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 along with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 regarding claim 11 filed on 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Ball in view of Unoki, further in view of Koga
First, the Applicant argues Ball does not disclose an oxygen catalyst comprising a structure of pyrochlore oxide, with “bismuth located at A-sites and ruthenium at B-sites, and containing manganese” and sodium (P5-6 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Ball discloses a metal oxide assists in catalysing [0049] of formula (AA’)a(BB’)bOc with potential of sodium or bismuth both being selected on the A or A’ site, and Ru or Mn on B or B’ site ([Abstract]); and the metal oxide of formula (AA’)a(BB’)2Oc, having a pyrochlore type structure, as described in Structural Inorganic Chemistry: Fifth Edition, Wells A.F., Oxford University Press, 1984 (1991 reprint) ([0030]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select sodium and bismuth for the A or A’ site, Ru and Mn on the B or B’ site, from the finite list of elements for A(A’) and B(B’) sites and expect to achieve a pyrochlore structure when a is 1.33 to 3, b is 2 and c is 3 to 10, preferably 6 to 7 ([0030]), as taught by Ball.
Ball’s claim 27 dependent from claim 21 with A being Na and A’ being RE and Ball at [0034]-[0038], as Applicant cited, are considered as non-limiting examples or best modes of Ball, but not considered as teaching away from Ball encompassing Bi and Na being at A and A’ sites and Mn at B site.
Second, the Applicant argues a skilled artisan would not modify Ball/Unoki to use Mn as taught by Koga because Koga teaches that the use of Mn shortens the cycle lifetime of the electrode, and the instant disclosure has advantages of excellent chemical resistance to highly concentrated alkaline aqueous solutions and improved electrode stability and durability by citing specification at [0013], [0015] and [0018] (P6-7 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that since Ball has rendered obvious the claimed pyrochlore oxide structure as set forth above, the cited advantages of excellent chemical resistance to highly concentrated alkaline aqueous solutions and improved electrode stability and durability would be expected to achieve with Ball’s taught similar pyrochlore oxide structure. Further, since Ball’s object is to solve problems associated to large overvoltages which results in low cycle energy efficiency ([0010-0011]), a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage that Ball has achieved the argued advantageous properties via a similar route of reducing overvoltages of the pyrochlore oxide used as an oxygen catalyst in an alkaline aqueous solution.
Further, the evidence cited by the Applicant, specification at [0013] [0015] seems showing the advantages are generally relates to an oxygen catalyst such as BRO without mentioning other specificities in structure except for with manganese as well as bismuth and ruthenium a Tafel slope reduction or a higher exchange current density than BRO [0015]. A skilled artisan would expect Ball has overvoltage reduction; or Ball in view of Koga to achieve reducing the over potential and the cost of the electrode with the effects of substitution with manganese in the B site. The specification at [0018] cited by the Applicant, seems irrelevant because the pH of the alkaline aqueous solution is not required in the claim, thus not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Moreover, regarding the Applicant’s comments that Koga teaches that the use of Mn shortens the cycle lifetime of the electrode, Examiner respectfully responds that both modified Ball and Koga have included Mn in their pyrochlore oxide catalyst at B site, and both primarily focus on reducing overpotential of the catalyst, a skilled artisan would reasonably use Mn at the B sites at taught by Ball alone or in view of Koga. While Koga teaches that specific Bi2Ir2-yMnyO7-z cycle life being affected with Mn substituting, a skilled artisan would be more motivated to use Ru on the B-site since Ru has a closer atomic radius to Mn compared to that of Ir thus substitution of Ru on the B site with Mn would be expected to have a stabler structure, thus a longer cycle life.
Third, the Applicant argues about surprising benefits (P7 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that: 1) the testing results of Examples 1-6 vs. Comparative Example 1 seems only provides the effects on overvoltages of the catalyst (FIGs. 1-3 and Tables 1 and 4), thus the testing results are considered as expected results from modified Ball or Ball in view of Koga; and 2) while FIG. 4 seems showing the relationship between the atomic ratio of manganese and the exchange current density with Examples 2-6 have certain ranges of the Bi:Ru:Mn (atom %) and Bi:Ru:Mn:Na (atom %) (FIG. 4 and Table 3), the claim as presented however, does not require limitations of atomic ratios shown in FIG. 4 or Table 3. Thus this surprising benefits argument is unpersuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Ball in view of Unoki, further in view of Kuwano
The Applicant argues that Kuwano discloses the compounds in which B-sites are partially substituted with Mn while A-sites being lanthanoid, not Bi (P7 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Kuwano teaches pyrochlore-type metal oxide exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity ([0008]), wherein the A-site may be selected from the group including Bi among other lanthanides, and B-sites selected from the group consisting of Ru among other elements with substitute for B-site element consisting of Mn, Ru and Fe, Co, Ni ([0009]). While Kuwano’s example of Nd2Ru1.9Mn0.1O7-δ with confirmed a pyrochlore structure ([0065]) using Nd at the A-sites, Kuwano listed Bi and Nd among other choices of elements for A-sites without any drastic effects ([0009]).
Since as set forth above, Ball discloses potential of selecting sodium or bismuth for the A or A’ site, Ru and Mn on the B or B’ site from finite lists of elements for both A(A’) and B(B’) sites respectively and expect to achieve a pyrochlore structure, and Unoki teaches a pyrochlore-type structure bismuth-ruthenium oxide (Unoki [0053] and Example 1, [0078]), it would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to have a pyrochlore-type structure of bismuth-ruthenium oxide, as taught by Ball in view of Unoki, with the A site being Bi and B site being Ru.
A skilled artisan would have found it further obvious to modify the a pyrochlore-type structure bismuth-ruthenium oxide of modified Ball in view of Unoki with B-site being partially substituted with the element Mn, as taught by the example of Kuwano, Nd2Ru1.9Mn0.1O7-δ (Kuwano [0065]), in order to achieve a pyrochlore-type metal oxide exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity. Since A-site has been set to be Bi in modified Ball in view of Unoki, and also Kuwano teaches Bi could be at the A site without drastic effects, it is irrelevant that Kuwano discloses non-limiting examples in which A-sites being lanthanoid. The example of Kuwano, Nd2Ru1.9Mn0.1O7-δ (Kuwano [0065]) is not considered as teaching away from Bi being at A sites since Kuwano includes Bi at A sites ([0009]).
Thus this argument is not found persuasive.
Status of Application
Claims 11 and 13 are amended and claims 12 and 16 are cancelled, submitted on 10/20/2025. Claims 11, 13-15, 17-28 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. Claims 11, 13-15, and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 20150228984 A1) in view of Unoki (US20210043945 A1-Priority to 3/30/2018), further in view of Koga [ECS Transaction, 11(32) 101-104 (2008)].
Regarding claim 11, Ball discloses an air breathing cathode for use in a metal-air battery includes a metal oxide of formula (AA’)a(BB’)bOc ([0011]); and the metal oxides assist in catalysing the recharging of the metal-air battery and may also assist in the discharge of the metal-air battery ([0049]), which inherently reads on the claimed “an oxygen catalyst”. Ball also discloses the electrolyte is an aqueous liquid, for example, aqueous lithium hydroxide, ([0066]). Thus the claimed limitation “an oxygen catalyst that uses an alkaline aqueous solution as an electrolyte” is met.
Ball discloses a problem with current lithium-air batteries is that such cells exhibit large overvoltages, i.e. the voltage required to recharge the battery is considerably higher than the voltage required to discharge the battery and this results in a low cycle energy efficiency of around 60-70%; for a viable battery, a cycle energy efficiency of over 90% is desirable ([0010]); and the metal oxide of formula (AA’)a(BB’)2Oc having a pyrochlore-type structure (Examiner-added emphasis) when a is 1.33 to 3, b is 2 and c is 3 to 10, preferably 6 to 7 ([0030]) and wherein A and A’ are the same or different and are selected from the group consisting of RE (…), magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium, lithium, sodium, potassium, indium, thallium, tin, lead, antimony and bismuth ([0015]); B is selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Os, Rh, Ti, Sn, Ge, Mn, Ta, Nb, Mo, W, Zr and Pb; B’ is absent or is selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Os, Rh, Ca, Mg, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Ge, Ta, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, or RE ([0016]). See also at (Abstract and claim 21). Therefore, Ball renders obvious a pyrochlore oxide further contains sodium.
While Ball includes elements Bi and sodium as potential candidates being selected for the AA’-sites, and elements Ru and Mn as potential candidate being selected for the BB’-sites, Ball does not specifically indicate the oxygen catalyst comprising bismuth located at AA’sites and ruthenium at B-sites, and containing manganese as well as the bismuth and the ruthenium. However, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select sodium or bismuth for the A or A’ site, Ru and Mn on the B or B’ site, from the finite list of elements for both A(A’) and B(B’) sites respectively, and expect to achieve a pyrochlore structure when a is 1.33 to 3, b is 2 and c is 3 to 10, preferably 6 to 7, as taught by Ball.
Alternatively, Unoki teaches a similar demand to develop an air secondary battery that is unlikely to be subjected to decrease in the discharge capacity than before and has a stable discharge capacity, even when charging and discharging are repeated ([0012]); and a method of producing a pyrochlore-type structure bismuth-ruthenium oxide with bismuth located at A-sites and ruthenium at B-sites represented by a general formula: A2-xB2-yO7-z ([0023] and [0024]), which has binary catalytic activity of oxygen generation and oxygen reduction ([0053] and Example 1, [0078]), accommodating the electrode group along with an alkali electrolyte solution ([0020]).
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select bismuth from a finite list of choices for the A-site and select ruthenium from a finite list of choices for the B-site of the pyrochlore-type structured metal oxide oxygen catalyst of Ball, as taught by Unoki, in order to achieve a stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, Koga teaches the same desire of developing pyrochlore-type oxides for air electrode in secondary cells (Title) with an alkaline solution, and examines the effects of substitution with manganese in the B site of Bi2Ir2O7-z catalyst to reduce the over potential and the cost of the electrode (Introduction, P101). Koga further teaches the electrode with Bi2Ir2O7-z catalyst could reduce the overpotential for the oxygen reduction by substituting with manganese for the B site of Bi2Ir2O7-z catalyst, Bi2Ir2-yMnyO7-z (y=0.3 of FIG. 1 on P102), which reads on “a structure of a pyrochlore oxide” as claimed, with the overpotential for the oxygen reduction reduced at the high current densities (Abstract, FIGs. 5 and 6, P101-102). A skilled artisan would have found it even more obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further choose Mn from the finite list of choices for B group of modified Ball, as taught by Koga, in order to reduce the overpotential for the oxygen reduction and lower the cost of the electrode, thus arrive at the claimed “the oxygen catalyst comprising a structure of a pyrochlore oxide with bismuth located at A-sites and ruthenium at B-sites, and containing manganese as well as the bismuth and the ruthenium”, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Ball has disclosed sodium could be selected on the A and A’ sites of the (AA’)a(BB’)2Oc pyrochlore oxide ([0015]), rendering obvious the claimed “wherein the pyrochlore oxide further contains sodium”.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball further discloses the atomic ratio of a:b is from 1:1.5 to 1.5:1 (Abstract), which translates to sodium is 20 atom% or more in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium, being out of the claimed range of “less than 15 atom% of sodium in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium”.
However, Unoki further teaches a catalyst synthesis of Example 1 ([0078]) with elements detected with the composition analysis shown in Table 1 ([0107]), in which the sodium element is 4.72 atom% in an atomic ratio of all elements that are oxygen, ruthenium, bismuth, and sodium (Table 1, [0107]), which translates to the sodium element is 11.3 atom% in an atomic ratio of all three metal elements in the metal oxide pyrochlore structure that are bismuth, ruthenium, and sodium. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the same amount of sodium 4.72 atom% for one of the A sites element as taught by Unoki in Example 1, maintaining the amount of Ru (20.26 atom%) for the B sites two elements, namely, ruthenium and manganese, in preparing the oxygen catalyst of modified Ball, and thus arrive at a sodium element of 11.3 atom% in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success that this composition would offer the property of stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrive at a sodium element atomic ratio value that is within the claimed range of “less than 15 atom% in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium” (claim 13); or “11 atoms% to 14 atom% in the atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium” (claim 14), as taught by Unoki, in order to achieve a stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball discloses the pyrochlore oxide B is selected from the group consisting of manganese along with other elements ([0016] Abstract and claim 21). Thus, the claimed limitation “the manganese is located at the B sites” is met.
Regarding claims 18-20, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Ball discloses a problem with current lithium-air batteries is that such cells exhibit large overvoltages ([0010]), and the overpotential for the oxygen reduction reduced at high current densities by substituting with manganese for the B site of Bi2Ir2O7-z catalyst (Koga Abstract, P101), modified Ball does not explicitly disclose the manganese is 15 atom% or less in an atomic ratio of three elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, and the manganese.
However, Koga further teaches a formula Bi2Ir1.7Mn0.3O7-z, which translates to manganese is 7.5 atom% in an atomic ratio of three elements of Bi, Ir and Mn. Since modified Ball has rendered obvious the B sites have Ru and Mn, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to adjust the amount of Mn on the B sites as taught by Koga, thus arrive at a vale for the manganese that is within the range of 15 atom% or less as claimed, with a reasonable expectation that this amount of manganese would make a successful oxygen catalyst with a reduced overpotential for the oxygen reduction and a lower cost for the electrode.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrive at a manganese content that is within the claimed range of “the manganese is 15 atom% or less in an atomic ratio of three elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, and the manganese”, as taught by Koga, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a reduced overpotential for the oxygen reduction and a lower cost for the electrode.
Regarding claims 21-24, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball has rendered obvious that the manganese is located at the B sites, which inherently means the manganese is cations having a valence of +4. Thus, the claimed limitation “the manganese is cation having a valence of +4” is met.
Regarding claims 25-28, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball discloses that c is 6 to 7 ([0048]), which inherently reads on the claimed limitation “wherein the pyrochlore oxide is of an oxygen-deficient type” because c is less than 7.
4. Claims 11, 13-15 and 17-28 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 20150228984 A1) in view of Unoki (US20210043945 A1-Priority to 3/30/2018), further in view of Kuwano (JP 2009272231, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 11, Ball discloses an air breathing cathode for use in a metal-air battery includes a metal oxide of formula (AA’)a(BB’)bOc ([0011]); and the metal oxides assist in catalysing the recharging of the metal-air battery and may also assist in the discharge of the metal-air battery ([0049]), which inherently reads on the claimed “an oxygen catalyst”. Ball also discloses the electrolyte is an aqueous liquid, for example, aqueous lithium hydroxide, ([0066]). Thus the claimed limitation “an oxygen catalyst that uses an alkaline aqueous solution as an electrolyte” is met.
Ball discloses a problem with current lithium-air batteries is that such cells exhibit large overvoltages, i.e. the voltage required to recharge the battery is considerably higher than the voltage required to discharge the battery and this results in a low cycle energy efficiency of around 60-70%; for a viable battery, a cycle energy efficiency of over 90% is desirable ([0010]); and the metal oxide having a pyrochlore-type structure (Examiner-added emphasis) when a is 1.33 to 3, b is 2 and c is 3 to 10, preferably 6 to 7 ([0030]) and wherein A and A’ are the same or different and are selected from the group consisting of RE (…), magnesium, calcium, strontium, barium, lithium, sodium, potassium, indium, thallium, tin, lead, antimony and bismuth; B is selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Os, Rh, Ti, Sn, Ge, Mn, Ta, Nb, Mo, W, Zr and Pb; B’ is absent or is selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Os, Rh, Ca, Mg, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Ge, Ta, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, or RE ([0015-0017], Abstract and claim 21). Therefore, Ball renders obvious a pyrochlore oxide further contains sodium.
While Ball includes elements Bi and sodium as potential candidates being selected for the AA’-sites, and elements Ru and Mn as potential candidate being selected for the BB’-sites, Ball does not specifically indicate the oxygen catalyst comprising bismuth located at AA’sites and ruthenium at B-sites, and containing manganese as well as the bismuth and the ruthenium. However, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select sodium or bismuth for the A or A’ site, Ru and Mn on the B or B’ site, from the finite list of elements for both A(A’) and B(B’) sites respectively, and expect to achieve a pyrochlore structure when a is 1.33 to 3, b is 2 and c is 3 to 10, preferably 6 to 7, as taught by Ball.
Alternatively, Unoki teaches a similar demand to develop an air secondary battery that is unlikely to be subjected to decrease in the discharge capacity than before and has a stable discharge capacity, even when charging and discharging are repeated ([0012]); and a method of producing a pyrochlore-type structure bismuth-ruthenium oxide with bismuth located at A-sites and ruthenium at B-sites represented by a general formula: A2-xB2-yO7-z ([0023] and [0024]), which has binary catalytic activity of oxygen generation and oxygen reduction ([0053] and Example 1, [0078]), accommodating the electrode group along with an alkali electrolyte solution ([0020]). .
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select bismuth from a finite list of choices for the A-site and select ruthenium from a finite list of choices for the B-site of the pyrochlore-type structured metal oxide oxygen catalyst of Ball, as taught by Unoki, in order to achieve a stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, Kuwano teaches an alkaline direct alcohol fuel cell utilizing a cathode catalyst and a metal oxide ([0001]) in which the A-site ion and B-site ion in a pyrochlore-type metal oxide may be partially substituted with one or more types of metal ions, exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity ([0008]), represented by the general formula A2B2O7-δ (where δ is a number greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1, determined by the atomic states of A and B), wherein the A-site ions and the metal ions which may partially substituted therefor are at least one selected from the group consisting of La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Pb, Bi, Mn, and Y, the B-site ions are at least one selected from the group consisting of Ru, Zr, Sn, Hf, Ti, Ta, Nb, V, Sb, and Ir, and the metal ions which may substitute for the B-site ions are at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Ru ([0009]). Kuwano further teaches a formula Nd2Ru1.9Mn0.1O7-δ confirmed having a pyrochlore structure ([0065]). A skilled artisan would have found it even more obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to partially substitute the Ru on the B-site of the oxygen catalyst of modified Ball with Mn as taught by Kuwano, in order to achieve a pyrochlore-type metal oxide exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity, and thus arrive at the claimed “the oxygen catalyst comprising bismuth located at A-sites and ruthenium at B-sites, and containing manganese as well as the bismuth and the ruthenium.”
Modified Ball has disclosed sodium could be selected on the A and A’ of the (AA’)a(BB’)2Oc pyrochlore oxide ([0015]), rendering obvious the claimed “wherein the pyrochlore oxide further contains sodium”.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball further discloses the atomic ratio of a:b is from 1:1.5 to 1.5:1 (Abstract), which translates to sodium is 20 atom% or more in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium, being out of the claimed range of “less than 15 atom% of sodium in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium”.
However, Unoki further teaches a catalyst synthesis of Example 1 ([0078]) with elements detected with the composition analysis shown in Table 1 ([0107]), in which the sodium element is 4.72 atom% in an atomic ratio of all elements that are oxygen, ruthenium, bismuth, and sodium (Table 1, [0107]), which translates to the sodium element is 11.3 atom% in an atomic ratio of all three metal elements in the metal oxide pyrochlore structure that are bismuth, ruthenium, and sodium. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the same amount of sodium 4.72 atom% for one of the A sites element as taught by Unoki in Example 1, maintaining the amount of Ru (20.26 atom%) for the B sites two elements, namely, ruthenium and manganese, in preparing the oxygen catalyst of modified Ball, and thus arrive at a sodium element of 11.3 atom% in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success that this composition would offer the property of stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrive at a sodium element atomic ratio value that is within the claimed range of “less than 15 atom% in an atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium” (claim 13); or “11 atoms% to 14 atom% in the atomic ratio of four elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, the manganese, and the sodium” (claim 14), as taught by Unoki, in order to achieve a stable discharge capacity even when charging and discharging are repeated without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball discloses the pyrochlore oxide B is selected from the group consisting of manganese along with other elements (Abstract and claim 21). Thus, the claimed limitation “the manganese is located at the B sites” is met.
Regarding claims 18-20, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Ball discloses a problem with current lithium-air batteries is that such cells exhibit large overvoltages ([0010]), modified Ball does not explicitly disclose the manganese is 15 atom% or less in an atomic ratio of three elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, and the manganese.
Kuwano teaches a formula Nd2Ru1.9Mn0.1O7-δ confirmed having a pyrochlore structure ([0065]), which translates to manganese is 2.5 atom% in an atomic ratio of three elements of Nd, Ru and Mn. Since modified Ball has rendered obvious the B sites have Ru and Mn, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to adjust the amount of Mn on the B sites as taught by Kuwano, thus arrive at a value for the manganese that is within the range of 15 atom% or less as claimed, with a reasonable expectation that this amount of manganese would make a successful oxygen catalyst exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrive at a manganese content that is within the claimed range of “the manganese is 15 atom% or less in an atomic ratio of three elements that are the bismuth, the ruthenium, and the manganese”, as taught by Kuwano, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a pyrochlore structured oxygen catalyst exhibiting high oxygen reduction activity.
Regarding claims 21-24, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball has rendered obvious that the manganese is located at the B sites, which inherently means the manganese is cations having a valence of +4. Thus, the claimed limitation “the manganese is cation having a valence of +4” is met.
Regarding claims 25-28, modified Ball discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ball discloses that c is 6 to 7 ([0048]), which inherently reads on the claimed limitation “wherein the pyrochlore oxide is of an oxygen-deficient type” because c is less than 7.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/22/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/29/2026