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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 06/16/2026:
Claims 1, 8-12, 15, and 19-23 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 19-23 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The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.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 6, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 6 have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claim 6
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claim 6.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
The Examiner notes that Applicant alleges claim 1 is patentable over “Iwai, Baron, Varadaraj, and Ma, whether considered separately or in combination” (Remarks Page 9). However, a combination of Varadaraj and Baron is able to read on the limitations of the independent claims, therefore, the claims have been rejected as set forth below.
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, 8-12, 15, and 19-23 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, wherein Ln is lanthanum (La) or samarium (Sm), B is titanium (Ti), z is 0.10 or more and 0.15 or less, and (1-y-z) is 0.05 or more and 0.30 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Baron teaches a novel perovskite material that can be used in solid oxide fuel cell cathodes (see entire disclosure and especially P1). Baron discloses examples of 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 discloses their material is defined by the formula Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein: Ln is any of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm or Yb, Ae is any element from the alkaline earth family such as Ca, Sr and Ba, B is any of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, with 0 < x < 1 and y < 0.5 (see entire disclosure and especially P8-10, 12).
Although Baron does not specifically provide an embodiment using all of the claimed components together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the novel perovskite material to be La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is La, Ae is Sr, B is Fe, Co, Ti, x = 0.4 and y = 0) or Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is Sm, Ae is Sr, B is Fe, Co, Ti, x = 0.4 and y = 0) because 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.). Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
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 oxygen electrode (cathode) material of Varadaraj to be a perovskite material such as La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ or Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ, given they are materials that are fall in the scope of the material formula of Baron, Baron teaches examples of their material 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 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 of Varadaraj).
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 of Varadaraj).
Regarding claim 15, Varadaraj discloses a method of producing a solid oxide electrochemical cell (cell 30 in Fig. 2), including
a process of acquiring the cell including an oxygen electrode layer (cathode including LSCF material), an interlayer containing a rare-earth doped cerium oxide (interlayer of GDC interposed between the electrolyte and cathode), a solid electrolyte containing zirconium oxide (electrolyte containing YSZ), and a hydrogen electrode layer (anode) in that order (given Varadaraj discloses their solid oxide fuel cell stack is integrated into a natural gas reforming operation, Varadaraj acquires the cell 30; see entire disclosure and especially P44, 46-47).
However, Varadaraj does not disclose the oxygen electrode 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
, 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, wherein Ln is lanthanum (La) or samarium (Sm), B is titanium (Ti), z is 0.10 or more and 0.15 or less, and (1-y-z) is 0.05 or more and 0.30 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Baron teaches a novel perovskite material that can be used in solid oxide fuel cell cathodes (see entire disclosure and especially P1). Baron discloses examples of 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 discloses their material is defined by the formula Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein: Ln is any of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm or Yb, Ae is any element from the alkaline earth family such as Ca, Sr and Ba, B is any of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, with 0 < x < 1 and y < 0.5 (see entire disclosure and especially P8-10, 12).
Although Baron does not specifically provide an embodiment using all of the claimed components together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the novel perovskite material to be La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is La, Ae is Sr, B is Fe, Co, Ti, x = 0.4 and y = 0) or Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is Sm, Ae is Sr, B is Fe, Co, Ti, x = 0.4 and y = 0) because 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.). Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
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 oxygen electrode layer (cathode) material of Varadaraj to be a perovskite material such as La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ or Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ, given they are materials that are fall in the scope of the material formula of Baron, Baron teaches examples of their material 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 19, 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, wherein condition (i) or (ii) is met: (i) Ln is lanthanum (La) or samarium (Sm), B is zirconium (Zr), z is 0.001 or more and 0.15 or less, and (1-y-z) is 0.05 or more and 0.30 or less, (ii) Ln is lanthanum (La), B is cerium (Ce), x is 0.25 or more and 0.55 or less, y is 0.6 or more and 0.8 or less, z is 0.005 or more and 0.15 or less, and (1-y-z) is 0.05 or more and 0.3 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Baron teaches a novel perovskite material that can be used in solid oxide fuel cell cathodes (see entire disclosure and especially P1). Baron discloses examples of 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 discloses their material is defined by the formula Ln1-xAexB1-yCeyO3-δ wherein: Ln is any of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm or Yb, Ae is any element from the alkaline earth family such as Ca, Sr and Ba, B is any of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, with 0 < x < 1 and y < 0.5 (see entire disclosure and especially P8-10, 12).
Although Baron does not specifically provide an embodiment using all of the claimed components together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the novel perovskite material to be La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Zr0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is La, Ae is Sr, B is Co, Fe, Zr, x = 0.4 and y = 0), Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Zr0.15O3-δ (such that Ln is Sm, Ae is Sr, B is Co, Fe, Zr, x = 0.4 and y = 0), or La0.5Sr0.5Co0.2Fe0.7Ce0.1O3-δ (such that Ln is La, Ae is Sr, B is Co, Fe, x = 0.5 and y = 0.1) because 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.). Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
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 oxygen electrode (cathode) material of Varadaraj to be a perovskite material such as La0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ, Sm0.6Sr0.4Co0.25Fe0.6Ti0.15O3-δ, or La0.5Sr0.5Co0.2Fe0.7Ce0.1O3-δ given they are materials that are fall in the scope of the material formula of Baron, Baron teaches examples of their material 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 20, 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 21, 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 22, 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 23, Varadaraj discloses a solid oxide electrochemical device including the cell according to claim 19, 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 of Varadaraj).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi (JP2013143242A, using the translation provided in the 06/16/2026 IDS)
Takahashi discloses their material is defined by the formula LnaAebCecMdO3-δ wherein: Ln is one or more elements selected from lanthanoids such as La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Ae is Sr, Ca and M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ba, M is Co, Mn, Ni, Fe, Ti, Al, Zr, Ga, Mg, Cu, In, Sn, V, Cr, Zn And Ge, Sc and Y, a, b, c and d are real numbers satisfying 0.3 ≦ a ≦ 0.7, 0.3 ≦ b ≦ 0.7, 0.01 ≦ c ≦ 0.3, and 1.7 ≦ a + b + c + d ≦ 2.0, and δ is a value determined to satisfy the charge neutral condition (P7, 27).
Although Takahashi does not specifically provide an embodiment using all of the claimed components together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the material to be La0.5Sr0.5Co0.1Fe0.6Ce0.1O3-δ (such that Ln is La, Ae is Sr, M is Co, Fe, a = 0.5, b = 0.5, c = 0.1, d = 0.7, and a + b + c + d = 1.8) because 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.). Further, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights