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 .
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 12/2/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, claims 19-20 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-18 remain as the active claims for prosecution thereof.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the quality is poor and not sufficient. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1,2,10,12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464).
Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches a negative imaging method for providing a patterned metal layer having high conductivity. Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches providing a thermal transfer donor (100) (claimed donor substrate) comprising a base film (102) and a catalyst layer (106). Contacting the thermal transfer donor with a receiver (202) (claimed acceptor substrate). Focusing a laser source (R) on the donor substrate (100) which has a light to heat conversion layer (LTHC) which absorbs the light and coverts it into heat to transfer a patterned catalyst layer from the donor substrate (100) to the receiver (102) ([0005]-[0008,[0025]-[0027] and [0031]-[0034]) Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches the catalyst ink to include a carrier fluid (claimed solvent) [0108].
Gao et al. (2009/0104557) fails to teach transferring the catalyst ink from the donor substrate to an acceptor substrate not having been dried.
Phillips (5,841,464) teaches apparatus cand method of making graphic product by laser thermal transfer whereby an ink web (claimed donor substrate) containing a printing ink is laser impinged to facilitate transfer of ink from the web to a sheet (claimed acceptor substrate) (abstract and col. 2, lines 22-45). The ink absorbs the radiation and thereby is heated and released from the web and transferred to the sheet material (col. 4, lines 24-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao et al. (2009/0104557) laser thermal transfer process to include irradiating the ink directly and transferring the ink as evidenced by Phillips (5,841,464) with the expectation of achieving similar success, i.e. thermal transfer of the coating ink.
Regarding claim 2, Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches drying the ink prior to transfer which would clearly suggest to one skilled in the art to perform a drying step after transfer to adhere the transferred ink to the acceptor substrate.
Regarding claim 10, Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches the catalyst is applied in a patterned layer [0058]-[0059] and [0108].
Regarding claim 12, Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches a non-uniform catalyst transfer [0108].
Regarding claim 15, Gao et al. (2009/0104557) teaches the receiver substrate to be paper, glass and polymer which are known to be flat [0109].
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) in combination with Ramaswamy et al. (2018/0366738).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) are incorporated here.
Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) fails to teach the carrier fluid to have the claimed boiling point and be of the claimed materials.
Ramaswamy et al. (2018/0366738) teaches catalyst inks typically include a solvent including water and/or alcohols and drying to remove [0004],[0015],[0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) catalyst ink to include the claimed solvents of water and/or alcohol as evidenced by Ramaswamy et al. (2018/0366738) with the expectation of producing the claimed catalyst layer.
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed solvent boiling point would be met as the solvents are the same as those claimed and hence would possess the claimed boiling points as both teach water and alcohols.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) in combination with WO 2010/029431.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) are incorporated here.
Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) fails to teach the catalysts being a reformer catalyst and coating a plate for SOFC.
WO 2010/029431 teaches a reforming catalyst in flow channel of a bipolar plate for use in SOFC [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) process to applying a reforming catalyst to a plate of a SOFC as evidenced by WO 2010/029431 with the expectation of success of applying catalyst layer to as plate substrate.
Claims 4-8,11,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) in combination with Lal et al. (2016/0176756).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) are incorporated here.
Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) fails to teach the acceptor substrate ton include non-flat, textures, ridges, dimples, or having raised and depressed sections.
Lal et al. (2016/0176756) teaches applying a catalyst to a substrate including a non-flat substrate, a textures substrate and one that includes raised and recessed features (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the catalyst of Gao et al. (2009/0104557) in combination with Phillips (5,841,464) to substrates including those having raised and recessed areas, non-flat or textures substrates as evidenced by Lal et al. (2016/0176756) with the expectation of applying the catalyst layer thereto.
Regarding claims 11,13 and 14, Lal et al. (2016/0176756) teaches raised and recessed features, and the Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious for one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated just the raised portions, just the recessed portions or both dependent upon the desired product. This coating would be “corresponding to the texture” of the substrate and hence meets the claimed limitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712