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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0164768, filed on 11/30/2022 and Application No. KR10-2023-0009044, filed on 01/20/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species a-2) Component B includes Sc in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is persuasive as per the amendment; therefore, the restriction / election of species is withdrawn.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023 and 12/27/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/12/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/12/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim is dependent on independent claim 10, and discloses the limitation wherein a content of Sc is less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B"; which has been already claimed in claim 10 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruiz-Morales et al. (“Symmetric and reversible solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Ruiz-Morales”).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 14-15, Ruiz-Morales discloses a composition (system based on common cathode materials; [Page 1411, par. 10]) for an air electrode (cathode; [Page 1411, par. 10]) of a solid oxide cell (SOFC, [Page 1411, Title), wherein the composition comprises a compound represented by ABO3 (La0.6Sr0.4Fe1-xScxO3−δ; [Page 1411, par. 10]), wherein La0.6Sr0.4 corresponds to A in ABO3 and Fe0.9Sc0.1 corresponds to B. Therefore, A includes La and Sr, and B includes Sc and Fe.
Further, Ruiz-Morales discloses a solid oxide fuel cell cathode material, La0.6Sr0.4Fe1-xScxO3−δ (wherein x = 0.05–0.3); [Page 1411, Par. 11]. Therefore Ruiz-Morales discloses the content of Sc of less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B and 5 mol or more relative to the total content of 100 mol of B (0.05≤x<0.1).
Regarding claim 13, Ruiz-Morales discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Ruiz-Morales further discloses that a content of Sr is 40 mol or less relative to a total content of 100 mol of A in La0.6Sr0.4Fe1-xScxO3−δ; [Page 1411, par. 10]). Therefore, the mol content disclosed of 40 mol of Sr in A reads on the claimed range of 40 mol or less relative to a total of 100 mol of A.
Regarding claim 16, Ruiz-Morales discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Ruiz-Morales further discloses a new symmetrical electrode based on a substituted lanthanum strontium manganite, such as La0.8Sr0.2Sc0.2Mn0.8O3 (LSSM) [Page 1411, par. 8]. Therefore, La0.8Sr0.2 corresponds to A in ABO3 and Sc0.2Mn0.8 corresponds to B.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-3, 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al. (WO 2009020608 A1; hereinafter "Backhaus-Ricoult"), in view of Liu et al. (“Sc-substituted La0.6Sr0.4FeO3−δ mixed conducting oxides as promising electrodes for symmetrical solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a solid oxide cell (Abstract) comprising: a fuel electrode (anode; [0002]); an air electrode (cathode; [0002]); and an electrolyte [0002] disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode (sandwiched between porous air electrode (cathode) and porous fuel electrode (anode); [0002]), wherein the air electrode (LSM/YSZ composite cathode [0003]) includes an ion-electron conductor (lanthanum strontium manganite (LSM) has low ionic conductivity; [0003]; electron-conducting LSM; [0003]) and an ion conductor (Yttria-stabilized zirconium oxide (YSZ) is currently the most commonly employed electrolyte material [0003]; ion-conducting electrolyte; [0003]).
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses a that the ion-electron conductor (LSM) has the formula (LaxSry)i±δ(FeaMnbCθc)O3 [0006]; that is equivalent to ABO-3, wherein (LaxSry) is equivalent to A and (FeaMnbCθc) is equivalent to B. However, Backhaus-Ricoult fails to disclose that B includes Sc.
Liu teaches that an alternative approach to obtain symmetrical electrode materials is to modify the typical lanthanum strontium manganite or ferrite cathode materials via doping the B-site with Mo4+, Cr3+ and Sc3+, such as La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.9Sc0.1O3−δ [7]; [Page 458, Par. 2]. Therefore, La0.6Sr0.4 is equivalent to A in ABO3 and Fe0.9Sc0.1 is equivalent to B. Liu further discloses that A further includes Sr.
Backhaus-Ricoult and Liu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the typical lanthanum strontium manganite or ferrite cathode materials via doping the B-site with Sc in ABO3, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would help to stabilize the perovskite oxides in the strong reducing atmospheres [Page 458, Par. 2], as suggested by Liu.
Regarding claim 3, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses that a content of the at least one of Sr or Ca is 40 mol or less relative to a total content of 100 mol of A in ((LaxSry)i±δ(FeaMnbCθc)O3 [0006]; wherein 1.0> x > 0.65; 0.35 > y > 0.0; x + y = 1.0; [0006]). Therefore, the mol content disclosed of 35 or less of Sr in A is within the claimed range of 40 mol or less relative to a total of 100 mol of A.
Regarding claim 6, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses an LSM/YSZ composite cathode [0003]. Therefore, the ion conductor includes at least one of scandia stabilized zirconia (SSZ), yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), scandia ceria stabilized zirconia (SCSZ), scandia ceria yttria stabilized zirconia (SCYSZ), and/or scandia ceria ytterbia stabilized zirconia (SCYbSZ).
Regarding claim 7, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses that the sintered composite electrode comprises about 40 weight% lanthanum strontium ferrite and about 60 weight% of the yttria stabilized zirconia; [0028]. Therefore, the weight ratio disclosed of 40:60 of the ion-electron conductor to the ion conductor in the air electrode is within the claimed range of 30:70 to 70:30.
Regarding claim 18, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses that A further includes Sr ((LaxSry)i±δ(FeaMnbCθc)O3; [0006]) and the ion conductor includes yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (LSM/YSZ composite cathode; [0003]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al. (WO 2009020608 A1; hereinafter "Backhaus-Ricoult"), in view of Liu et al. (“Sc-substituted La0.6Sr0.4FeO3−δ mixed conducting oxides as promising electrodes for symmetrical solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Liu”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ruiz-Morales et al. (“Symmetric and reversible solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Ruiz-Morales”)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult fails to disclose that a content of Sc is less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B and that the content of Sc is 5 mol or more relative to the total content of 100 mol of B.
Ruiz-Morales discloses a solid oxide fuel cell cathode material, La0.6Sr0.4Fe1-xScxO3−δ, wherein x = 0.05–0.3 [Page 1411, Par. 11]. Therefore Ruiz-Morales discloses the content of Sc of less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B and 5 mol or more relative to the total content of 100 mol of B (0.05≤x<0.1).
Backhaus-Ricoult and Ruiz-Morales are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the cathode material should have the proper mol concentration and would thus reasonably understand increasing the scandium substitution to x=0.2 could result in a large decrease in conductivities [Page 450, par. 3], as suggested by Liu, and in order to promote stability in reducing conditions [Page 1411, par. 11], as suggested by Ruiz-Morales, would thus find it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.05-0.3 overlaps less than 10 and 5 or more (0.05≤x<0.1)) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al. (WO 2009020608 A1; hereinafter "Backhaus-Ricoult"), in view of Liu et al. (“Sc-substituted La0.6Sr0.4FeO3−δ mixed conducting oxides as promising electrodes for symmetrical solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Liu”), and in further view of Ruiz-Morales et al. (“Symmetric and reversible solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Ruiz-Morales”)
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a solid oxide cell (Abstract) comprising: a fuel electrode (anode; [0002]); an air electrode (cathode; [0002]); and an electrolyte [0002] disposed between the fuel electrode and the air electrode (sandwiched between porous air electrode (cathode) and porous fuel electrode (anode); [0002]), wherein the air electrode (LSM/YSZ composite cathode [0003]) includes an ion-electron conductor (lanthanum strontium manganite (LSM) has low ionic conductivity; [0003]; electron-conducting LSM; [0003]) and an ion conductor (Yttria-stabilized zirconium oxide (YSZ) is currently the most commonly employed electrolyte material [0003]; ion-conducting electrolyte; [0003]).
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses a that the ion-electron conductor (LSM) has the formula (LaxSry)i±δ(FeaMnbCθc)O3 [0006]; that is has the formula of ABO-3, wherein (LaxSry) corresponds to A and (FeaMnbCθc) corresponds to B. However, Backhaus-Ricoult fails to disclose that B includes Sc; and that a content of Sc is less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B and that the content of Sc is 5 mol or more relative to the total content of 100 mol of B.
Liu teaches that an alternative approach to obtain symmetrical electrode materials is to modify the typical lanthanum strontium manganite or ferrite cathode materials via doping the B-site with Mo4+, Cr3+ and Sc3+, such as La0.6Sr0.4Fe0.9Sc0.1O3−δ [7]; [Page 458, Par. 2]. Therefore, La0.6Sr0.4 corresponds to A in ABO3 and Fe0.9Sc0.1 corresponds to B.
Further, Ruiz-Morales teaches a solid oxide fuel cell cathode material, La0.6Sr0.4Fe1-xScxO3−δ (wherein x = 0.05–0.3); [Page 1411, Par. 11]. Therefore Ruiz-Morales does not explicitly disclose less than 10 mol relative to a total content of 100 mol of B and that the content of Sc is 5 mol or more relative to the total content of 100 mol of B (0.05≤x<0.1).
Backhaus-Ricoult, Liu and Ruiz-Morales are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the typical lanthanum strontium manganite or ferrite cathode materials via doping the B-site with Sc in ABO3, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would help to stabilize the perovskite oxides in the strong reducing atmospheres [Page 458, Par. 2], as suggested by Liu.
Further, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the cathode material should have the proper mol concentration and would thus reasonably understand increasing the scandium substitution to x=0.2 could result in a large decrease in conductivities [Page 450, par. 3], as suggested by Liu, and in order to promote stability in reducing conditions [Page 1411, par. 11], as suggested by Ruiz-Morales, would thus find it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.05-0.3 overlaps less than 10 and 5 or more (0.05≤x<0.1)) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz-Morales et al. (“Symmetric and reversible solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Ruiz-Morales”), in view of Irvine et al. (US 2019/0190031 A1; hereinafter "Irvine").
Regarding claim 17, Ruiz -Morales discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Ruiz-Morales fails to disclose that B includes Sc and Co.
Irvine teaches the formula (M1x1M2x2)(M3yM4zM5aM6b)O3-γ [0040], wherein M1 is a rare earth metal, preferably La [0041], M2 can be selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr and Ba [0053], and M3 is selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Fe, Al and Sc, and M4, M5 and M6 are each independently chosen from the group consisting of Sc, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, Ag, Pt, Au and Al [0040].
Therefore, if M1 -is La, M2 is Sr, M3 -is Sc and M-4 is Co, the reference reads on the claim.
Ruiz-Morales and Irvine are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid oxide fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lanthanum strontium cobaltite cathode materials via doping the B-site with Sc in ABO3, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would help to slightly improve polarization resistance and maximum power density [0114], as suggested by Irvine.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus-Ricoult et al. (WO 2009020608 A1; hereinafter "Backhaus-Ricoult"), in view of Liu et al. (“Sc-substituted La0.6Sr0.4FeO3−δ mixed conducting oxides as promising electrodes for symmetrical solid oxide fuel cells”; hereinafter “Liu”), and in further view of Tuller et al. (US 5403461 A; hereinafter “Tuller”).
Regarding claim 19, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult fails to disclose that B includes Sr and Fe.
Tuller, directed to an air electrode, teaches a perovskite-derived crystal structure and having the formula ABO3-6, where A is a cation of an element such as Ba, Sr, La and Ca; B is a cation of an element such as Ti, Zr, Co, Ni, Sr, Mn, Cu, Fe, In, Mg, Zn, Sc, Ta, Nb and A1 and 6 is in the range of from 0 to about 3 [Col. 6, lines 48-54]. Tuller further teaches that the A cation can be partially replaced by a cation such as a cation of an element such as K, Ca, Mg, Sr or Na. The B cation can be partially replaced by a lower valent cation of an element such as Al, Zn, Mg, In or Sc [Col. 6, lines 63-67]. Further, the mixed ionic and electronic conductivity (MIEC) of a solid electrode can be simultaneously increased by partially replacing the B cation with a second acceptor dopant cation of an element such as Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Mn, Cu, Ru, Os, Ir, Rh, Pd, Pt or Re [Col. 7, lines 7-12]. Therefore, starting with ABO3, wherein A is La partially replaced with Sr, and B is Sr partially replaced by Sc and Fe from a second acceptor dopant cation, the resulting component reads on the claimed limitation, wherein B includes Sr and Fe.
Backhaus-Ricoult and Tuller are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include Sr and Fe in B, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would increase the mixed ionic and electronic conductivity (MIEC) of a solid electrode [Col. 7, lines 7-9], as suggested by Tuller.
Regarding claim 20, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Backhaus-Ricoult further discloses that the sintered composite electrode comprises about 40 weight% lanthanum strontium ferrite and about 60 weight% of the yttria stabilized zirconia; [0028]. Therefore, the weight ratio disclosed of 40:60 of the ion-electron conductor to the ion conductor in the air electrode is within the claimed range of 30:70 to 70:30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seo et al. (US 2013/0295484 A1) discloses a material for a solid oxide fuel cell having a perovskite crystal structure and an electrolyte containing a stabilized zirconia-based material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights