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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 14, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received April 17, 2023 are acceptable.
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 3-7 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.
The term “sheet-like” in claims 3 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sheet-like” 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. It is unclear what form must be achieved to constitute “sheet-like”, thus the claim ins unclear and indefinite.
The term “bipolar type” in claim s 4, 6, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bipolar type” 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. It is unclear what bipolar type means regarding the stack structure (i.e. is the cell bipolar (meaning only two poles or necessary)?; does the cell require a bipolar electrode?), rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0130539 (Van Burdine).
As to claim 1, Van Burdine teaches an iron-zinc battery comprising:
a positive electrode containing iron oxyhydroxide (FeOOH) (para 0024);
a negative electrode containing zinc (para 0024); and
an electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (electrolyte present to provide the claimed relationship) (para 0023; 0036; fig. 1).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Burdine, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2013/0216901 (Ortega et al.) as evidenced by US 2019/0051892 (Yushin et al.).
As to claim 2, Van Burdine’s structure is a flow battery, thus Van Burdine does not teach (a) the structure of an alkaline battery, (b) specifically one with an electrolyte having an aqueous electrolytic solution with a pH of 5.8 or more and 8.6.
With respect to (a): Ortega et al. teach of a similar electrochemical system, including iron oxides in the cathode (para 0067, 0088) and a zinc anode (para 0072) in an alkaline system having an aqueous electrolytic solvent between the anode and the cathode (para 0049, 0051, 0186, 0218; fig. 1). The substitution for the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Yushin et al. is relied upon to show that alkaline battery electrolytes have a pH greater than 7 (overlaps claimed range) (para 0037). (Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).)
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Burdine, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ortega et al., US 2017/027162 (Matsuno et al.), and US 2017/0373283 (Keates).
As to claim 3, Van Burdine’s structure is a flow battery, thus Van Burdine does not teach (a) the structure of an alkaline battery, (b) the positive and the negative electrode are applied to a sheet-like current collector, wherein (c) the current collector contains at least one selected from the group consisting of copper, iron, and carbon.
With respect to (a): Ortega et al. teach of a similar electrochemical system, including iron oxides in the cathode (para 0067, 0088) and a zinc anode (para 0072) in an alkaline system having an aqueous electrolytic solvent between the anode and the cathode (para 0049, 0051, 0186, 0218; fig. 1). The substitution for the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). It is noted that Ortega’s alkaline battery includes the use of current collectors in conjunction with active materials (para 0112).
With respect to (b): Matsuno et al. teach of having a battery in a bipolar structure (para 0105). The motivation for having a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell (para 0105). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell. (Note: A bipolar structure regarding an electrode is a cathode/current collector/anode structure as alluded to by Matsuno et al. (multiple electrode units in series easily produced in a cell). This is the understood structure of a bipolar electrode, as can also be seen in fig. 3A of the instant application.)
With respect to (c): Keates et al. teach an alkaline battery (para 0030). Current collecting materials include copper and graphite (carbon) (para 0026). The substitution one collector (such as copper or graphite) for another (undisclosed) would yield the predictable result of acting as a current collector, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one collector (such as copper or graphite) for another (undisclosed), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a current collector, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 4, Van Burdine’s structure is a flow battery, thus Van Burdine does not teach (a) the structure of an alkaline battery, (b) such that the battery has a bipolar type structure exists.
With respect to (a): Ortega et al. teach of a similar electrochemical system, including iron oxides in the cathode (para 0067, 0088) and a zinc anode (para 0072) in an alkaline system having an aqueous electrolytic solvent between the anode and the cathode (para 0049, 0051, 0186, 0218; fig. 1). The substitution for the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute the structure of the cell, one that has the structure of an alkaline cell using an aqueous electrolyte between an anode and cathode, for another (that of a flow battery) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cell, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). It is noted that Ortega’s alkaline battery includes the use of current collectors in conjunction with active materials (para 0112).
With respect to (b): Matsuno et al. teach of having a battery in a bipolar structure (para 0105). The motivation for having a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell (para 0105). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell.
As to claim 7, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Matsuno et al. renders obvious having a bipolar structure (para 0105). See the rejection to claim 3 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Burdine, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ortega et al. as evidenced by Yushin et al., as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Matsuno et al. and Keates.
As to claim 5, it is noted that Ortega’s alkaline battery includes the use of current collectors in conjunction with active materials (para 0112) (see the rejection of claim 2 for full details of the combination therein). The combination does not teach (a) the positive and the negative electrode are applied to a sheet-like current collector, wherein (b) the current collector contains at least one selected from the group consisting of copper, iron, and carbon.
With respect to (b): Matsuno et al. teach of having a battery in a bipolar structure (para 0105). The motivation for having a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell (para 0105). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell. (Note: A bipolar structure regarding an electrode is a cathode/current collector/anode structure as alluded to by Matsuno et al. (multiple electrode units in series easily produced in a cell). This is the understood structure of a bipolar electrode, as can also be seen in fig. 3A of the instant application.)
With respect to (c): Keates et al. teach an alkaline battery (para 0030). Current collecting materials include copper and graphite (carbon) (para 0026). The substitution one collector (such as copper or graphite) for another (undisclosed) would yield the predictable result of acting as a current collector, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one collector (such as copper or graphite) for another (undisclosed), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a current collector, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Burdine, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ortega et al. as evidenced by Yushin et al., as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Matsuno et al.
As to claim 6, Van Burdine in view of Ortega et al. as evidenced by Yushin et al. does not teach the battery has a bipolar type structure.
However, Matsuno et al. teach of having a battery in a bipolar structure (para 0105). The motivation for having a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell (para 0105). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a cell in a bipolar structure is that plural electrode units connected in series can be produced with a single cell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6066636 (Licht) teaches an iron-based battery (col. 2, lines 15-38), where zinc can be used as the anode (col. 3, lines 26-33).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759