www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/467,314
`
`09/06/2021
`
`SHIGENORI ONUMA
`
`083710-3500
`
`3102
`
`Rimon PC - Panasonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr.
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`WEST, ROBERT GENE
`
`1721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/24/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOmail @rimonlaw.com
`
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/467,314
`ONUMA etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`ROBERT G WEST
`1721
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 14 July 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-11 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240717
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 2
`
`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. If status of
`
`the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon,
`
`and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either
`
`status.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statement submitted on May 21, 2024 has
`
`been considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 1 and 6 are objected because of the following informalities:
`
`In claim 1, line 4, it is suggested to amend “the composition formula (I)”
`
`to - -a composition formula (I)- -.
`
`In claim 6, line 3, it is suggested to amend “the composition formula (II)”
`
`to - -a composition formula (II)- -.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 3
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2024 have been fully considered but
`
`they are not persuasive. Applicant describes the benefits of combining a
`
`solid electrolyte (BaZri-xM,O3-7) with a lanthanum strontium cobalt iron
`
`palladium composite oxide. Applicant refers to specific benefits achieved by
`
`this combination and recites unexpected results.
`
`MPEP 716.02(d) provides the law for this issue:
`
`“the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensuratein
`scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’ In
`other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to
`see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.”
`
`Applicant provided argument and evidence of unexpected results of the
`
`following chemical (figure 4, example 1)
`
`Lao.6Sro.4C0o0.3sFeo.57Pdo.0503-, and BaZro.sYbo.202.9
`
`Claim 1, however, recites a much broader range of chemical compositions:
`
`BaZri-xMxO3-y, where M is at least one of Sc, Er, Ho, Dy, Gd, Y,
`In, Tm, Yb, and Lu; O < x < 1; and O < y < 0.5; and
`a lanthanum strontium cobalt iron palladium composite
`oxide
`
`There is no evidence or sufficient facts that the unexpected results extend
`
`beyond the specific chemical of figure 4, example 1 and it cannot be
`
`presumed that any possible combination that results from the claimed
`
`formula and the generic name of “lanthanum strontium cobalt iron palladium
`
`composite oxide” would show the alleged unexpected results. To possibly
`
`overcome the prior rejection, a secondary consideration of the unexpected
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 4
`
`results might be considered by incorporating claims 3 and 6-7 into
`
`independent claim 1 OR incorporating allowable claim 8 into independent
`
`claim 1.
`
`The following 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is the same as presented in the April
`
`19, 2024 office action:
`
`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.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering
`
`patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 5
`
`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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over US20170288251A1 (Kamata) in view of First Principles
`
`Modeling of Pd-doped (La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 Complex Perovskites (Mastrikov).
`
`Kamata teaches the following claim 1 limitation (claim 1 in /talics;
`
`Kamata reference in parentheses):
`
`“A membraneelectrode assembly (title) comprising:
`“an electrolyte membrane containing a solid electrolyte (abstract);
`and
`a first electrode bondedto the electrolyte membrane (abstract)
`“wherein the solid electrolyte is a compound represented by the
`composition formula (1): BaZri-xM,O3-y
`“M in the composition formula (1) is at least one element selected
`from the group consisting of Sc, Er, Ho, Dy, Gd, Y, In, Tm, Yb, and Lu,
`and0 <x <1l1and0O< >< 0.5 are satisfied (figure 8, comparative
`examples 2-6: the first solid electrolyte membrane can be
`BaZro.sYo0.202.9, which is equivalent to the claimed formula with x=0.2,
`M=Y, and y= 0.1)”
`
`Claim 1 recites:
`
`“the first electrode contains a lanthanum strontium cobalt iron
`palladium composite oxide”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 6
`
`Kamata teaches a lanthanum strontium cobalt iron composite oxide.
`
`Kamata, however, fails to teach palladium in this composite oxide.
`
`Mastrikov is directed to materials for cathodes of solid fuel cells, which
`
`are designed to allow lower operating temperature (abstract). Mastrikov
`
`teaches Lao.sSro.5Coo.5Feo.25Pdo.2503 (page 268, left column), which is a
`
`lanthanum strontium cobalt iron palladium composite oxide, for the cathode
`
`[first electrode].
`
`It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, for Kamata’s electrode to include
`
`Lao.sSro.5C00.5Feo.25Pdo.2503,
`
`in order to allow a lower operating temperature
`
`which is associated with high efficiency and energy conversion (page 267,
`
`left column).
`
`With regard to claim 2, modified Kamata teachesthe limitations of claim
`
`1 as described above. Kamata also teachesthe following claim 2 limitation:
`
`“wherein M in the composition formula (1) of the solid electrolyte is at
`least one element selected from the group consisting of Y, Tm, Yb, and
`Lu”
`
`Kamata teaches M=Y (figure8), as noted above under claim 1.
`
`With regard to claim 3, modified Kamata teachesthe limitations of claim
`
`1 as described above. Kamata also teachesthe following claim 3 limitation:
`
`“the solid electrolyte satisfies 0.05 < x < 0.3 in the composition
`formula (1)”"
`
`Kamata teaches x=0.2 (paragraph 2), as noted above under claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 7
`
`Modified Kamata teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
`
`Kamata also teaches the following claim 4-5 limitations:
`
`Claim 4: “wherein M in the composition formula (1) of the solid
`electrolyte is at least one element selected from the group consisting
`of Lu and Yb”
`
`Claim 5: “The membraneelectrode assembly according to Claim 1,
`wherein M in the composition formula (1) of the solid electrolyte is Yb,
`and x = 0.2 is satisfied”
`
`Kamata teaches BaZri-xMxO3-y, where M = Yb and 0<x<1 (paragraph 29)
`
`and that the oxygen coefficient can equal 2.9 (figure 8). Thus, Kamata
`
`teaches BaZro.sYbo.202.9 with x=0.2.
`
`With regard to claim 6, modified Kamata teaches the limitations of claim
`
`1 as described above. Claim 6 recites:
`
`“the lanthanum strontium cobalt iron palladium composite oxide is
`a compound represented by the composition formula (2): La1-
`mSfmCoyFezPd1-y-z03-5, and
`“Osms0.5,0.1s ys 0.9,0.1<52<50.9,y+2z<1,and0O<6é<
`0.5 are satisfied in the composition formula (2)"
`
`Kamata fails to teach this limitation.
`
`Mastrikov is directed to materials for cathodes of solid fuel cells, which
`
`are designed to allow lower operating temperature (abstract). Mastrikov
`
`teaches Lao.sSro.sCoo.5Feo.25Pdo.2503 (page 268, left column) for the cathode
`
`[first electrode of claim 1]. Mastrikov’s cathode chemical,
`
`Lao.sSro.5C0o0.5Feo.25Pdo.2503, is equivalent to the claimed composition formula
`
`(2): La1-mStmCoyFezPd1-y-203-5, with m=0.5, y=0.5, z=0.25, and 5=0.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 8
`
`It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, for Kamata’s electrode to include
`
`Lao.sSro.5C00.5Feo.25Pdo.2503,
`
`in order to allow a lower operating temperature
`
`which is associated with high efficiency and energy conversion (page 267,
`
`left column).
`
`With regard to claim 7, modified Kamata teaches the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 6 as described above. Claim 7 recites:
`
`“the lanthanum strontium cobalt iron palladium composite oxide
`satisfies 0.01 < 1- y-z < 0.05 in the composition formula (2)”
`
`Kamata fails to teach this limitation.
`
`Mastrikov is directed to materials for cathodes of solid fuel cells, which
`
`are designed to allow lower operating temperature (abstract). Mastrikov
`
`teaches Lao.6Sro.4C0o.sFeo.17Pdo.0303-s (page 271, left column, Conclusions) for
`
`the cathode [first electrode of claim 1], with y=0.8 and z=0.17. Thus, the
`
`stoichiometric coefficient for Pd is 1-0.8-0.17 = 0.03 [within 0.01-0.05].
`
`Note that 6 can be O or 0.125 (page 270), so the oxygen stoichiometric
`
`coefficient is 3 or 2.875, which is within the claimed range for oxygen.
`
`It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, for Kamata’s electrode to include
`
`Lao.6Sro.4C00.sFeo.17Pdo.0303-«,
`
`in order to allow a lower operating temperature
`
`which is associated with high efficiency and energy conversion (page 267,
`
`left column).
`
`Claim 9 recites:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 9
`
`“An electrochemical device comprising: the membrane electrode
`assembly according to Claim 1; and a second electrode, wherein the
`electrolyte membrane is located between thefirst electrode and the
`second electrode.”
`
`Modified Kamata teaches the membraneelectrode assembly with an
`
`electrolyte membrane of claim 1 as described above. Kamata also teaches
`
`the electrolyte membrane between electrodes of claim 9 (paragraph 57 and
`
`figure 3).
`
`Claim 10 recites:
`
`“An electrochemical system comprising the electrochemical device
`according to Claim 9.”
`
`Modified Kamata teaches the membraneelectrode assembly with an
`
`electrolyte membrane of claim 1, and the electrochemical device of claim 9,
`
`as described above. Kamata also teaches that the electrochemical device can
`
`be used in a fuel cell (paragraph 5), which is equivalent to the claimed
`
`electrochemical system of claim 10.
`
`Claim 11 recites:
`
`“The electrochemical system of Claim 10, further comprising a
`temperature controller, wherein the temperature controller is
`configured to control an operating temperature of the electrochemical
`device to be 600°C orless.”
`
`Modified Kamata teaches the membraneelectrode assembly with an
`
`electrolyte membrane of claim 1, the electrochemical device of claim 9, and
`
`the electrochemical system of claim 10, as described above.
`
`Kamata also teaches benefits of operation of the fuel cell at a lower
`
`temperature: avoid expensive metal structural components and avoid
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 10
`
`thermal expansion cracks. Kamata also teaches that a lower operating
`
`temperature may be achieved through a yttrium-doped barium zirconate,
`
`like the electrolyte of claim 1A temperature controller is an obvious
`
`component of any system designed to keep temperature at a certain level.
`
`It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
`
`effective filing date of the invention, to operate Kamata’s electrochemical
`
`system at < 600°C, to for cost saving and to avoid thermal expansion
`
`cracks.
`
`The following Allowable Subject Matter is the same as presented in the April
`
`19, 2024 office action:
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claim 8 is 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.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable
`
`subject matter: Claim 8 requires that the first electrode includes
`
`Lao.6Sro.4C00.38Fe0.57Pdo.0503-s, where O < 6 < 0.5.
`
`The closest prior art is First Principles Modeling of Pd-doped
`
`(La,Sr)(Co,Fe)O3 Complex Perovskites (Mastrikov). Mastrikov is directed to
`
`materials for cathodes of solid fuel cells, which are designed to allow lower
`
`operating temperature (abstract). Mastrikov teaches
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 11
`
`Lao.sSro.5C0o0.5Feo.25Pdo.2503 (page 268, left column) and
`
`Lao.6Sro.4C00.sFeo0.17Pdo.0303-« (page 271, left column, Conclusions) for the
`
`cathode [first electrode of claim 1].
`
`Although Mastrikov teaches the same chemical elements as required by
`
`claim 8, Mastrikov fails to teach the same stoichiometric coefficients for
`
`cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and palladium (Pd).
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.Applicant is reminded of the extension
`
`of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire
`
`THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first
`
`reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and
`
`the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire
`
`on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory
`
`action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
`
`from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whosetelephone
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/467,314
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 12
`
`number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 6 pm ET.
`
`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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
`
`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.
`
`/R.G.W./
`Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
`
`