DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 6/5/2026:
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 20-24 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, and 17 have been amended; Claims 6, 9, 14, 16, and 18-19 are cancelled; Claim 20 stands withdrawn.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112a and 112b are overcome in light of the amendment.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 21-24 have been indicated as allowable previously. Modified reasons for allowance are laid out below.
Elections/Restriction
4. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 21-24 are allowable. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species 1A and 1B, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/13/2019, is hereby withdrawn and Claim 20 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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.
Claim Interpretation
5. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zimmerman US PG Publication 2015/0349344.
Regarding Claim 20, Zimmerman discloses a rechargeable electrochemical battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material such as copper sulfide (para 0024), which is a copper-sulfide based material, a negative electrode comprising a negative active material (such as Zn, para 0024), a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (para 0028), and an alkaline electrolyte (para 0023), wherein the positive electrode comprises a bismuth-based additive (bismuth functional additive, para 0026), and Zimmerman recites that all of the elements taught in the disclosure include preferred embodiments and the skilled artisan could easily effect various changes including substitutions of equivalents and other alterations (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0023-0024, 0026, and 0215, and the combination of Claims 1, 5, 10, 19, and 21).
Zimmerman does not specifically disclose a single battery embodiment using all of these elements, but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the disclosed elements in a single embodiment of Zimmerman since the elements are taught to be useful in the inventive battery, teaches that the skilled artisan could easily effect various changes including substitutions of equivalents and other alterations, and because the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Zimmerman does not specifically disclose a cell container, but the skilled artisan would understand that a battery such as a coin cell (which is the format of battery used by Zimmerman) would necessarily have to have some kind of cell container/housing in order to contain the electrolyte and for the battery to function.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 21-24 are allowable over the prior art. As Applicant correctly points out, the cited prior art does not disclose the claimed positive electrode active materials. There are other references that teach the use of e.g. Ag2Cu2O3 and AgCuO2 as a positive electrode active material in a battery (see Nanjundaswamy US Patent 6,878,489, col 5, lines 51-64), but this reference does not teach the Bi additive and the previously cited prior art that does encourage the use of such an additive uses it with MnO2 materials, specifically, and so the skilled artisan would not find it obvious to use the additives in the battery of Nanjundaswamy. Further prior art includes Zimmerman US PG Publication 2015/0349344 (cited above in the rejection of Claim 20) who discloses a rechargeable electrochemical battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material such as CuO (cupric oxide) or Cu2O (cuprous oxide) or copper sulfide (para 0024), a negative electrode comprising a negative active material (such as Zn, para 0024), a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (para 0028), and an alkaline electrolyte (para 0023), wherein the positive electrode comprises a bismuth-based additive (bismuth functional additive, para 0026) that is an independent species from the positive or negative active materials and Zimmerman further teaches that all of the elements taught in the disclosure include preferred embodiments and the skilled artisan could easily effect various changes including substitutions of equivalents and other alterations (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0023-0024, 0026, and 0215, and the combination of Claims 1, 5, 10, 19, and 21). Zimmerman does not specifically disclose a single battery embodiment using all of these elements, but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the disclosed elements in a single embodiment of Zimmerman since the elements are taught to be useful in the inventive battery, teaches that the skilled artisan could easily effect various changes including substitutions of equivalents and other alterations, and because the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Zimmerman discloses “bismuth” as the functional additive but fails to specifically disclose what type of bismuth material is represented by the bismuth additive, e.g. does not disclose wherein it is selected from the group consisting of Bi-salt, Bi-metal, Bi-pnictide, and a Bi-complex selected from the group consisting of Bi-alkoxide, Bi-amido, and Bi-organo species. As previously described, with respect to the teaching of Bi additives in relevant prior art, there is no prior art that would make it obvious to specifically modify Zimmerman with the claimed bismuth-based additives since e.g. Yadav and other prior art (including citations of bismuth-additives in Zimmerman’s disclosure) are based on MnO2-based batteries.
Other newly discovered prior art of note: Richards US PG Publication 2013/0252108 discloses an alkaline primary battery using e.g. copper oxide positive electrode material and a bismuth additive in the negative electrode (see e.g. paras 0015, 0025-0026) but the bismuth additive is not an additive to the negative electrode active material (it is a plated coating on the current collector) and the skilled artisan would not find the claims obvious over this reference.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The pending claims from the elected invention are allowed. The non-elected species 20 should have been rejoined in the previous action, in light of the indication of allowable subject matter of the elected invention, but it was not. Therefore, the present Office action is a non-final action.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights