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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 06/30/2026:
Claims 1-5,9-11,13-14,17, and 19-26 are pending in the current application. Claims 23-24 remain withdrawn without traverse. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-5,9,13-14,17, and 19-22, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20110051955 A) in view of Boy et al. (US 20140302231).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for depositing a ceramic film of a solid oxide cell unit upon a ceramic surface of a substrate, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a base suspension comprising a solution of a soluble salt precursor of a crystalline metal oxide ceramic and further comprising crystalline nanoparticles suspended in the base suspension (P15-19.25-31);
depositing the base suspension on the ceramic surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate alternatively may be an insulator ceramic support such as an electrolyte (P31.36);
heating the sub-layer to a temperature between 150oC and 600oC to decompose it to form a film of metal oxide comprising the crystalline nanoparticles on the ceramic surface of the substrate (P33-34);
firing the substrate with the film on the ceramic surface, to form a nanocomposite crystalline layer as a deposited ceramic film (P35), wherein the substrate is a gas impermeable electrolyte layer, wherein the substrate is not limited and may be porous or an electrode support such as an insulator ceramic such as an electrolyte (P31.36).
Lee is silent in teaching step iii. of iii. of drying the base suspension at a temperature of 100oC or lower to define a nanocomposite sub-layer of the soluble salt precursor and the crystalline nanoparticles; however, Boy, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of depositing a ceramic film of a solid oxide cell unit (P77.105.119.128-140).
Boy teaches, before the heating step, to include a drying step at a temperature of 100oC or lower to allow the layer to gel and ultimately form a more dense and uniform layer (P85.107-11.119.154-155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prior to step iii of modified Lee, include the step of drying the base suspension at a temperature of 100oC or lower to define a nanocomposite sub-layer of the soluble salt precursor and the crystalline nanoparticles, to allow the layer to settle and create a more uniform dense layer as taught by Boy. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the film so formed from the sub-layer has a thickness of 50 to 400 nm, overlapping the claimed range of a minimum thickness of 130nm (P69-70). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches vi. repeating steps ii. to iv, in light of Boy of modified Lee teaching step ii of drying, at least one additional time before the step v of firing, the base suspension being deposited onto the sub-layer, such that the film of metal oxide comprising the crystalline nanoparticles is formed from a plurality of sub-layers (P32-33.44.69).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the film so formed from the sub-layer has a thickness of 50 to 400 nm, overlapping the claimed range of a minimum thickness of 130nm (P69-70). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the crystalline nanoparticles comprise doped zirconia nanoparticles (P17-22.29-30).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the crystalline nanoparticles exhibit ionic conductivity (P17-30). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the firing at step v. is at a temperature of between 600 and 11000C (P35), overlapping the claimed range of 500 and 11000C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the substrate comprises a mixed ionic electronic conducting electronic material, such as NiO-YSZ (P31.36.88).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee teaches said crystalline metal oxide ceramic is selected from the group consisting of: doped stabilized zirconia and rare earth oxide doped ceria (P38.40).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee teaches said soluble salt precursor may be yttrium nitrate (P39).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee teaches wherein the solvent for said soluble salt precursor may be methanol (P28).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lee in view of Boy teaches allowing a suspension deposited on a surface to stand at room temperature for a period of at least 30 seconds to allow the layer to gel and drying under 100oC, and ultimately form a more dense and uniform layer. Layers are also taught to be heated in a gradient, as (acknowledged by both references) heating quickly leads to shrinkage, cracking and deterioration (P85.107-11.119.154-155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to allow it to stand for 5 seconds to allow the layer to settle and create a more uniform dense layer as taught by Boy. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Allowing the substrate to sit for a minimal five seconds adds no novel features to the above invention, and can also occur in subsequent layer deposition. One of ordinary skill would be able to reasonably ascertain that with enough time sitting, the layer would start to firm.
Regarding claim 22, modified Lee teaches a method of forming an at least one layer of an air separation device electrolyte (P1-5).
Regarding claim 25, modified Lee teaches the deposited ceramic film comprises a sub- micron thickness ceramic film (P69).
Regarding claim 26, modified Lee teaches the deposited ceramic film comprises an interlayer of an electrolyte material (P63-78).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee in view of Boy as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee’10 et al. (US 2010/0092832)
Regarding claim 21, modified Lee is silent in teaching further comprising prior to step iii the step of allowing said suspension deposited onto said surface to stand for a period of at least 5 seconds; however, Boy, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of depositing a ceramic film of a solid oxide cell unit (P77.105.119.128-140).
Boy teaches, before the drying step, to include another drying step, or allow a suspension deposited on a surface to stand at room temperature for a period of at least 30 seconds to allow the layer to gel, and ultimately form a more dense and uniform layer (P85.107-11.119.154-155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prior to step iii of modified Lee, include the step of allowing said suspension deposited onto said surface to stand for a period of at least 5 seconds, to allow the layer to settle and create a more uniform dense layer as taught by Boy. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Allowing the substrate to sit for a minimal five seconds adds no novel features to the above invention, and can also occur in subsequent layer deposition. One of ordinary skill would be able to reasonably ascertain that with enough time sitting, the layer would start to firm.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghyselen (US 20160293989).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee is silent in teaching the crystalline nanoparticles are dispersions in an aqueous solvent, and step i. further comprises the sub-step of: a. solvent exchange of the crystalline nanoparticles into a non-aqueous media comprising the crystalline nanoparticles in suspension; however, Lee’10, in a similar field of endeavor related to a method for depositing a ceramic film of a solid oxide cell unit upon a ceramic surface of a substrate (P27-59) teaches preparation of a coating.
Lee’10 teaches crystalline nanoparticles are dispersions in an aqueous solvent, and step i. further comprises the sub-step of: a. solvent exchange of the nanoparticles into a non-aqueous media comprising the nanoparticles in suspension when using different metal materials to prevent undesired reaction (P26-29.60-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make crystalline nanoparticles of modified Lee dispersions in an aqueous solvent and step i. further comprises the sub-step of: a. solvent exchange of the crystalline nanoparticles into a non-aqueous media comprising the crystalline nanoparticles in suspension, as taught by Lee’10 to prevent undesired reaction. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee is silent in teaching within the base suspension, the crystalline nanoparticles are dispersions in non-aqueous solvent; however, Lee’10, in a similar field of endeavor related to a method for depositing a ceramic film of a solid oxide cell unit upon a ceramic surface of a substrate (P27-59) teaches preparation of a coating.
Lee’10 teaches crystalline nanoparticles are dispersions in non-aqueous, or organic solvent when using different metal materials to prevent undesired reaction (P27-29.60-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make crystalline nanoparticles of modified Lee dispersions in an non-aqueous solvent as taught by Lee’10 to prevent undesired reaction. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seabaugh et al. (US 20030003237) teaches drying can be done by allowing each layer to sit for several minutes, or to speed up the drying process, combined with an active heating step (P30.57)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
