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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 15, 2026.
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 8 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 8 recites a “deposition area is 2x2 cm2” which isn’t understood because it is unclear how the dimensions of the area can include the units of cm2.
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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yazdi, M. et al. Electrical and structural investigations of perovskite structure reactively sputter deposited coatings, Solid State Ionics 180 (2009) pg. 1246-1251.
Regarding claim 1, Yazdi teaches a method of forming a conductive electrolyte layer, comprising:
loading a substrate into a sputter chamber (pg. 1246, right column);
connecting a plurality of targets to the chamber (Zr-16 at% Y; Ba, pg. 1247 left column);
injecting a mixed gas into the chamber (Argon and Oxygen, pg. 1247 left column);
supplying power to each of the plurality of targets and forming a conductive electrolyte layer on one surface of the substrate (Table 1, pg. 1246, right column-pg. 1247 left column);
and sintering the conductive electrolyte layer at a set sintering temperature (annealing treatment; pg. 1249 right column).
Regarding claim 2, Yazdi teaches the mixed gas includes argon (Ar) and oxygen (02), a composition ratio of oxygen to argon is in a range of 1:3 to 1:10 ( 5 sccm Oxygen : 50 sccm argon, Table 1),
and a supply pressure of the mixed gas is in a range of 3 to 25 m Torr (1.06 Pa = 7.95 mtorr Table 1, pg. 1247).
Regarding claim 3, Yazdi teaches the set sintering temperature is 900 0C or lower (873 K = 600 deg C, pg. 149 right column), and a rotation speed of the substrate in the chamber is 900 RPM or less because Yazdi does not teach that the substrate is rotated.
Regarding claim 4, Yazdi teaches the conductive electrolyte layer is a BZY composite formed through a deposition process, and the BZY composite is a barium zirconate composite (Y:BaZrO3) doped with yttrium (right column, pg. 1246).
Regarding claim 5, Yazdi teaches a composition ratio of each of barium (Ba), zirconium (Zr), and yttrium (Y) in the BZY composite is in a range of 1:0.8:0.2 to 1:0.9:0.1 because it teaches BaZr0.84Y0.16O3 (pg. 1246, right column).
Regarding claim 9, Yazdi teaches a method of forming a conductive electrolyte layer, comprising: supplying power to each of a plurality of targets and forming an electrolyte layer on one surface of a substrate (pg. 1246-1247, Table 1);
and sintering (annealing) the electrolyte layer at a set sintering temperature, wherein the set sintering temperature is 900 0C or lower (873K = 600 deg. C; pg. 1249, right column).
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazdi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Nishihara (US 2015/0099623) and Nakanishi (JP S64-003001).
Regarding claim 6, Yazdi does not teach the plurality of targets include: a first target including BaCO3; a second target including ZrO2; and a third target including Y203, and the power applied to each of the plurality of targets is in a range of 20 to 200 W.
Nishihara is directed to forming a BaZrYO film by sputtering two or more targets in a noble gas and reactive gas. It teaches forming a single target using BaO, ZrO.sub.2 and Y2O3 [0085-0089]. Nishihara at least suggests multiple sputtering targets each comprising each oxide element used to form the single target. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that Nishihara teaches a first target including BaO; a second target including ZrO2; and a third target including Y203.
Nakanishi is directed to forming a conducting ceramic film by sputtering targets comprising BaCO3, Y2O3, and CuO in a reactive atmosphere (oxygen) to produce a film comprising the elements of Y, Ba and Cu.
Nishihara teaches sputtering multiple targets for depositing a film of BaZrYO is operable. Nakanishi teaches sputtering a target of BaCO3 is operable to provide a film with the element Ba. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the BaCo3 target as sputtering target supplying Ba of Nishihara with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.B.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Yadzi by providing a first target including BaCO3; a second target including ZrO2; and a third target including Y203, as taught by Nishihara and Nakanishi, because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
No prior art teaches the power applied to each of the plurality of targets is in a range of 20 to 200 W. The wattage applied to a sputtering target is a result effective variable that effects the sputtering rate of the target.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the power applied to each of the plurality of targets is in a range of 20 to 200 W” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, no prior art teaches the power supplied to the first target is in a range of 70 to 100 W, the power supplied to the second target is in a range of 50 to 80 W, and the power supplied to the third target is in a range of 20 to 60 W. The wattage applied to a sputtering target is a result effective variable that effects the sputtering rate of the target.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the power supplied to the first target is in a range of 70 to 100 W, the power supplied to the second target is in a range of 50 to 80 W, and the power supplied to the third target is in a range of 20 to 60 W” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazdi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Piskin, Berke et al., Production and Characterization of Sputtered Y-doped BaZrO-3 for Proton Conducting Oxides, Journal of Metals Vol. 74, No. 11 published July 7, 2022.
Regarding claim 8, Yazdi does not teach the conductive electrolyte layer is deposited on the one surface of the substrate in a thickness of smaller than 2 um, and a deposition area is 2x2 cm2 or more.
Piskin is directed to sputtering a 1 micron thick film of BZY onto a substrate of 18mm in diameter. Therefore it teaches the conductive electrolyte layer is deposited on the one surface of the substrate in a thickness of smaller than 2 um, and a deposition area is 2x2 cm2 or more (pg. 4182-right column - pg. 4183 left column).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conductive electrolyte layer of Yazdi by providing it is deposited on the one surface of the substrate in a thickness of smaller than 2 um, and a deposition area is 2x2 cm2 or more, as taught by Piskin, because it would allow for electrochemical measurements to be performed (pg. 4183).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights