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 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “being” in Line 2 of Claim 1 is an unclear term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner whether “being” is inclusive such as “comprising” or closed, such as “consisting of” (see MPEP 2111.03). For the purpose of this office action “being” has been interpreted as meaning “comprising” as evidenced by the use of “comprises” the positive electrode active material layer in the instant application (see [0024-25]).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-5 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite Claim 1, as they include all the limitations of Claim 1 and as they do not resolve the issues identified in the rejection set forth above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, the phrase "a positive electrode active material" in Lines 1-2 of Claim 3 and Line 1 of Claim 5 is an unclear term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner whether “a positive electrode active material” is the same or different as “the positive electrode active material” recited in Claims 1 and 2, respectively. The examiner suggests replacing “a positive electrode active material” with “the positive electrode active material”.
Additionally, dependent Claim 4 is rejected as a result of its dependence on indefinite Claim 3, as it includes all the limitations of Claim 3 and as it does not resolve the issues identified in the rejection set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP-2017084506A; see machine translation used for citation purposes) in view of Hu (CN-113659135A; see machine translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses a positive electrode active material for a fluoride ion battery (see Hiroyuki [0011]/L1-11). Hiroyuki further discloses that the positive electrode active material contains, among other metals, iron and sulfur (see Hiroyuki [0011]/L1-11).
Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that the positive active material is iron sulfide.
Hu teaches a battery where the positive active material is iron sulfide as it has a high specific capacity and energy density (see Hu P3, 12th paragraph) as well as excellent cycle characteristics, large reversible capacity, high safety and low maintenance costs (see Hu P4, 10th paragraph).
Hiroyuki and Hu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving the reversible capabilities of secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize iron and sulfur as materials in a positive electrode active material for a fluorine ion battery, as disclosed by Hiroyuki, and to specifically utilize iron sulfide, as taught by Hu, in order to have a positive active material with a high specific capacity and energy density as well as excellent cycle characteristics, large reversible capacity, high safety and low maintenance costs. Wherein Hiroyuki discloses that the positive electrode active material for the fluoride ion battery contains, among other metals, iron and sulfur, and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of successfully using iron sulfide to form the positive electrode active material for the fluoride ion battery of Hiroyuki.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Hiroyuki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hu further discloses that the iron sulfide is iron (II) sulfide or iron disulfide (see Hu P3, 12th paragraph and P4, 10th paragraph).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, modified Hiroyuki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hiroyuki further discloses a fluoride ion battery (see Hiroyuki [0010]) comprising a positive electrode active material (see Hu P3, 12th paragraph and P4, 10th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hiroyuki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hiroyuki further discloses a fluoride ion battery comprising a positive electrode layer (see Hiroyuki [0010]) comprising the positive electrode active material (see Hu P3, 12th paragraph and P4, 10th paragraph), an electrolyte layer (“ion conducting media”, see Hiroyuki [0010]) and a negative electrode layer (see Hiroyuki, [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENNAN M STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-2134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/B.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725