METHOD OF FORMING CHARGED MANGANESE OXIDES FROM DISCHARGED ACTIVE MATERIALS
DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Applicant should have underlined or striked-through the amended (newly added or deleted) limitations in the set of claims, and should have pointed out where the supports for the newly added limitations are in the specification.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-38 are pending, wherein claims 1-13, 19 and 29-38 were previously withdrawn. Claims 14-18 and 20-28 are being examined on the merits in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following:
In claim 15, a term “and” does appear to be missing before “XMn2O4”. The Markush group sentence should be further modified in order to make it clear that who/what includes (“including”) those polymorphs and that who/what refers to “thereof” in “combination thereof”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 28 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.
The limitation “cycling the cathode between ≥ 0.2 V and ≤ 1 V vs Hg|HgO and to at least -1 V vs Hg|HgO a plurality of times” recited in claim 28 renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear as to the scope of the limitation.
According to the specification ([0062], [0063]), it seems that the “between ≥ 0.2 V and ≤ 1 V vs Hg|HgO” refers to a charging process, and the “to at least -1V vs Hg|HgO” refers to a discharging process. It is suggested that these processes are included in the limitation. Otherwise, the limitation lacks clarity of meaning, which renders the claim indefinite. In addition, the symbols “≥” and “≤” appear to be redundant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14-18, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi et al. (US 20110070487 A1, hereafter Padhi) in view of Adamson et al. (US 20150244031 A1, hereafter Adamson).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Padhi teaches a method of forming a battery, the method comprising:
disposing a cathode (e.g., “14” in Fig. 1]) within a housing (formed by anode can 5, gasket 25 and cathode can 10, see Fig. 1), wherein the cathode comprises:
an electroactive material comprising a manganese oxide compound, such as manganese dioxide MnO2 (See, e.g., [0035]), a binder (e.g., [0037]: “hydrophobic polymeric binders”), and a conductive carbon (See, e.g., [0037], [0038]);
disposing an anode in the housing (See, e.g., “6” in Fig. 1), wherein the cathode and the anode are separated by a separator (“18”, Fig. 1); and
disposing an electrolyte in the housing (See, e.g., “ionically conductive electrolytic solution” and “aqueous gel” in [0034]).
Padhi fails to teach the manganese oxide compound has manganese in an average valence state that is less than 3, as claimed. However, Adamson discloses that MnO2 and MnO are functional equivalences as cathode materials (See, e.g., [0120] and [0267]) in a battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have employed MnO taught by Adamson as an alternative to MnO2 of Padhi, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06). Clearly, the manganese in MnO has an average valence state of 2, which is less than 3.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 21, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the cathode may comprise one or more additives, such as elemental nickel in a form of metallic support form (See, e.g., [0081] and [0103]: Ni screen), wherein the manganese oxide disposed in an active material layer (“cathode sheets”, [0081] and [0103]) is in contact with an additive layer formed by elemental nickel (i.e., Ni screen) (See “press into” in [0081], [0103]).
Padhi further discloses that the amount of manganese oxide (MnO2 or Mn2O3, [0035]) in the active material layer can be in the range of about 0.1% to about 90% by mass ([0037]). After MnO2 is replaced by MnO, as addressed in the rejection of claim 14, the amount by weight of MnO is in the range of about 0.1% to about 90% by mass, which overlaps the range of greater than 70 wt% as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 23, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the active material layer comprises a supporting material, such as carbon (“carbon powders”, [0037]).
Regarding claim 24, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the conductive carbon may comprise graphite (at least [0038]).
Regarding claim 25, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the cathode may comprise between about 0.1% and about 90% by mass of manganese oxide ([0037]), between about 1% and about 40% by mass of electrically conductive carbon ([0038]), and the balance being the binder and one or more additive (since the cathode may contain a binder ([0037]) and one or more additive (e.g., Ni screen, [0081] and [0103])). The instant ly claimed ranges overlap the above-mentioned ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 26, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 14, and further implicitly discloses the porosity of the cathode can be adjusted by changing a rolling pressure (e.g., [0081]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrive at the claimed porosity through routine experimentation, since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 27-28, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 14, and further one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed limitations as recited in claims 27-28, since “charging”, “cycling”, “increasing state of charge” (SOC) and “increasing [the] capacity” are basic operations in the art to optimize an electrode or/and battery.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi in view of Adamson, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yanggook et al. (CN 101931072 A, whose English machine translation is being used for citation purposes, hereafter Yanggook).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Padhi in view of Adamson teaches the method of claim 16, but does not teach the one or more additives comprise bismuth oxide, bismuth hydroxide, or elemental bismuth as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yanggook discloses that a bismuth oxide layer can be disposed on the surface of a cathode material (See, e.g., [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]). This arrangement will produce many advantages as disclosed in the paragraph [0021]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Yanggook into Padhi in view of Adamson to include bismuth oxide as the one or more additives, in order to achieve the above-mentioned advantages.
As a result, the bismuth oxide layer is clearly in contact with the active material layer in which the electroactive material manganese oxide MnO is included.
Padhi further discloses that the amount of manganese oxide (MnO2 or Mn2O3, [0035]) in the active material layer can be in the range of about 0.1% to about 90% by mass ([0037]). After MnO2 is replaced by MnO, as addressed in the rejection of claim 14, the amount by weight of MnO is in the range of about 0.1% to about 90% by mass, which overlaps the range of greater than 70 wt% as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 22, Padhi as modified teaches the method of claim 21, and Yanggook further discloses that the bismuth compound layer can be formed by drying or/and heating a mixed solution containing a bismuth precursor and a chelating agent ([0058]-[0070]). The amount ratio of the bismuth compound precursor to the chelating agent can be adjusted in order to ensure a chelating effect and a desired pH value ([0069]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that after drying and heating, the amount ratio of the resultant bismuth compound, such as Bi2O3, to the heated chelating agent can be accordingly adjusted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have readily arrived at, through routine experimentation, the claimed “1-95% wt% [of] bismuth oxide” and “5-99 wt% of a binder, supporting materials, or both” by adjusting the amount ratio of the bismuth compound precursor to the chelating agent, in order to obtain a desired pH value and a chelating effect ([0069]). Note that the heated chelating agent reads on “a binder, supporting materials, or both” as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to convert a molar amount to a weight amount in light of chemical formulae since it is general knowledge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 19, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
235
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
……
PNG
media_image2.png
194
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in this case, the Padhi reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the rejection(s) are based on the combination of Padhi and secondary reference(s), rather than merely the Padhi reference.
2) With respect to MnO2 and MnO as a functional equivalence, Applicant argued and concluded that:
PNG
media_image3.png
132
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response, it is unclear in the argument what “other manganese oxides that do not serve as catalysts” refers to. In fact, Padhi discloses that MnO2, MnO, and other manganese oxides ([0003]) are “manganese oxide catalysts” ([0003]: lines 2-3) and have “high catalytic activity for oxygen reduction” ([0003]: line 4). There is no evidence of record that demonstrates that replacement of MnO2 by MnO changes the principle of operation of Padhi.
3) In response to the argument that “Adamson does not teach the functional equivalence of MnO2 and MnO in the context of the claim invention”, it is noted that at least paragraph [0267] of Adamson explicitly disclose MnO or MnO2 can be blended with carbon black to form a cathode material. In this respect, there is no reason they are not functional equivalents. In addition, it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to “… but fails to teach that the ‘blend’ has an average valence less than 3”, it is noted that the claimed limitation is “manganese (not “blend”) in an average valence state that is less than 3”. The MnO in the “blend” does have an average valence state that is less than 3.
4) The arguments about claims 1 and 29 are moot because they were previously withdrawn. They are not rejoined and are not being examined on the merits.
5) The limitation regarding 70 wt% of manganese oxide as recited in claim 21 is newly added. The current office action has addressed this limitation.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights