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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed August 15, 2023 is acknowledged. Action on the merits of claims 1-8 follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 13, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received August 15, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Fig. 2 relates as a typical lithium ion battery (para. [0031]) which is used for comparative purposes to the invention (such as in Fig. 1). Therefore, Fig. 2 should be labeled as prior art.
Specification
The specification received August 15, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “opposite objection” (pages 3 and 5) is objected to as the phrase appears to use the term “objection” in a manner inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. The accepted meaning of “objection” is “a reason or argument presented in opposition; feeling or expression of disapproval; statement of opposition” (OBJECTION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, cited of record). The term appears to define copper ions migrating from the negative electrode to the positive electrode. Applicant is advised to replace the phrase “along opposite objection” in the specification with “from the negative electrode to the positive electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “that is characterized to adapt” which uncommon language in US patent claim practice. While characterized is more commonly used in foreign counterparts, the use of such, much less the use of such written as “characterized to adapt” may be better presented as “comprising:”. Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 2-8 are objected to for at least this reason;
Claim 1 recites adopt and adopting within the claims. Adopt/adopting is more readily understood to mean chosen and taken into use such as a decision or processing step to adopt something (akin to a decision/state-change requirement). It may be that the terms should be removed from the claim to overcome this objection. This also applies to claims 3 and 6 which also recite “adopting an area” as each of the electrodes, and use of the term adopting may not be the best form for this limitation as noted above and should be deleted from claims 3 and 6; Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 2-8 are objected to for at least this reason.
Claim 1 sets forth a plurality of elements which would be in better form as set forth in MPEP § 608.01(m) which states, in part, “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.” Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy the objection to claim 1, thus objected for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
A suggested form of part of claim 1 below may sufficiently overcome the various objections above.
A secondary battery comprising:
copper as active material forming a positive electrode;
aluminum as active material forming a negative electrode, and
a non-aqueous electrolytic solution as an electrolyte, …
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 1-8 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The phrase “along opposite objection” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean copper ions migrating “from the negative electrode to the positive electrode” during discharging, while the accepted meaning of “objection” is “a reason or argument presented in opposition; feeling or expression of disapproval; statement of opposition”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant is advised to replace the phrase “along opposite objection” in the claim with “from the negative electrode to the positive electrode”. Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 2-8 are rejected for at least this reason.
A comprehensive suggestion for claim 1 which could overcome the objections and 112 rejection above follows:
A secondary battery comprising:
copper as active material forming a positive electrode;
aluminum as active material forming a negative electrode, and
a non-aqueous electrolytic solution as an electrolyte,
wherein copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate from the positive electrode to the negative electrode during charging, and copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate from the negative electrode to the positive electrode during discharging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome objections and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, appear to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the secondary battery of at least claim 1 comprising copper as active material forming a positive electrode; aluminum as active material forming a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolytic solution as an electrolyte, wherein copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate from the positive electrode to the negative electrode during charging, and copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate along opposite objection during discharging.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356731 discloses a secondary battery 7 comprising a copper positive electrode 5 comprising metallic copper and aluminum at the negative electrode 1 along with an electrolyte. However, this reference uses two electrolytes where ion exchange occurs in each electrolyte and aluminum ions migrate across the membrane separating the two electrolyte solutions. During charging, copper ions from the positive electrode exchange with Al(NO3)3 in the electrolyte to generate Cu(NO3)2 and Al3+ where the aluminum ions only transmit through to the negative electrode side electrolytic solution to precipitate aluminum onto the surface of the negative electrode rather than copper. In addition, during discharge, aluminum from the negative electrode migrates to the positive electrode side electrolytic solution, subjected to the reverse ion exchange reaction where Al3+ exchanges with Cu(NO3)2 in the positive electrolyte solution to form Cu2+ and Al(NO3)3 to precipitate copper onto the surface of the positive electrode (paras. [0023]-[0024] and First Embodiment; paras. [0051]-[0056]).
A key distinction between claim 1 and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356731 is the ion mechanism. In the case of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356731 the ion migration across the membrane is an aluminum ion migration. This reference neither teaches nor suggests a non-aqueous electrolytic solution as an electrolyte, wherein copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate from the positive electrode to the negative electrode during charging, and copper ions (Cu²⁺) migrate along opposite objection during discharging as required by claim 1 (copper ion migration). None of the remaining cited prior art of record, remedy the differences between U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356731 and claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-8 appear to present allowable subject matter for at least those reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blanc et al. (“Galvanic coupling between copper and aluminium in a thin-layer cell”) teaches of electrochemical plating of copper to aluminum via an aqueous electrolyte. Tan et al. “A high‑performance Cu–Al dual‑ion battery realized by high‑concentration Cl− electrolyte and CuS cathode” discloses a copper ion rechargeable electrochemical device (dual ion system) which permits copper ion mobility but requires the use of an aqueous electrolyte.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725