2 and 8. Okamoto discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Okamoto does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited first element being contained in a larger amount closer to the second surface. To the contrary, Okamoto explicitly discloses that the anode may be formed in two layers with CZO, i.e. the first element, being contained in the current collecting layer, i.e. the first surface side, while only NiO is contained in the active layer, i.e. the second surface side ([0023]). Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the structure of Okamoto and be directed towards the recited configuration because such would be the opposite of the disclosed structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Okamoto et al. (US 2012/0141905 A1) discloses a solid oxide fuel cell; and
Yoshida et al. (US 2012/0107716 A1) discloses a solid oxide fuel cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/28/2026
Prosecution Insights