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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2-3, 6, 10, 29-31, 33 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the halogen oxyanion metal salt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 1 or “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the halogen oxyanion metal salt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 1 or “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the halogen oxyanion metal salt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 1 or “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the halogen oxyanion metal salt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 1 or “a halogen oxyanion metal salt” recited in claim 10.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt". This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the halogen oxyanion metal salt recited in said claim is the same or different from the halogen oxyanion metal salt recited in claim 1.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the metal hydroxide". This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the metal hydroxide recited in said claim is the same or different from the metal hydroxide recited in claim 1.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the metal hydroxide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a metal hydroxide” recited in claim 1 or “a metal hydroxide” recited in claim 30.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the particles size". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is assumed to refer to the particle size of the active material.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 27-28, 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., “Cycling Li-O2 batteries via LiOH formation and decomposition.” [Supplementary Materials]. Science 350 (2015): 530-533., in view of Burke et al. “Implications of 4 e-oxygen reduction via iodide redox mediation in Li-O2 batteries.” ACS Energy Letters 1 (2016): 747-756.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an electrode (Title, Abstract) consisting of an active material (reversibly form and remove LiOH during discharge and charge, see Title, Abstract), a binder, and a conductive material (mesoporous SP carbon electrodes prepared from a mixture of SP carbon black, PVDF, see p. 2-3 of Supplementary Materials); wherein:
the active material consists of (i) a halogen oxyanion metal salt, or (ii) a metal hydroxide (reversibly form and remove LiOH during discharge and charge, see Title, Abstract).
However, Liu does not disclose the electrode further consisting of a substrate.
Burke discloses inducing a 4 e- oxygen reduction reaction forming lithium hydroxide (LiOH), different from the common formation and decomposition of lithium peroxide (Li2O2), wherein a cathode is formed by coating a carbon material and binder on stainless steel mesh (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 description, Fig. 4 description, Fig. 6 description).
Because a cathode formed by applying a mixture of carbon black and binder onto a stainless steel mesh was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced in Burke (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 description, Fig. 4 description, Fig. 6 description), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a stainless steel mesh in the electrode of Liu. Said combination would amount to use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the binder is a polymer (PVDF, see p.2 of Supplementary Materials).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the conductive material is a conductive carbon material (SP carbon black, see p.2 of Supplementary Materials).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the conductive carbon material comprises carbon black, graphene, carbon nanotubes, or graphite (SP carbon black, see p.2 of Supplementary Materials).
Regarding claim 27, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF, see p.2 of Supplementary Materials).
Regarding claim 28, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses PVDF (see p.2 of Supplementary Materials), but does not disclose the binder is polytetrafluoroethylene.
Burke discloses inducing a 4 e- oxygen reduction reaction forming lithium hydroxide (LiOH), different from the common formation and decomposition of lithium peroxide (Li2O2), wherein a cathode is formed by coating a carbon material and binder on stainless steel mesh (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 description, Fig. 4 description, Fig. 6 description).
Because a cathode formed by applying a mixture of carbon black and PTFE as the binder onto a stainless steel mesh was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced in Burke (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 description, Fig. 4 description, Fig. 6 description), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PTFE as the binder in the electrode of Liu. Said combination would amount to use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 30, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a metal hydroxide (reversibly form and remove LiOH during discharge and charge, see Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 31, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the metal hydroxide is lithium hydroxide (reversibly form and remove LiOH during discharge and charge, see Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 32, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the electrode is porous (mesoporous SP carbon, see p.531).
Regarding claim 33, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the halogen oxyanion metal salt is in a form of particles, and the particles size is 10-100µm (15 micrometers, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 34, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Burke further discloses the substrate is selected from aluminum foil and carbon paper (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 description, Fig. 4 description, Fig. 6 description).
Claim(s) 2-6, 10, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., “Cycling Li-O2 batteries via LiOH formation and decomposition.” [Supplementary Materials]. Science 350 (2015): 530-533., in view of Burke et al. “Implications of 4 e-oxygen reduction via iodide redox mediation in Li-O2 batteries.” ACS Energy Letters 1 (2016): 747-756., as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 27-28, 30-34 above, and as evidenced by Liu et al.,”Response to Comment on “Cycling Li-O2 batteries via LiOH formation and decomposition.” Science 352(6286) (2016): 667-667., hereinafter Liu ‘2016.
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt; and the halogen oxyanion metal salt is selected from the group consisting of chlorine oxyanion metal salt, bromine oxyanion metal salt, and iodine oxyanion metal salt, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (lithium-oxygen batteries cycle reversibly with lithium iodide additives in dimethoxyethane to form lithium hydroxide, and LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt; and the halogen oxyanion metal salt is iodine oxyanion metal salt, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt; the halogen oxyanion metal salt comprises a metal, and the metal is an alkali metal, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the alkali metal is selected form the group consisting of lithium, sodium or potassium, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt; and the halogen oxyanion metal salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium iodate, sodium iodate and potassium iodate, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt; and halogen oxyanion metal salt is lithium iodate, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Regarding claim 29, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses the active material consists of a halogen oxyanion metal salt, as evidenced in Liu ‘2016 (LiOH reacts chemically with I3- to form IO3-, see also reaction 8, see Title, Abstract, see p.667-667).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., “Cycling Li-O2 batteries via LiOH formation and decomposition.” [Supplementary Materials]. Science 350 (2015): 530-533., in view of Burke et al. “Implications of 4 e-oxygen reduction via iodide redox mediation in Li-O2 batteries.” ACS Energy Letters 1 (2016): 747-756., as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 27-28, 30-34 above, and further in view of DeJonghe et al. (US 2014/0057182A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Liu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Liu further discloses PVDF (see p.2 of Supplementary Materials), the reference does not disclose the binder is selected from the group consisting of poly(carboxylic acid), poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), poly(methacrylic acid) (PMMA), poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(vinyl alcohol), and poly(vinylpyrrolidone).
DeJonghe discloses a porous carbonaceous layer composed of carbon black held together with a suitable polymeric binder component including PTFE, PEO, PVDF in Li/air batteries (see Title, Abstract, [0029]).
Since DeJonghe recognizes the equivalency of PTFE, PEO, PVDF as suitable polymeric binder components used to hold together carbon black in Li-air batteries, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace PVDF of Liu with the PEO of DeJonghe because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 8/28/2025