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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8 and 11-14, in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 and 15-17 have been cancelled by the Applicant, and thereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected fuel cell product and methods of manufacture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “piezoelectric anode comprising metal oxide nanoparticles deposited over zero-dimensional (OD) material modified silica, a composite comprising carbon nanofibers and a zero-dimensional (OD) material, and an anode electro catalyst composition comprising alkali metal halide nanoparticles (NPs) and a polysaccharide” and “piezoelectric cathode comprising metal-impregnated cellulose modified silica and a cathode electrocatalyst composition comprising calcium peroxide polymer(s)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Moreover, the “anode” and “cathode” are not given reference numerals in the specification, nor in the drawing figures. Reference numerals for the “anode” and “cathode” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “A piezoelectric anode comprising metal oxide nanoparticles… and an anode electro catalyst composition…” (emphasis added). There should be a colon “:” mark after “comprising” to denote where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. Further, “electro catalyst” should be a single word, as it is presented in claim 11.
Claim 7: “The piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, comprises reduced fullerene modified silica” (emphasis added). The wording of this claim implies that all of the limitations which follow “comprises” are intended to replace all of the limitations of claim 1. This is likely not the intent, and the claim should instead disclose: “The piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, which further comprises reduced fullerene modified silica”.
Claim 11: “i. a piezoelectric anode as claimed in any one of claim 1; and ii. a piezoelectric cathode comprising…” (emphasis added). The lowercase roman numerals (“i.” and “ii.”) are confusing and unnecessary, as the proper use of commas and semicolons denotes distinct limitations. Further, the term “in any one of” does not logically follow and should be removed. The claim should instead disclose: “ the piezoelectric anode of claim 1; and [[ii.]] a piezoelectric cathode comprising…”.
Claim 12: “the unitized regenerative fuel cell is air breathing regenerative fuel cell” (emphasis added). The word “an” is missing and the claim should recite: “the unitized regenerative fuel cell is an air breathing regenerative fuel cell”.
Appropriate correction for each of the above noted informalities is required.
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.
Claims 5, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 discloses “the composite comprises carbon nanofibers and zero-dimensional (OD) material in a ratio of about 1:1. ” (lines 1-2; emphasis added). There is no industry standard for, nor is there any further explanation in the original disclosure of what is or is not considered to fall within the realm of being “a ratio of about 1:1”. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection is proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is proper. See MPEP 2173.05(b): Relative Terminology. The Applicant has provided a purported definition of what is intended by the word “about”; however, this “definition” amounts to nothing more than indicating that “about” means “about” and is entirely subjectively defined.
From the instant specification:
“[0017] Certain ranges are presented herein with numerical values being preceded by the term "about." The term "about" is used herein to provide literal support for the exact number that it precedes, as well as a number that is near to or approximately the number that the term precedes. In determining whether a number is near to or approximately a specifically recited number, the near or approximating unrecited number may be a number which, in the context in which it is presented, provides the substantial equivalent of the specifically recited number.”
This disclosure does not in any way clarify what would or would not be “about 1:1”. The reader is left to ask: is 1:2 or 1:1.75 or 1:1.5 or 1:1.25 or 2:1 or 1.75:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.25:1 or any other ratio considered to be “about 1:1”? The claim and specification provide no answers. It is true that 2:1 or 1:2 is a ratio of one component being double the other; however, if other ratios are 95:1 or 1:200, then subjectively 2:1 is comparatively “about 1:1”. The Applicant is encouraged to decide what the actual ratios are, and to claim as much.
Claim 7 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “a composite comprising carbon nanofibers and carbon dots in a ratio of about 1:1” (lines 2-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 12 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The unitized regenerative fuel cell as claimed in claim 11, wherein the unitized regenerative fuel cell is [an] air breathing regenerative fuel cell” (lines 1-2; emphasis added). This language is indefinite, because (as noted below), the preamble of claim 11 breathes no life and meaning into the claim as there is no nexus of connection between the preamble and the structures of the body of claim 11. As such, it is not clear how claim 12 would actually provide any limitations to the product of claim 11. Further, even if the product of claim 11 were disclosed in a manner that made it clear what structures were intended to comprise the “unitized regenerative fuel cell”, claim 12 would remain indefinite because there is no way to know or even guess what structures would be necessary to enable the intended functionality of the product as being “[an] air breathing regenerative fuel cell”.
Claim 13 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The unitized regenerative fuel cell as claimed in claim 11, wherein when hygroscopic fluorescence electrocatalyst adsorbs moisture, a strain is developed between the anode and the cathode thereby producing an electricity which splits the moisture into H2 and 02” (lines 1-4; emphasis added). The claims are not drawn to a method of using the product. As such, there is nothing in this claim which defines the structures of the claimed product in any discernable or understandable manner. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “hygroscopic fluorescence electrocatalyst”, which has not been disclosed in any of the prior claims upon which claim 11 depends. This problem is compounded by the fact that claim 1 discloses an “electro catalyst” and claim 11 discloses an “electrocatalyst” and the reader cannot possibly guess which catalyst is intended to be further defined in claim 13. Accordingly, the scope or metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 14 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The unitized regenerative fuel cell as claimed in claim 11, wherein the calcium peroxide polymer(s) coated on the cathode release and store oxygen in presence of moisture” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the calcium peroxide polymer(s) coated on the cathode”, as there is nothing previous which discloses that any polymer is coated on the cathode. Further, the prior recitation of calcium peroxide discloses that it is a component part of the cathode and therefore cannot possibly be coated on the cathode. Further still, the “release and store oxygen” language is indefinite for the same reason as claim 12, because the claim is not directed to a method and it is impossible to guess how this purported limitation is intended to further limit the product as it does not define the structure of the product in any understandable manner.
NOTE: Claims 5, 7 and 12-14 have each been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (AU 2011289620 A1; a copy of which is concurrently provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a piezoelectric anode comprising metal oxide nanoparticles (TiO2, Al2O3, ITO, tin oxide, ZnO, MgO, etc.) deposited over *zero-dimensional (OD) material (nanostructures, polymer-containing nanoparticles, etc.) modified silica (pars. 0079-0080), a composite comprising carbon nanofibers (carbon nanowires) and a zero-dimensional (OD) material (Ag nanowires, Cu nanowires, etc.) (par. 0081), and an anode electro catalyst composition comprising alkali metal halide nanoparticles (NPs) (KCl) and a polysaccharide (collagen, cellulose, chitin, starch, etc.) (pars. 0079 and 0082).
NOTE: the preamble is not indefinite, however it is not held to breathe life and meaning into the claim and thus does not convey patentable weight. This is because there is nothing in the body of at least claim 1 which expressly discloses or requires any piezoelectric material, or any well-defined structures that would constitute an anode. There is no nexus of connection between the preamble and the body of the claim.
*NOTE (2): The term “zero-dimensional (0D) material” has a commonly understood meaning, and is held to be inclusive of that meaning. Specifically, the term is commonly used to encompass any material which has particles of nano-scale. This interpretation is supported by the very broad recitation and explanation of the term in the instant Specification (par. 0030), which discloses: “[0030] Zero-dimensional (OD) material as described in this disclosure includes, but not limited to, one or more of fullerenes, carbon quantum dots (CQDs), graphene quantum dots (GQDs), inorganic quantum dots (QDs), magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs), noble metal nanoparticles, upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs) and polymer dots (Pdots). In certain embodiments, Zero- dimensional (OD) material is fullerene or carbon dots.” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 2, Young discloses the piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticles comprise titanium oxide, zinc oxide, quartz, zirconia, or any combination thereof (TiO2, ZnO) (par. 0079).
Regarding claim 3, Young discloses the piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the zero-dimensional (OD) material comprises one or more of fullerenes (carbon nanotubes are fullerenes), carbon quantum dots (CQDs), graphene quantum dots (GQDs), inorganic quantum dots (QDs), magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs), noble metal nanoparticles, upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs) and polymer dots (Pdots) (carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, ferromagnetic materials, etc.) (par. 0080).
Regarding claim 4, Young discloses the piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alkali metal halide is an alkali metal chloride (KCl) (par. 0079).
Regarding claim 8, Young discloses the piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the anode electrocatalyst is fluorescent and hygroscopic (pars. 0072, 0076 and 0078-0079). Fluorescence and hygroscopic properties are materials properties. Fluorescence is explicitly disclosed in the cited paragraphs, and KCl is a material which naturally cannot be separated from its materials property of being hygroscopic. The applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that where a prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in structure, claimed properties or functional characteristics are presumed to be inherent, and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, in view of Bodke et al. (CA 3 043 345; a copy of which is concurrently provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, Young discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Young, however, does not explicitly disclose that the composite comprises carbon nanofibers and zero-dimensional (OD) material in a ratio of about 1:1.
Bodke teaches that it is well known to provide a similar piezoelectric anode comprising metal oxide nanoparticles (barium titanate, iron oxide, TiO2, zinc oxide, etc.) deposited over zero-dimensional (OD) material (any other disclosed nanoparticles) (pg. 2, #s “1” and “5”), a composite comprising carbon nanofibers (short carbon fibers or carbon nanotubes) and a zero-dimensional (OD) material (polymers, carbon black spheres, graphene, etc.) (pg. 2, #s “1”, “2” and “5”; pg. 3, # “15”), and an anode electro catalyst composition comprising a polysaccharide (cellulose) (pg. 2, # “5”); wherein the composite comprises carbon nanofibers and zero-dimensional (OD) material in a ratio of about 1:1 (“about 50:50”) (pg. 2, #s “1” and “2”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Young to incorporate the preferred materials ratio of Bodke. POSITA would have realized that any of a large range of desired ratios can be easily and readily selected to achieve the desired bonding strength, permeability, flexibility, piezoelectric properties, or any other well-known property as desired. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special ratio of materials was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old product of Young with the well-known 1:1 ratio of Bodke. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, in view of Han (CN 116979156 A; a translation copy of which is concurrently provided by the Examiner; citations below are from the copy provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 6, Young discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Young, however, does not explicitly disclose that the polysaccharide is alginate.
Han teaches that it is well known to provide a similar piezoelectric anode (Title; Abstract) comprising metal oxide nanoparticles (Li-Ni-Co-Mn-O, ,BaTiO3 etc.) deposited over zero-dimensional (OD) material (ZnO nanoparticles) (pg. 7, par. 7), a composite comprising carbon nanofibers and a zero-dimensional (OD) material (pp. 8-9, pars. 8 and 1), and a polysaccharide (cellulose, sodium alginate, etc.), wherein the polysaccharide is alginate (pg. 9, par. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Young to incorporate the preferred polysaccharide material being alginate of Han, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. POSITA would have realized that alginate is inexpensive and readily available can be easily employed in place of the numerous polysaccharides disclosed by Young to achieve the desired anode capabilities and reduced environmental impact. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special alginate material was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old product of Young with the well-known polysaccharide alginate material choice of Han. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose alone, nor reasonably teach in combination all of the limitations of claim 1 in conjunction with claim 7. The prior art does not teach that the anode further comprises reduced fullerene modified silica, nanoparticles of TiO2 and ZnO2, a composite comprising carbon nanofibers and carbon dots in a ratio of about 1:1, and an anode electro catalyst composition comprising NaCl nanoparticles and alginate.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose alone, nor reasonably teach in combination all of the limitations of claim 1 in conjunction with claim 11. The prior art does not teach a unitized regenerative fuel cell comprising: the piezoelectric anode as claimed in claim 1; and [[ii.]] a piezoelectric cathode comprising metal-impregnated cellulose modified silica and a cathode electrocatalyst composition comprising calcium peroxide polymer(s).
NOTE: the preamble of claim 11 is not indefinite, however it is not held to breathe life and meaning into the claim and thus does not convey patentable weight. This is because there is nothing in the body of at least claim 11 which expressly discloses or requires any structures which can be clearly connected to a unitized regenerative fuel cell or found to define a unitized regenerative fuel cell. There is no nexus of connection between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Tanimoto et al. (WO 2013183594 A1) is held to disclose most/all of the limitations of at least claim 1. The Tanimoto reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729