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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/517897 filed on 12/19/2023. Claims 1-29 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
The claim restriction on claims 1-29 is withdrawn because Applicant’s argument filed on 7/15/2026 is persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the reference numbers #1-#4 in fig. 1A-1E. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-9, 11-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashino et al. (US 20180037508 A1) in view of Tao (US 20230183090 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract). The solid electrolyte layer is used in a cell (par. 54, fig. 1). The cell comprising:
a cathode (2) (par. 55, fig. 1 ) comprising a cathode active material capable of reversibly absorbing a proton (par. 57-62);
an anode (3) (par. 55, fig. 1) comprising an anode active material capable of reversibly absorbing a proton (par. 63-68); and
a solid electrolyte layer (4) (equivalent to a separator) (par. 55, fig. 1) comprising the proton conductor (equivalent to an inorganic ceramic material) having the perovskite structure (par. 20, 35, 41), wherein the proton conductor presents 50% or more by mass (equivalent to predominant) in the solid electrolyte layer (4) (par. 41). Higashino et al. further disclose a powder of the proton conductor is decomposed to BaCO3 and/or Ba(OH)2 after a humidification treatment for a moisture resistance evaluation (par. 90, 101, Table 1-3). After the humidification treatment, the perovskite structure (BZY phase) is 84.2 weight percentage relative to the total weight of the perovskite oxide, BaCO3, and Ba(OH)2 (Example A2 in table 1)
Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose a separator comprising the inorganic ceramic material comprising less than 85 weight percent perovskite oxide phase. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). The solid ionic conducting material is obtained by treating an oxide with a perovskite structure with water. After the water treatment (hydration process), the oxygen vacancy of the perovskite oxide increases and higher number of the oxygen vacancy provides higher ionic conductivity and higher ion transfer number (par. 106, 186). The solid ionic conducting material, thus, can be used as electrolytes for operation at around room temperature, as well as at higher temperatures (par. 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the proton conductor comprising 84.2 weight percentage perovskite structure (BZY phase) (the proton conductor comprising 84.2 weight percentage perovskite structure (BZY phase) is obtained by treating the oxide with a perovskite structure with water) of Higashino et al. in the solid electrolyte layer (4) of Higashino et al. because Tao teaches that after the hydration process, the perovskite oxide has high ionic conductivity and high ion transfer number (par. 106, 186).
Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose a proton conductivity of 0.1 mS/cm or greater at 25 degrees Celsius. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the proton conductivity, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Tao teaches several factors can influence the ionic conductivity (equivalent to proton conductivity) and the ion transfer number of the solid ionic conducting materials. The factors including starting material structure, starting material oxygen vacancy location, starting material composition, the hydration process, and ion size (par. 186-193). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust these factors to yield the optimum proton conductivity for the electrolyte layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 2: Higashino et al. disclose the perovskite structure (BZY phase) is 57.1 weight percentage relative to the total weight of the perovskite oxide, BaCO3, and Ba(OH)2 (Example B2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 3: Higashino et al. disclose the proton conductor comprises Barium (Ba) in Examples A1-A4, B1-B4.
Regarding claim 4: Higashino et al. disclose the proton conductor comprises Barium (Ba) in Examples A1-A4, B1-B4.
Regarding claim 5: Higashino et al. disclose the proton conductor comprises BaCO3 (equivalent to an ACO3 phase, wherein A comprises one or more group 2 elements) after the humidification treatment in Examples A1-A4, B1-B4.
Regarding claim 6: Higashino et al. disclose the BaCO3 (equivalent to the ACO3 phase) is present at 32.8 weight percent in Example B1.
Regarding claim 7: Higashino et al. disclose the solid electrolyte layer (4) has the amounts of the binder and the surfactant were 6 parts by mass and 0.5 parts by mass, respectively, per 100 parts by mass of the proton conductor (the proton conductor is equivalent to a precursor) (equivalent to 93.9 wt % of the proton conductor in the solid electrolyte layer (4)) (par. 84-85).
Regarding claim 8: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose the proton conductivity is less than 23 mS/cm. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the proton conductivity, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Tao teaches several factors can influence the ionic conductivity (equivalent to proton conductivity) and the ion transfer number of the solid ionic conducting materials. The factors including starting material structure, starting material oxygen vacancy location, starting material composition, the hydration process, and ion size (par. 186-193). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust these factors to yield the optimum proton conductivity for the electrolyte layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 9: Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, x=0.8, y=0.2, and z=0) in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98).
Regarding claim 11: Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, x=0.8, y=0.2, and z=0) in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98).
Regarding claim 12: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose M is Ce and z is 0.4 to 0.8. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). The solid ionic conducting material is obtained by treating an oxide with a perovskite structure with water (par. 106, 186). One example of the oxide with the perovskite structure is SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Sr and M is Ce, x=0, y=0.2, and z=0.8) (par. 88). Since Higashino et al. and Tao recognize Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 and SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ, respectively, have the perovskite structure and the proton conducting property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ of Tao as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent oxide with a perovskite structure recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 13: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose M is selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Ti, Hf, B, Al, Ga, and combinations thereof. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). The solid ionic conducting material is obtained by treating an oxide with a perovskite structure with water (par. 106, 186). One example of the oxide with the perovskite structure is SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Sr and M is Ce, x=0, y=0.2, and z=0.8) (par. 88). Since Higashino et al. and Tao recognize Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 and SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ, respectively, have the perovskite structure and the proton conducting property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ of Tao as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent oxide with a perovskite structure recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 14: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract). A process of producing the proton conductor (equivalent to a proton conducting material) comprising:
preparing a raw material (equivalent to a precursor material), the raw material comprising barium oxide and/or barium carbonate (par. 48) (barium is equivalent to one or more group 2 elements);
firing (equivalent to calcining) the raw material at a firing temperature to form a fired raw material (par. 48, 49, 81).
Higashino et al. further disclose a powder of the proton conductor is decomposed to BaCO3 and/or Ba(OH)2 after a humidification treatment (at a relative humidity of 100% and a temperature of 100° C. for 100 hours) for a moisture resistance evaluation (par. 90, 101, Table 1-3).
Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose subjecting said calcined precursor material to a humidification process for a treatment time and at a treatment temperature to provide a proton conducting material. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical device, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). A process of producing the solid ionic conducting material (equivalent to a proton conducting material) comprising:
preparing a powder (equivalent to a precursor material), the powder comprising Strontium (Sr) (par. 212) (Sr is equivalent to one or more group 2 elements);
calcining the powder at a calcining temperature to form a calcinated powder (par. 212);
subjecting said calcined powder to a hydration process (equivalent to a humidification process) for a treatment time and at a treatment temperature to provide the solid ionic conducting material (par. 307-308).
Tao further discloses after the water treatment (hydration process), the oxygen vacancy of the perovskite oxide increases and higher number of the oxygen vacancy provides higher ionic conductivity and higher ion transfer number (par. 106, 186). The solid ionic conducting material, thus, can be used as electrolytes for operation at around room temperature, as well as at higher temperatures (par. 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the humidification treatment of Higashino et al. into the process of producing the proton conductor of Higashino et al. because Tao teaches that after the hydration process, the perovskite oxide provides high ionic conductivity and high ion transfer number (par. 106, 186).
Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose a proton conductivity of 0.1 mS/cm or greater at 25 degrees Celsius. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the proton conductivity, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Tao teaches several factors can influence the ionic conductivity (equivalent to proton conductivity) and the ion transfer number of the solid ionic conducting materials. The factors including starting material structure, starting material oxygen vacancy location, starting material composition, the hydration process, and ion size (par. 186-193). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust these factors to yield the optimum proton conductivity for the electrolyte layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 15: Higashino et al. disclose the humidification treatment is at a relative humidity of 100% and a temperature of 100° C. for 100 hours (par. 90).
Regarding claim 16: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose said subjecting comprises increasing said treatment temperature during said treatment time. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). A process of producing the solid ionic conducting material (equivalent to a proton conducting material) comprises subjecting said calcined powder to a hydration process (equivalent to a humidification process) for a treatment time and at a treatment temperature to provide the solid ionic conducting material (par. 307-308). Tao further discloses a second treatment may be performed—this second treatment may take only a few minutes, especially if performed at a relative higher temperature (equivalent to increasing said treatment temperature) (par. 288). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the second treatment of Tao into the process of producing the proton conductor of Higashino et al. because Tao teaches that the second treatment can recover the ionic conductivity if the material dries (par. 288).
Regarding claim 17: Higashino et al. disclose the humidification treatment is at a relative humidity of 100% and a temperature of 100° C. for 100 hours (par. 90). Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose said treatment time is 1 hour to 40 hours, optionally 10 hours to 20 hours. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). A process of producing the solid ionic conducting material (equivalent to a proton conducting material) comprises subjecting said calcined powder to a hydration process (equivalent to a humidification process) for a treatment time and at a treatment temperature to provide the solid ionic conducting material (par. 307-308). Tao further discloses the hydration time period may be less than an hour, or 2 to 72 hours (par. 308). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydration time period of Tao as the humidification time period of Higashino et al. because Tao teaches that the hydration time period can be reduced when using liquid water and/or using materials having thinner or more porous structures (par. 308). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 18: Higashino et al. disclose the powder of the proton conductor having the perovskite structure (BZY phase) of 84.2 weight percentage relative to the total weight of the perovskite oxide, BaCO3, and Ba(OH)2. after the humidification treatment (par. 90, 101, Example A2 in Table 1).
Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose a proton conductivity of 0.1 mS/cm or greater at 25 degrees Celsius. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the proton conductivity, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Tao teaches several factors can influence the ionic conductivity (equivalent to proton conductivity) and the ion transfer number of the solid ionic conducting materials. The factors including starting material structure, starting material oxygen vacancy location, starting material composition, the hydration process, and ion size (par. 186-193). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust these factors to yield the optimum proton conductivity for the electrolyte layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 19: Higashino et al. disclose the perovskite structure (BZY phase) is 57.1 weight percentage relative to the total weight of the perovskite oxide, BaCO3, and Ba(OH)2 (Example B2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 20: Higashino et al. disclose the proton conductor comprises Barium (Ba) in Examples A1-A4, B1-B4.
Regarding claim 21: Higashino et al. disclose the proton conductor comprises BaCO3 (equivalent to an ACO3 phase, wherein A comprises one or more group 2 elements) after the humidification treatment in Examples A1-A4, B1-B4.
Regarding claim 22: Higashino et al. disclose the BaCO3 (equivalent to the ACO3 phase) is present at 32.8 weight percent in Example B1.
Regarding claim 23: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose the proton conducting material gained weight during humidification process by at or greater than 5 weight percent, optionally at or greater than 10 weight percent, optionally at or greater than 20 weight percent. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the weight gain, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 24: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose the proton conductivity is less than 23 mS/cm. However, it is the position of the examiner that other properties of said material, such as the proton conductivity, are inherent, given that the proton conductor disclosed by Higashino et al. and the present application having similar compositions and manufacturing processes (the humidification treatment). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Tao teaches several factors can influence the ionic conductivity (equivalent to proton conductivity) and the ion transfer number of the solid ionic conducting materials. The factors including starting material structure, starting material oxygen vacancy location, starting material composition, the hydration process, and ion size (par. 186-193). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust these factors to yield the optimum proton conductivity for the electrolyte layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 25: Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, x=0.8, y=0.2, and z=0) in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98).
Regarding claim 27: Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, x=0.8, y=0.2, and z=0) in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98).
Regarding claim 28: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose M is Ce and z is 0.4 to 0.8. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). The solid ionic conducting material is obtained by treating an oxide with a perovskite structure with water (par. 106, 186). One example of the oxide with the perovskite structure is SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Sr and M is Ce, x=0, y=0.2, and z=0.8) (par. 88). Since Higashino et al. and Tao recognize Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 and SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ, respectively, have the perovskite structure and the proton conducting property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ of Tao as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent oxide with a perovskite structure recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 29: Higashino et al. disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described above. Higashino et al. fail to explicitly disclose M is selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Ti, Hf, B, Al, Ga, and combinations thereof. However, Tao discloses a solid ionic conducting material for use in an electrochemical devices, such as fuel cells, batteries (abstract, par. 2). The solid ionic conducting material is obtained by treating an oxide with a perovskite structure with water (par. 106, 186). One example of the oxide with the perovskite structure is SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Sr and M is Ce, x=0, y=0.2, and z=0.8) (par. 88). Since Higashino et al. and Tao recognize Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 and SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ, respectively, have the perovskite structure and the proton conducting property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the SrCe0.8Y0.2O3−δ of Tao as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent oxide with a perovskite structure recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashino et al. (US 20180037508 A1) in view of Tao (US 20230183090 A1) as applied in claim 9 above, and further in view of Iijima (US 20090233151 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Higashino et al. in view of Tao disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described in paragraph 4 above. Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98). Higashino et al. and Tao fail to explicitly disclose x is 0.1 to 0.5. However, Iijima discloses an electrolyte membrane (20) having a proton conductivity and including a perovskite type electrolyte (abstract). Specific examples of the perovskite includes are BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 and BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, M is Ce, x=0.4, y=0.2, and z=0.4) (par. 24).
Since the prior art of Iijima recognizes the equivalency of BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 and BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 in the field of the perovskite oxide in the electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 of Iijima as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent perovskite oxide recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashino et al. (US 20180037508 A1) in view of Tao (US 20230183090 A1) as applied in claim 25 above, and further in view of Iijima (US 20090233151 A1).
Regarding claim 26: Higashino et al. in view of Tao disclose a solid electrolyte layer contains a proton conductor having a perovskite structure (abstract) as described in paragraph 4 above. Higashino et al. disclose a proton conductor of Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 in Comparative Example 2 (par. 98). Higashino et al. and Tao fail to explicitly disclose x is 0.1 to 0.5. However, Iijima discloses an electrolyte membrane (20) having a proton conductivity and including a perovskite type electrolyte (abstract). Specific examples of the perovskite includes are BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 and BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 (equivalent to the inorganic ceramic material comprises an oxide of AZrxYyMz, where A is Ba, M is Ce, x=0.4, y=0.2, and z=0.4) (par. 24).
Since the prior art of Iijima recognizes the equivalency of BaZr0.8Y0.2O3 and BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 in the field of the perovskite oxide in the electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the Ba1.000Zr0.800Y0.200O2.900 of Higashino et al. with the BaCe0.4Zr0.4Y0.2O3 of Iijima as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent perovskite oxide recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights