DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group I but added new claims 21-38. Claims 19-38 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-32, 35, 36, and 38 are 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.
In claims 19, 31, 32, 35, and 38, “the surface” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, rendering the claims indefinite.
In claim 36, “at least one of major surface” is grammatically incorrect and renders the claim indefinite.
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 33-34 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (“Sakamoto”, US 2019/0006707 A1) in view of Neagu et al. (“In Situ Growth of Nanoparticles through Exsolution from Perovskite Oxides”, Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 2445).
Regarding claims 33, 34, 36, and 37, Sakamoto teaches doped solid-state electrolyte membranes including ceramic electrolyte systems having grains and grain boundaries to suppress or eliminate propagation in polycrystalline electrolytes ([0014]-[0017]). Sakamoto also teaches doped garnet and NaSICON-type electrolyte systems and overlapping dopant species including Sn and Zn ([0019]-[0021]), inter alia.
Sakamoto teaches insoluble grain modification can be doped into solid electrolyte grains during synthesis and exsoluted during solid electrolyte calcination or densification ([0056]).
Sakamoto does not teach the precise amounts of dopant or metal nanoparticles on the surface.
However, Neagu teaches exsolution of metal nanoparticles from doped ceramic oxide materials through segregation of dopants from the bulk lattice to ceramic surfaces during reduction processing (pp. 2-4; Fig. 1). Neagu teaches in situ formation of nanoscale metal nanoparticles on ceramic surfaces (pp. 5-7; Figs. 2-3). Neagu also teaches partially embedded or socketed nanoparticle morphologies resulting from exsolution processing (pp. 8-10; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sakamoto using known exsolution techniques as taught by Neagu in order to provide surface nanoparticle structures and improve electrochemical interfacial properties.
Optimization of dopant concentration, nanoparticle surface coverage, and nanoparticle size would have constituted routine optimization of result-effective variables since Neagu teaches they are a function of dopant concentration and reduction conditions (pp. 5-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable if the 112 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights