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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 initially utilizes the phrase “at least one metal anode.” Therefore, and for sake of consistency, (1) the phrase “means for intertization of the anode” should be written as “means for intertization of the at least one metal anode,” (2) the phrase “said at least one anode and said electrolyte” should be written as “said at least one metal anode and said electrolyte,” (3) the phrase “configured for cleaning the anode positioned” should be written as “configured for cleaning the at least one metal anode positioned,” (4) the phrase “surface of said at least one anode, so” should be written as “surface of said at least one metal anode, so,” (5) the phrase “detachment from said at least one anode” should be written as “detachment from said at least one metal anode,” and (6) the phrase “reaction of the anode by resonance” should be written as “reaction of the at least one metal anode by resonance.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “wherein said oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator (5) comprises.” For sake of clarity, the “(5)” in said phrase should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a PSA technology oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator,” but does not explicitly define what “PSA” means in parentheses. For sake of clarity, and in view of the description of “PSA” in the instant specification, it is suggested that the term “PSA” be accompanied with the phrase “pressure swing adsorption.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For sake of consistency (See the aforementioned objections to Claim 11), the phrase “lifting said anode” should be written as “lifting said at least one metal anode.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For sake of consistency (See the aforementioned objections to Claim 11), the phrase “said anode is immersed” should be written as “said at least one metal anode is immersed.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For sake of consistency (See the aforementioned objections to Claim 11), (1) the phrase “said anode is a substantially” should be written as “said at least one metal anode is a substantially,” and (2) the phrase “container with respect to the anode” should be written as “container with respect to the at least one metal anode.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For sake of consistency (See the aforementioned objections to Claim 11), the phrase “said container and said anode” should be written as “said container and said at least one metal anode.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For sake of consistency (See the aforementioned objections to Claim 11), the phrase “said anode is made of” should be written as “said at least one metal anode is made of.” Appropriate correction 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.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the oxygen and nitrogen present in the air." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites that the one or more ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers are, for example, positioned “near” the edge of the container. The term “near” in Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from the edge of the container the transducers may be while still being considered “near” the edge of the container.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the edge." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "piezoelectric ultrasonic transducers" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 11 initially uses the phrase “ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers” instead of “piezoelectric ultrasonic transducers”).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the detachment." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the reaction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the waves." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the individual piezoelectric transducers." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sum." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wave crests." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites that the oxygen inlet nozzle is placed “in proximity” of the cathode. The term “in proximity” in Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from the cathode the oxygen inlet nozzle may be placed while still being considered “in proximity” to the cathode.
Claims 13-14 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said inertization means." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 11 initially used the phrase “means for inertization” instead of “inertization means).
Claims 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said inertization means." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 11 initially used the phrase “means for inertization” instead of “inertization means).
Claims 18-19 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.
Claim 18 recites that the container is “substantially” rectangular in shape. The term “substantially” in Claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 18 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how close to being fully rectangular the container may be (or alternatively, how far away from being fully rectangular the container may be) while still being considered “substantially” rectangular in shape.
Claim 18 recites that the anode is a “substantially” rectangular plate. The term “substantially” in Claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 18 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how close to being a fully rectangular plate the anode may be (or alternatively, how far away from being a fully rectangular plate the anode may be) while still being considered a “substantially” rectangular plate.
Claim 18 recites that the cathode is “substantially” rectangular in shape. The term “substantially” in Claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 18 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how close to being fully rectangular the cathode may be (or alternatively, how far away from being fully rectangular the cathode may be) while still being considered “substantially” rectangular in shape.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the opposite wall." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 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 19 recites that the container is “substantially” cylindrical in shape. The term “substantially” in Claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 19 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how close to being fully cylindrical the container may be (or alternatively, how far away from being fully cylindrical the container may be) while still being considered “substantially” cylindrical in shape.
Claim 19 recites that the cathode has a “substantially” hollow cylindrical shape. The term “substantially” in Claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 19 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how close to a fully hollow cylindrical shape the cathode may be (or alternatively, how far away from a fully rectangular the cathode may be) while still being considered to have a “substantially” hollow cylindrical shape.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the inner wall." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are (emphasis added): (1) “means for intertization of the anode by interposing an inert gas between said at least one anode and said electrolyte when the battery is not in use” in Claim 11, (2) “lifting means with mechanical or hydraulic actuation configured for lifting said from said reaction chamber towards said anti-passivation chamber” in Claim 13, and (3) “pressure means connected to a source of inert gas configured for introducing said inert gas under overpressure inside said reaction chamber” in Claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to Claim 11, as previously described and in specific accordance with Applicant’s Specification, the limitations are interpreted to be in reference to either a lifting means (i.e. a lifting motor connected to a screw, in turn connected to a lifting device) connected to the anode plate which is configured for lifting the anode plate entirely beyond the free surface of the liquid electrolyte ant to house it inside the anti-passivation chamber (See [0073] of Applicant’s own PG Publication), or a pressure means (i.e. .
With respect to Claim 13, as previously described and in specific accordance with Applicant’s Specification, the limitations are interpreted to be in reference to a lifting motor connected to a screw, in turn connected to a lifting device (See [0073] of Applicant’s own PG Publication).
With respect to Claim 15, as previously described and in specific accordance with Applicant’s Specification, the limitations are interpreted to be in reference to one or more nozzles for the introduction of inert gas in overpressure (See [0079] of Applicant’s own PG Publication).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Furthermore,
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 11-20 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.
Regarding Claim 11, claim limitation “means for inertization of the anode by interposing an inert gas between said at least one anode and said electrolyte when the battery is not in use” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as previously described). However, the written description fails to explicitly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification discloses what said means for inertization can comprise (see at least [0073] of Applicant’s own PG Publication), the Specification does not provide an explicit identity and/or definition of said means for inertization.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 13-14 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.
Regarding Claim 13, claim limitation “lifting means with mechanical or hydraulic actuation configured for lifting said from said reaction chamber towards said anti-passivation chamber” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as previously described). However, the written description fails to explicitly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification discloses what said lifting means can comprise (see at least [0073] of Applicant’s own PG Publication), the Specification does not provide an explicit identity and/or definition of said lifting means.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 15-16 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.
Regarding Claim 15, claim limitation “pressure means connected to a source of inert gas configured for introducing said inert gas under overpressure inside said reaction chamber” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as previously described). However, the written description fails to explicitly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification discloses what said pressure means can comprise (see at least [0079] of Applicant’s own PG Publication), the Specification does not provide an explicit identity and/or definition of said pressure means.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0012332).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches a rechargeable metal air battery system (“rechargeable electric energy accumulator”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 3, Lee teaches that the system comprises a metal air cell therein (“metal-air electrochemical cell”) ([0072]). As further illustrated in Figure 3, Lee also teaches that the system comprises an oxygen supplying unit (110), wherein the oxygen supplying unit comprises a purifier (111) that removes moisture and impurities from externally supplied air, and a separator (112) which separates purified air supplied from the purifier into nitrogen and oxygen streams, wherein both of said nitrogen and oxygen streams are supplied to the metal air cell ([0071]).
Furthermore, Claim 11 explicitly recites (emphasis added) “A rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprising a metal-air electrochemical cell, or battery, and…” In other words, Claim 11 explicitly states that the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery. The remaining language of Claim 11 refers to the placement and/or structural attributes of the instantly claimed oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator, container (whose reaction chamber contains the metal anode, cathode, and electrolyte), means for inertization of the anode, and one or more ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers. However, Claim 11 states that (1) said oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator is connected to the “battery,” (2) it is the “battery” that comprises said container (whose reaction chamber contains the metal anode, cathode, and electrolyte), (3) the means for inertization of the anode interpose the inert gas when the “battery” is not in use, and (4) said one or more ultrasonic piezeoelectric transducers are specifically configured to clean the anode and are positioned near the edge of said container and/or on the surface of the anode (wherein, as previously described, it is the “battery” that comprises said container and said anode). In other words, all of the aforementioned structures (i.e. nearly all of the structural limitations recited in Claim 11) are specific to the instantly claimed battery, but not (necessarily) required by the instantly claimed metal-air electrochemical cell.
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein, Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 12 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 13 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 14 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 15 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 16 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 17 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 18 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 19 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 11), the claimed rechargeable electric energy accumulator comprises the claimed metal-air electrochemical cell or the claimed battery.
It is further noted that the limitations of Claim 20 pertain to structure(s) explicitly associated with the claimed “battery” as opposed to the claimed “metal-air electrochemical cell.”
Therefore, and by virtue of disclosing the aforementioned rechargeable metal air battery system comprising a metal air cell therein (See Claim 11), Lee is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 20.
Conclusion
The following prior art references are also of record (but not currently relied upon) as these references are considered especially pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Tzidon et al. (US 2015/0171494) – As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Tzidon discloses a metal air battery (i.e. an aluminum air battery), wherein an anti-passivation system is utilized during battery standby mode wherein electrolyte is pumped out so as to remove the anode from electrolyte. Notably, however, is that Tzidon neither teaches nor suggests anything to do with ultrasonic piezeoelectric transducers or an oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator, or that the anti-passivation system is compatible and/or operable in another rechargeable metal air battery system (e.g. the system of Lee, as previously described).
Liu et al. (CN 111293382, See provided English machine translation) – As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Liu teaches a metal air battery comprising an ultrasonic cleaning system for removing byproducts from the negative electrode of the battery, wherein said cleaning system comprises a sound transducer and an ultrasonic transmitter controller. Notably, however, is that Liu neither teaches nor suggests anything to do with the inertization of an anode or an oxygen and nitrogen separator/concentrator, or that the ultrasonic cleaning system is compatible and/or operable in another rechargeable metal air battery system (e.g. the system of Lee, as previously described).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728