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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/08/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Support for amendment to claim 1 can be found in instant specification [0077].
Claims 17-20 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 have been examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 contains the limitation “wherein the buffer layer comprises a material selected from La₂O₃, Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3-xLa3Zr2-aMaO12 where M is Ga, W, Nb. Ta, or AL and 0<x<10 and 0<a<2 or a combination thereof”. The instant specification states that the buffer layer may be composed of “MmNnZzHhXx (1)…wherein M is Na, K, Rb, Cs, Al, or a metal of Group 2 or Group 3, or a combination thereof; m is 1, 2, 3, or 4; X is at least one halogen (e.g., F, Cl, Br, I, and/or At); x is 0, 1, 2, or 6; Z is 0, S, or a combination thereof; z is 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4; N represents nitrogen; n is 0, 1, or 2; H represents hydrogen; and h is 0, 1, 2, or 3, provided that x+z+n+h is at least 1. In one or more embodiments, Z is 0, and z is 1, 2, 3 or 4. In one or more embodiments, the buffer layer material is an oxide of Na, K, Rb, Cs, Al, a metal of Group 2, and/or a metal of Group 3…. In some embodiments, M in Formula (1) may be K, Rb, Cs, Be, Ca, Sr, Ba, Sc, Y, Th, Al, Lu, Tm, Er, Ho, Dy, Tb, Sm, Nd, Pr, La, Yb, La, or Yb” (PGPUB [0085]-[0089]). The instant specification further states that the solid-state electrolyte may be an ionic conductor and an electronic insulator, and may include for example Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3-xLa3Zr2-aMaO12 where M is Ga, W, Nb. Ta, or AL and 0<x<10 and 0<a<2 (PGPUB [0081]-[0082]). The instant specification does not provide any support for the claimed limitation wherein the buffer layer comprises a material selected from Li7La3Zr2O12 or Li3-xLa3Zr2-aMaO12 where M is Ga, W, Nb. Ta, or AL and 0<x<10 and 0<a<2 or a combination thereof.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the porous anode" in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to “an anode” only. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-16 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman et al. (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Nose (JP 6946836 B2) in view of Khatibani et al. ("Synthesis and characterization of amorphous aluminum oxide thin films prepared by spray pyrolysis: effects of substrate temperature", Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2013). Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Subbaraman teaches an electrochemical cell (abstract) wherein the anode comprises a first ad-layer and a second ad-layer where the first ad-layer acts as a filter to allow access to an anode current collector and the second ad-layer acts as a protective layer ([0014]-[0015]). Subbaraman teaches the first ad-layer is ionically conductive (e.g., lithium ion conducting) and electrically insulating and may be composed of amorphous carbon coatings, single or multi-layer boron nitride layers, single or multi-layer graphene oxide films, and/or thin layers, of a metal oxide, a metal nitride and/or a metal phosphide derivative and combinations thereof ([0014] the first ad-layer reads on the claimed porous anode). Subbaraman teaches that the second ad-layer may be a metal oxide derivative, a metal nitride derivative and/or a metal phosphide derivative (e.g., aluminum oxide (Al2O3), lithium nitride (LiN), lithium phosphide (LiP), lithium phosphorous oxynitride (LiPON) and/or silicon nitride (Si3N4), a sulfide derivative, a garnet (e.g., lanthanide lithium zirconium oxide (LLZO)) and/or a conducting polymer and combinations thereof ([0015] the second ad-layer reads on the claimed buffer layer). Subbaraman teaches that a solid-state electrolyte layer is formed over the second ad-layer ([0016]).
Subbaraman does not teach the specific anode materials gold (Au), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), aluminum (AI), silver (Ag), titanium nitride (TiN), gallium nitride (GaN), molybdenum nitride (MoN), or carbon black.
However, Nose teaches a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode wherein there is a porous Li-storage layer between the negative electrode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer ([0007]) and the Li-storage layer contains carbon black ([0012]).
Subbaraman teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a first filter ad-layer that may be comprised of amorphous carbon. Nose teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a Li storage layer composed of ketjen black.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell taught by Subbaraman by substituting the first filter ad-layer with the Li-storage layer taught by Nose.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the first filter ad-layer with the Li-storage layer taught by Nose with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an all-solid-state battery because porous carbon layers are known in the art.
Absent a recitation of specific values of ionic conductivity and electrical conductivity, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a metal oxide or metal nitride coating material for the interlayer in the electrochemical device taught by Subbaraman because metal oxide and metal nitride coating layers on anodes are known for use with solid electrolytes such as LiPON, LLZO, or LiSiCON ([0021]). The materials used in the electrochemical device taught by Subbaraman in view of Nose, namely a metal oxide or metal nitride ad-layer material and a solid-state electrolyte, fall within the scope of the instant specification (see instant spec [0084]-[0089]) which allows for a buffer material such as Al2O3, used with electrolytes such as LLZO (see instant spec [0081]). Further, “more” is a relative term which encompasses the situation in which a parameter is infinitesimally larger than another parameter. Therefore, the solid-state electrolyte and interlayer taught by Subbaraman in view of Nose meets the limitation of claim 1.
Subbaraman in view of Nose is silent as to the method of forming the second ad-layer (corresponding to buffer layer), specifically, Subbaraman in view of Nose does not teach a method comprising spraying a precursor solution onto an anode where a precursor solution comprising a metal salt dissolved in a solvent and the anode being at a temperature of 250 ℃ or greater and reacting the metal salt on the anode to form a buffer layer.
However, Khatibani et al. teaches a method of depositing an Al2O3 (abstract) comprising spraying a precursor solution on an substrate (abstract; section 2 pp. 122), the precursor solution comprising a metal salt dissolved in a solvent and the substrate being at a temperature of 250 0C or greater; reacting the metal salt on the substrate to form a layer (section 2 pp. 122). Khatibani teaches that spray pyrolysis is suitable for the preparation of efficient, time-resistant and inexpensive alumina thin films, since it is very simple, low cost and does not require vacuum or exotic gas (section 1 pp. 121). Khatibani further teaches that the film formation takes place by the condensation of atoms or molecules onto a heated substrate (section 1 pp. 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize spray pyrolysis as taught by Khatabani to form the second ad-layer taught by Subbaraman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize spray pyrolysis as taught by Khatibani to form the second ad-layer taught by Subbaraman because it is a simple, low-cost method of forming a thin film such as Al2O3.
Regarding claim 2, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Khatibani further teaches wherein the reacting of the metal salt comprises decomposing the metal salt (section 1 pp. 121; section 2 pp. 122; AlCl3 becomes Al2O3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Khatibani further teaches wherein the substrate is at a temperature of 250 to 550℃ (section 2 pp. 122). Khatibani teaches that this range was chosen intentionally since slow reaction at lower temperatures (<250 °C) would yield foggy films due to insufficient time for the spreading of the droplets and at high substrate temperatures(>550 °C) chemical reaction takes place before the vapor reaches the substrate and gives powdery coating (section 2 pp. 122). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Khatibani further teaches providing a set volume of the precursor solution to an atomizer (section 2 pp. 122).
Regarding claim 9, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Subbaraman teaches that the second ad-layer (corresponding to buffer layer) has a thickness of less than 1 micrometer ([0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding claim 11, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Subbaraman teaches that the second ad-layer may a garnet (e.g., lanthanide lithium zirconium oxide (LLZO)) ([0015]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Khatibani further teaches wherein the metal salt comprises a metal and an anion group comprising a non-metal element (section 2 pp. 122 “AlCl3”), and the buffer layer comprises the metal and the non-metal element, and the non-metal element is about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 65 at% in amount based on a total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
Modified Subbaraman does not explicitly teach where the buffer layer comprises the metal and the non-metal element, and the non-metal element is about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 65 at% in amount based on a total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
However, modified Subbaraman teaches all aspects of the method of claim 1, specifically, a method of spray pyrolysis for depositing a metal oxide coating onto a substrate where the method includes: spraying a precursor solution containing a metal salt, dissolved in water or an organic solvent, onto a substrate that is heated to 250°C, evaporating the solvent and forming a metal oxide coating (Khatibani section 2 pp. 122). Modified Subbaraman teaches an example where aluminum chloride Al2Cl3 decomposes to form Al2O3 (section 2 pp. 122). Even a small amount of unreacted metal chloride would result in chlorine (Cl) remaining in the buffer layer, thereby meeting the limitation of a non-metal element remaining in the buffer layer at about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 65 at%. Therefore, the method taught by modified Subbaraman would result in a non-metal element, Cl, remaining in a buffer layer at about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 65 at% in amount based on a total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 14, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 13.
