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 .
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.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the oxide includes a monoatomic metal.” Base claim 1 requires that the oxide has a cage-shaped crystal structure. The specification only describes calcium dodeca-oxide aluminum hepta-oxide (12CaO·7Al2O3) as the oxide having cage-shaped crystal structure. Claim 4 further limits claim 3 and recites, “wherein the monoatomic metal contains at least one type of element selected from the group consisting of iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and molybdenum.” However, an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that of all monoatomic metals, manganese is the only metal with a naturally occurring cage-shaped crystal structure, and that iron, zinc, copper and molybdenum do not have a cage-shaped crystal structure. Further, the specification describes that it is a monoatomic metal – not an oxide thereof – which is fixed onto the oxide having the cage-shaped crystal structure [PgPublication – pars. 0090-94]. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 3 requires that the catalyst is a monoatomic metal oxide, in particular, a manganese oxide, having the cage-shaped crystal structure, or whether a monoatomic metal is fixed on the oxide having a cage-shaped crystal structure. For examination purposes, and in light of the instant specification, claim 3 is interpreted to have recited: --wherein the oxide includes a monometallic metal fixed thereon--.
Alternatively, for examination purposes, the subject matter of claim 3 may be recited as: --wherein the oxide includes a monoatomic metal-- in light of the fact that manganese oxide is the sole monoatomic metal with a cage-shaped crystal structure. However, the subject matter of claim 4 raises a 35 USC 112(d) issue for not further limiting the subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected for including the subject matter of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the monoatomic metal contains at least one type of element selected from the group consisting of iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and molybdenum.” In light of the alternative interpretation of claim 3 above in which the monoatomic metal has a cage-shaped structure, iron, zinc, copper and molybdenum do not further limit the subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara 1 (JP2017117524A; see IDS) in view of Nohara 2 (JP2016197498A; see IDS).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Nohara 1 discloses a metal air battery [pars. 0010-12], comprising:
an air electrode containing a conductive material and a catalyst;
a negative electrode containing a metal; and
an electrolyte having ionic conductivity,
wherein the conductive material contains a co-continuous body of a three-dimensional network structure where nanostructure bodies are branched (i.e., co-continuum with a three-dimensional network structure made up of a plurality of nanostructures that are united by non-covalent bonds).
Nohara 1 fails to teach the catalyst contains oxide having a cage-shaped crystal structure. However, Nohara 2 teaches a metal air battery comprising an air electrode containing a conductive material and a catalyst, wherein the catalyst contains oxide having a cage-shaped crystal structure, wherein calcium dodeca-oxide aluminum hepta-oxide (12CaO·7Al2O3) is used as the oxide is used as the oxide in order to provide a battery that operates as a high-capacity secondary battery, has a small voltage difference during charge and discharge, and exhibits little decrease in discharge capacity even after repeated charge and discharge cycles [Nohara 2 – pars. 0008-9]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Nohara 2 to have modified the catalyst of Nohara 1, wherein the catalyst contains oxide having a cage-shaped crystal structure, wherein calcium dodeca-oxide aluminum hepta-oxide (12CaO·7Al2O3) is used as the oxide is used as the oxide in order to provide a battery that operates as a high-capacity secondary battery, has a small voltage difference during charge and discharge, and exhibits little decrease in discharge capacity even after repeated charge and discharge cycles.
Regarding Claim 3, Nohara 1 discloses wherein the oxide includes a monoatomic metal (e.g., manganese oxide as the catalyst wherein manganese has a cage-shaped crystal structure) [par. 0013].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara 2 (JP2016197498A; see IDS) in view of Nohara 1 (JP2017117524A; see IDS).
Regarding Claim 5, Nohara 2 discloses a manufacturing method for an air electrode [Nohara 2 – pars. 0011-12], the method comprising:
performing heat treatment on oxide having a cage-shaped crystal structure under an oxygen atmosphere to increase a concentration of oxygen ion radicals included in the oxide;
performing heat treatment on the oxide with the increased concentration of the oxygen ion radicals under at least one type of atmosphere selected from the group consisting of atmospheres of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, and titanium vapor to increase electrical conductivity of the oxide; and
carrying the oxide with the increased electrical conductivity on a conductive material.
Nohara 2 fails to teach wherein the conductive material contains a co-continuous body of a three-dimensional network structure where nanostructure bodies are branched. However, Nohara 1 teaches a method of manufacturing an air electrode in which a catalyst including a metal oxide such as manganese oxide is carried on a conductive material, wherein the conductive material contains a co-continuous body of a three-dimensional network structure where nanostructure bodies are branched (i.e., co-continuum with a three-dimensional network structure made up of a plurality of nanostructures that are united by non-covalent bonds) in order to improve the charge-discharge cycle performance and energy efficiency of a lithium-air secondary battery, as well as to increase the discharge capacity [Nohara 1 – pars. 0010-13]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Nohara to have modified the conductive material of Nohara 2 to have contained a co-continuous body of a three-dimensional network structure where nanostructure bodies are branched in order to improve the charge-discharge cycle performance and energy efficiency of a lithium-air secondary battery, as well as to increase the discharge capacity.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara 1 and Nohara 2, as applied to claims 1, 2 or 5, respectively, and further in view of Huang (“Framework and Channel Modifications in Mayenite (12CaO·7Al2O3) Nanocages By Cationic Doping”).
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 6-7, modified Nohara fail to disclose, wherein the oxide includes a monoatomic metal. However, Huang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that cationic substitution of monoatomic metals in the oxide including mayenite (12CaO·7Al2O3) enhances electron transport properties of the material useful for applications in oxidation catalysis [Huang – Abstract - Introduction]. Huang further discloses the monoatomic metals may include iron or copper [Huang – Abstract]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the catalyst of Nohara 1 or Nohara 2, respectively, wherein the oxide includes a monoatomic metal including copper or iron in order to enhance electron transport properties of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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 at (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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751