DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 5/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a cathode-active material (Abstract) for a proton-conducting secondary battery (Abstract), the cathode-active material (Abstract) being for use in a proton-conducting secondary battery (Abstract), the cathode-active material (Abstract) comprising a compound (C6/L19-21) that is a solid solution ([0016]) that has a composition containing Mn ([0016]), wherein the cathode active material is a compound having a composition represented by Mn / Li / Ni / Co / O2 ([0016]). Further, with respect to the amounts of Mn and other metals, it is noted that the values disclosed by the reference overlap those of the instant claim. The courts have found it is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the amounts of Mn and other metals at amounts as stated in the instant claim in the cathode active material of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses M is one element selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, Li, and Bi (all stated at [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sugiura et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a proton-conducting secondary battery (Abstract, ref 10) comprising: a cathode (ref 15) with a cathode-active material (Abstract) as set forth above; an anode (ref 14) with an anode active material ([0034]) capable of storing and releasing hydrogen ([0034]); and an aqueous electrolyte (ref 13, [0031]-[0033]) interposing between the cathode (ref 15) and the anode (ref 14)
Regarding claim 14, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte (ref 13) further comprises a salt as a pH buffer ([0033], salts listed), wherein the sale has an acid dissociation constant (pKa) in an aqueous solution of lower than 3 ([0033], salts listed, when in solution have this value).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cathode active material is in a powder or particulate form ([0104]) and comprises a conductive carbon ([0104]).
Claims 4-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 5,455,125).
Regarding claims 4-7, Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the amount of Mn (claims 4-7), various amounts up to 0.95.
Matsumoto et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a secondary battery (Abstract) including a positive electrode comprising a Ni(OH)2 material with a Mn additive (C9/L52-63, C10/L54-59). The Mn additive suppresses electrode oxygen gas evolution and temperature increase, thereby enhancing overall battery capacity and performance (C9/L53-63). As the electrode gas suppression and capacity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of Mn additive (see Matsumoto et al, C9/L53-63), with said electrode gas suppression and capacity both varying as the amount of Mn additive is varied, the precise amount of Mn additive would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of Mn additive cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Mn additive in the active material of Sugiura et al. as taught by Matsumoto et al. to obtain the desired balance between the electrode gas suppression and capacity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses M is Bi ([0016]).
Claims 9-13 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 2016/0141727).
Regarding claims 9-13, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises an ion liquid including 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium acetate and acetic acid.
Young et al. discloses a battery (Abstract) including an electrolyte including 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium acetate and acetic acid ([0215]). This configuration enhances the cycle life and performance of the battery ([0002]).
Sugiura et al. and Young et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium acetate and acetic acid disclosed by Young et al. into the electrolyte of Sugiura et al. to enhance battery cycle life and overall performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hayashida et al. (US 6,200,705).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the anode active material comprises a rare earth magnesium nickel based alloy forming an A2B7 type superlattice structure.
Hayashida et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary battery (C1/L5-6) including a negative active material including a rare earth-magnesium-nickel based alloy of A2B7 lattice form (C4/L25-41, C5/L37-45). This configuration enhances battery capacity and cycle properties (C4/L47-55).
Hayashida et al. and Sugiura et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the negative active material of Suguia et al. to include the alloy disclosed by Hayashida et al. to enhance battery capacity and cycle properties.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0203388).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a teflonized acetylene black binder.
Kim et al. discloses in Figs 1-15, a secondary battery (Abstract)) including a cathode including teflonized acetylene black binder ([0100]). This configuration enhances battery capacity ([0100]).
Kim et al. and Sugiura et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the cathode material of Suguia et al. to include the teflonized acetylene black binder disclosed by Kim et al. to enhance battery capacity.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0049109) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Stevanovic et al. (US 2015/0200395).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sugiura et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the conductive carbon comprises a graphitized coke.
Stevanovic et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a secondary battery (Abstract)) including a cathode including graphitized coke ([0022]). This configuration enhances battery conductivity and performance ([0022]).
Stevanovic et al. and Sugiura et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the cathode material of Suguia et al. to include the graphitized coke disclosed by Stevanovic et al. to enhance battery conductivity and overall performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-19 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights