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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/12/2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 2, 13 and 15 have been amended. Claims 16-18 are newly added.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered. The objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
The Examiner notes:
Further consideration of previously cited prior art Baron has found that Baron teaches a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide that meets some of the claimed limitations.
Further search has found prior art Iwai et al (JP2015111533A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) which teaches a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide that meets some of the claimed limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “when B is…”
Claim 1, of which claim 6 depends, notes “B” in relation to being “in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide”. In order to provide consistency to the claims, “B” in claim 6 should also be referred to as such.
Claim 6 recites “when B is Ce…”
In claims 1, 13, and 15, the first recitations of Ti and Zr are specified titanium and zirconium. In claims 3 and 16, which depend from claim 1, cerium has not been recited and, therefore, Ce is specified as cerium. In claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 13 and 15 respectively, cerium has not been recited and, therefore, Ce is specified as cerium.
In claim 6, cerium has not yet been recited in claim 1. Therefore, in order to provide consistency to the claims, “Ce” in claim 6 should be “cerium (Ce)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “when B is Ce”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 which recites “B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr)”.
It is unclear how “B” in the strontium-containing perovskite type composite oxide can be cerium (Ce) if it supposed to at least contain titanium (Ti) or zirconium (Zr).
Claim 6 further states “wherein z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide…is 0.005 or more and 0.11 or less”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 which recites “z/(1-z) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less”.
It is unclear how z/(z-1) can have a lower limit of 0.005 or more, if, as recited in claim 1, the lower limit is already 0.01 or more.
The examiner notes that they are interpreting claim 6 such that B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains cerium (Ce) and z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is 0.01 or more and 0.11 or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwai et al (JP2015111533A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Iwai discloses a solid oxide electrochemical cell (10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P38) including:
an oxygen electrode containing a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
(Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions), wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), and z/(z-1) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less (air electrode 20 in Fig. 1; La0.6Sr0.4(Co0.2Fe0.8)1-x Tix O3; in Example 21 x = 0.01, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.79 Ti0.01 O3 and in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.01 and (z)/(1-z) = 0.0101; in Example 23 x = 0.05, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.75 Ti0.05 O3 and in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.05 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.0526; see entire disclosure and especially P7-12, 38, 61 and Table 3 at P54);
a solid electrolyte containing zirconium oxide (30 in Fig. 1; 8YSZ; see entire disclosure and especially P38-39);
a hydrogen electrode (40 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P38), and
an interlayer containing a rare-earth-doped cerium oxide that is provided between the solid electrolyte and the oxygen electrode (25 in Fig. 1; 10GDC; see entire disclosure and especially P38, 48).
Regarding claim 3, Iwai discloses wherein Ln in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is lanthanum (La) or samarium (Sm) (Lanthanum; see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Iwai discloses wherein z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is 0.02 or more and 0.40 or less (La0.6Sr0.4(Co0.2Fe0.8)1-x Tix O3; in Example 23 x = 0.05, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.75 Ti0.05 O3 and in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.05 and (z)/(1-z) = 0.0526; see entire disclosure and especially P7-12, 38, 61 and Table 3 at P54).
Regarding claim 7, Iwai discloses wherein z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is 0.05 or more and 0.11 or less (La0.6Sr0.4(Co0.2Fe0.8)1-x Tix O3; in Example 23 x = 0.05, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.75 Ti0.05 O3 and in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.05 and (z)/(1-z) = 0.0526; see entire disclosure and especially P7-12, 38, 61 and Table 3 at P54).
Regarding claim 8, Iwai discloses wherein the zirconium oxide in the solid electrolyte is a rare-earth-doped zirconium oxide (8YSZ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Iwai discloses wherein the rare-earth-doped cerium oxide in the interlayer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a gadolinium-doped cerium oxide, a lanthanum-doped cerium oxide, a samarium-doped cerium oxide and an yttrium-doped cerium oxide (10GDC; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Iwai discloses wherein the zirconium oxide in the solid electrolyte is a rare-earth-doped zirconium oxide (8YSZ; see the rejection of claim 1), and the rare-earth-doped cerium oxide in the interlayer is a gadolinium-doped cerium oxide (10GDC; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Iwai discloses wherein the cell of claim 1 is provided in a solid oxide electrochemical device, which is a solid oxide fuel cell and/or a solid oxide electrolysis cell (“A solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system in this embodiment includes an anode supported SOFC unit cell 10”, P38).
Regarding claim 13, Iwai discloses an oxygen electrode material for a solid oxide electrochemical cell (Examiner notes that “for a solid oxide electrochemical cell” is an intended-use limitation; see MPEP 2111.02 for more details), which is a material containing:
a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
(Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions), wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), and z/(z-1) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less (air electrode of an SOFC; La0.6Sr0.4(Co0.2Fe0.8)1-x Tix O3 wherein x = 0.01, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.79 Ti0.01 O3; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.01 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.0101; see entire disclosure and especially P7-12, 61 and Table 3 at P54).
Regarding claim 14, Iwai discloses wherein the oxygen electrode material of claim 13 is a porous sintered component (“The above electrode materials can be produced into components such as the desired electrodes by molding the perovskite oxides into a desired shape either alone or together with additives such as sintering aids and pore formers, and then firing the resulting material”, P34; air electrode is porous, P38; “For example, when constructing an anode-supported cell 10 as shown in FIG. 1, it is preferable to apply the electrode material prepared in a paste form disclosed herein in the form of a sheet to the upper surface of the solid electrolyte 30 or the reaction prevention layer 25, and then sinter the sheet.”, P39).
Regarding claim 15, Iwai discloses a method of producing a solid oxide electrochemical cell (see entire disclosure and especially P34, 37-38), including:
a process of acquiring the cell including an oxygen electrolyte layer containing a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
, (Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions), wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), and z/(z-1) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less (air electrode of an SOFC; La0.6Sr0.4(Co0.2Fe0.8)1-x Tix O3 wherein x = 0.01, therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.79 Ti0.01 O3; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium; also, z = 0.01 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.0101; see entire disclosure and especially P7-12, 61 and Table 3 at P54).
Claims 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baron et al (US 20080160379 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Baron discloses an oxygen electrode material for a solid oxide electrochemical cell (Examiner notes that “for a solid oxide electrochemical cell” is an intended-use limitation; see MPEP 2111.02 for more details), which is a material containing:
a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
(Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions) wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), and z/(z-1) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less (cathode; Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein Ae can be Sr, B can be Fe, Co, and Ti, 0 < x < 1 and y < 0.5; therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ such that Ln is La, B is Fe, Co, and Ti, x=0.4, y=0.1, z=0.2 ; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium and cerium; also, z = 0.02 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.25; the air electrode could also be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ such that Ln is La, B is Fe, Co, and Ti, x=0.4, y=0.0099, z=0.0198 ; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium and cerium; also, z = 0.0198 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.01 see entire disclosure and especially P8-10).
Regarding claim 15, Baron discloses a method of producing a solid oxide electrochemical cell (see entire disclosure and especially P8-10, 21), including:
a process of acquiring the cell including an oxygen electrolyte layer containing a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
, (Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions) wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains one or both of titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), and z/(z-1) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less (cathode; Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein Ae can be Sr, B can be Fe, Co, and Ti, 0 < x < 1 and y < 0.5; therefore, the air electrode could be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ such that Ln is La, B is Fe, Co, and Ti, x=0.4, y=0.1, z=0.2 ; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium and cerium; also, z = 0.02 and (z)/(1-z) ≈0.25; the air electrode could also be made of the material La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ such that Ln is La, B is Fe, Co, and Ti, x=0.4, y=0.0099, z=0.0198 ; in this case “B” of the claimed formula is titanium and cerium; also, z = 0.0198 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.01 see entire disclosure and especially P8-10).
Regarding claim 17, modified Varadaraj meets the limitations wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains cerium (Ce) (La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 13).
Regarding claim 18, modified Varadaraj meets the limitations wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains cerium (Ce) (La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varadaraj et al (US 20100314235 A1) in view of Baron et al (US 20080160379 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Varadaraj discloses a solid oxide electrochemical cell (cell 30 in Fig. 2) including an oxygen electrode (cathode including LSCF material), a solid electrolyte containing zirconium oxide (electrolyte containing YSZ), a hydrogen electrode (anode), and an interlayer containing a rare-earth doped cerium oxide that is provided between the solid electrolyte and the oxygen electrode (interlayer of GDC interposed between the electrolyte and cathode; see entire disclosure and especially P44, 47).
However, Varadaraj does not disclose the oxygen electrode containing a strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
, wherein Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, and δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions.
In a similar field of endeavor, Baron teaches a novel perovskite material system that can be used in solid oxide fuel cell cathodes (see entire disclosure and especially P1).
Baron discloses formula Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein Ae can be Sr, B can be Fe, Co, and Ti, 0 < x < 1, and y < 0.5 (see entire disclosure and especially P8-10, 12). Therefore, Baron discloses a perovskite material such as La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ (meeting the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
, wherein Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions, B contains one of both of Ti or Zr, and z/(1-z) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less, given Ln is La, B is Ti and Ce, x=0.4, y=0.1, z=0.2, and, z = 0.02 and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.025) or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ (meeting the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide represented by
L
n
1
-
x
S
r
x
C
o
1
-
y
-
z
F
e
y
B
z
O
3
-
δ
, wherein Ln is a trivalent lanthanide element, B is a tetravalent element, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < z+y < 1, δ is a value that is determined to satisfy charge neutrality conditions, B contains one of both of Ti or Zr, and z/(1-z) is 0.01 or more and 0.40 or less, given Ln is La, B is Ti and Ce, x=0.4, y=0.0099, z=0.0198, and (z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.01).
Baron discloses their material exhibited greatly improved electrochemical and electronic performance when used as an electrode material in an electrochemical device such as a fuel cell (see entire disclosure and especially P10). Baron further teaches the use of cerium as the substituting B site ion also improves cathode-electrolyte chemical compatibility when the material is used as a cathode within ceria based electrolyte fuel cell systems (see entire disclosure and especially P10). Baron also teaches an aspect of their invention includes an electrolyte material on any electrolyte with a ceria based interface layer (see entire disclosure and especially P12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Baron and substituted/selected the cathode material of Varadaraj to be a perovskite material such as La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ , given Baron teaches it is a material that exhibits greatly improved electrochemical and electronic performance when used as an electrode material in an electrochemical device such as a fuel cell, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.), and 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).
Regarding claim 2, modified Varadaraj meets the limitation wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains Ti and one or both of Zr and cerium (Ce) (Ti and Ce in La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Varadaraj meets the limitation wherein Ln in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is lanthanum (La) or samarium (Sm) (La in La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Varadaraj meets the limitation wherein z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide is 0.02 or more and 0.40 or less ((z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.025 in La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Varadaraj meets the limitation wherein z/(1-z) in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide, when B is Ce, is 0.005 or more and 0.11 or less ((z)/(1-z) ≈ 0.01 in La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Varadaraj discloses wherein the zirconium oxide in the solid electrolyte is a rare-earth-doped zirconium oxide (YSZ; see the rejection of claim 1 and P47 of Varadaraj).
Regarding claim 9, Varadaraj discloses wherein the rare-earth-doped cerium oxide in the interlayer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a gadolinium-doped cerium oxide, a lanthanum-doped cerium oxide, a samarium-doped cerium oxide and an yttrium-doped cerium oxide (GDC; see the rejection of claim 1 and P47 of Varadaraj).
Regarding claim 10, Varadaraj discloses wherein the zirconium oxide in the solid electrolyte is a rare-earth-doped zirconium oxide, and the rare-earth-doped cerium oxide in the interlayer is a gadolinium-doped cerium oxide (YSZ electrolyte and GDC interlayer; see the rejection of claim 1 and P47 of Varadaraj).
Regarding claim 11, Varadaraj discloses a solid oxide electrochemical device including the cell according to claim 1 (fuel cell 30 is part of a solid oxide fuel cell stack; Varadaraj teaches cell interconnects can be metallic or ceramic; see entire disclosure and especially P46-47, 50).
Regarding claim 12, Varadaraj discloses wherein the solid oxide electrochemical device is a solid oxide fuel cell (solid oxide fuel cell stack; see entire disclosure and especially P46-47, 50).
Regarding claim 16, modified Varadaraj meets the limitations wherein B in the strontium-containing perovskite-type composite oxide contains cerium (Ce) (La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.1Co0.7Ti0.1Ce0.1O3-δ or La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.0099Co0.9703Ti0.0099Ce0.0099O3-δ; see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al (US 20080160379 A1) as applied to claim 13, further in view of Ma et al (US 20200119391 A1).
Regarding claim 14, while Baron discloses the material can be in a powdered form and sintered (see P21), Baron does not disclose wherein the material is also porous such that the material is a porous sintered component.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ma teaches diffusion of oxygen, air, and the like into a cathode can be facilitated if the cathode is porous (see entire disclosure and especially P151).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the material of Baron to be porous as well as sintered, given Baron teaches their material to be used for a cathode (Baron P10) and Ma teaches pores in a cathode facilitate diffusion of oxygen, air, and the like into the cathode (Ma P151). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729