Modified Subbaraman does not explicitly teach wherein the non-metal element is about 0.1 at% to about 5 at% in amount based on the total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
However, modified Subbaraman teaches all aspects of the method of claim 1, specifically, a method of spray pyrolysis for depositing a metal oxide coating onto a substrate where the method includes: spraying a precursor solution containing a metal salt, dissolved in water or an organic solvent, onto a substrate that is heated to 250°C, evaporating the solvent and forming a metal oxide coating (Khatibani section 2 pp. 122). Modified Subbaraman teaches an example where aluminum chloride Al2Cl3 decomposes to form Al2O3 (section 2 pp. 122). Even a small amount of unreacted metal chloride would result in chlorine (Cl) remaining in the buffer layer, thereby meeting the limitation of a non-metal element remaining in the buffer layer at about 0.1 atomic % (at%) to about 5 at%. Therefore, the method taught by modified Subbaraman would result in a non-metal element, Cl, remaining in a buffer layer at about 0.1 atomic % (at%) to about 5 at% in amount based on a total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
Regarding claim 15, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 13. Khatibani further teaches wherein the non-metal element comprises Cl (section 2 pp. 122).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Nose (JP 6946836 B2) in view of Khatibani et al. (Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2013), as applied above, in further view of Hitz et al. (US 20170155169 A1) hereinafter “Hitz”.
Regarding claim 5-7, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Subbaraman teaches wherein a porosity of the anode is 60% or more and less than 100% (Nose [0007]). Modified Subbaraman teaches that the second ad-layer (corresponding to buffer layer) is used as a protective layer to mitigate dendrite formation (Subbaraman [0015]).
Modified Subbaraman is silent as to the porosity of the buffer layer.
However, Hitz teaches a ceramic ion-conducing structure with a layer of high porosity, e.g. 40-90%, between a dense solid-electrolyte layer and a carbon-based anode, such as porous carbon spheres ([0082]; [0034]; [0028]-[0030]). Hitz teaches that the ceramic ion-conducting structure having a layer of high porosity, prevents dendrite growth ([0036]). Hitz teaches that this porous layer between the solid electrolyte and the anode reduces electrode resistance ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the porosity of the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman such that the porosity is 40-90% as taught by Hitz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the porosity of the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman such that the porosity is 40-90% as taught by Hitz to reduce electrode resistance and prevent dendrite growth ([0034]).
The electrochemical cell taught by modified Subbaraman in view of Hitz teaches an anode with a porosity of about 60-100% and a buffer layer with a porosity of 40-90%, overlapping with the ranges claimed in claims 5-7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, modified Subbaraman in view of Hitz teaches the method of claim 6.
Mmodified Subbaraman does not teach wherein the buffer layer is to expose 50% or greater of pores adjacent to the buffer layer in the anode, based on a total number of pores adjacent to the buffer layer in the anode.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the porosity of the buffer layer taught by modified Subbaraman in view of Hitz such that buffer layer is to expose 50% or greater of pores adjacent to the buffer layer in the anode. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Nose (JP 6946836 B2) in view of Khatibani et al. (Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2013), as applied above, in further view of Hong (CN 112292771 A). Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1. Subbaraman teaches that the second ad-layer may be a metal oxide derivative, a metal nitride derivative and/or a metal phosphide derivative (e.g., aluminum oxide (Al2O3), lithium nitride (LiN), lithium phosphide (LiP), lithium phosphorous oxynitride (LiPON) and/or silicon nitride (Si3N4), a sulfide derivative, a garnet (e.g., lanthanide lithium zirconium oxide (LLZO)) and/or a conducting polymer and combinations thereof ([0015] the second ad-layer reads on the claimed buffer layer).
Modified Subbaraman does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises a specific material represented by Formula (1): MmNnZzHhXx (1) wherein in Formula (1), M is Na, K, Rb, Cs, Al, a metal of Group 2 or Group 3, or a combination thereof; m is 1, 2, 3, or 4; X is at least one halogen; x is 0, 1, 2, or 6; Z is O, S, or a combination thereof; z is 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4; N represents nitrogen; n is 0, 1, or 2; H represents hydrogen; and h is 0, 1, 2,or 3, provided that x+z+n+h is at least 1 wherein when M is Al, then m is 1, X, Z and h are each 0, and n is 1.
However, Hong teaches an anode with a lithium diffusion control layer with a thickness of 0.1nm-100nm ([0019]; [0022]; [0029]) and formed of a metal oxide, for example La2O3 ([0024]; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman by selecting La2O3 as the metal oxide as taught by Hong.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman by selecting La2O3 as the metal oxide as taught by Hong with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an electrochemical cell because Subbaraman teaches a second ad-layer formed of metal oxides and Hong teaches a layer formed of a particular metal oxide, such as La2O3. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Nose (JP 6946836 B2) in view of Khatibani et al. (Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2013), as applied above, in further view of Shamala et al. (“Characterization of Al2O3 thin films prepared by spray pyrolysis method for humidity sensor”, 2007).
Modified Subbaraman does not teach wherein the metal salt comprises a nitrate, a hydroxide, a sulfate, an oxalate, an acetate, a phosphate, a carbonate, a hydrozoic acid, a chloranilic acid, a trifuloromethane sulfonate, an isopropoxide, and/or an acetylacetonate salt of a metal.
However, Shamala teaches Al2O3 thin films deposited on various substrates like silicon, steel and nickel at two different substrate temperatures of 300 and 350 °C by spraying a solution of Aluminium acetyl acetonate dissolved in dimethyl formamide (Section 2, pp.553).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected a known aluminum salt precursor such as Aluminium acetyl acetonate taught by Shamala.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a known aluminum salt precursor such as Aluminium acetyl acetonate taught by Shamala to achieve the predictable result of creating a Al2O3 layer via spray pyrolysis.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbaraman (US 20180358659 A1) in view of Nose (JP 6946836 B2) in view of Khatibani et al. (Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2013), as applied above, in further view of Hong (CN 112292771 A) and Meza-Rocha (A. N. Meza-Rocha et al 2014, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 16, modified Subbaraman teaches the method of claim 1.
Modified Subbaraman does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises La2O3 and about 1 atomic % (at%) to about 5 at% of N.
However, Hong teaches an anode with a lithium diffusion control layer with a thickness of 0.1nm-100nm ([0019]; [0022]; [0029]) and formed of a metal oxide, for example La2O3 ([0024]; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman by selecting La2O3 as the metal oxide as taught by Hong.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the second ad-layer (buffer layer) taught by modified Subbaraman by selecting La2O3 as the metal oxide as taught by Hong with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an electrochemical cell because Subbaraman teaches a second ad-layer formed of metal oxides and Hong teaches a layer formed of a particular metal oxide, such as La2O3. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Further, Meza-Rocha teaches a method of preparing a metal oxide layer, specifically lanthanum-aluminum oxide thin films, by spray pyrolysis (pg. N1, Experimental). Meza-Rocha teaches that a precursor solution of lanthanum nitrate is used (pg. N1, Experimental).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying the buffer layer material taught by modified Subbaraman in view of Hong, to have selected a known lanthanum salt precursor such as lanthanum nitrate taught by Meza-Rocha.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a known lanthanum salt precursor such as lanthanum nitrate taught by Meza-Rocha to achieve the predictable result of creating a La2O3 layer via spray pyrolysis.
Even a small amount of unreacted lanthanum nitrate would result in nitrogen (N) remaining in the buffer layer, thereby meeting the limitation of a non-metal element remaining in the buffer layer at about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 5 at%. Therefore, the method taught by modified Sun in view of Chen in view of Meza-Rocha would result in N remaining in a buffer layer at about 0.01 atomic % (at%) to about 5 at% in amount based on a total number of atoms in the buffer layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kale et al. teaches a spray pyrolysis method of preparing lanthanum oxide thin films where the substrate temperature is varied from about 250 to 450℃ (abstract).
Lu et al. teaches a method of forming an Al2O3 coated hard carbon electrode via atomic layer deposition at 200℃ (abstract; section 2.2.1).
Zhang et al. teaches ALD-Al2O3@rGO-coated Cu prepared by ALD where trimethyl aluminum (Al(CH3)3) and oxygen plasma were used as precursors to provide source materials for Al and O, respectively and the temperature of reaction chamber was set at 250 °C (Experimental Section, pp. 512).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights