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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received April 13, 2026:
Claim 12, 13 & 17 have been amended. Therefore Claims 1-18 are pending in this office action.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on January 20, 2026.
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.
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) 1-11 & 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. US 2016/0329560 in view of Katsunori et al. WO2012056557.
With respect to claim 1, Young et al. discloses a proton-conducting rechargeable battery [0011] comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode electrochemically active material capable of storing and releasing hydrogen [0006-0012];
an anode, the anode comprising an anode electrochemically active material comprising one or more group 14 elements (SiC), [0018-0026] the anode electrochemically active material is associated by a binder [0034-0036], wherein a microstructure of the anode electrochemically active material is polycrystalline, a mixture of nanocrystalline and amorphous, or a combination of polycrystalline, nanocrystalline and amorphous [0023-0030]; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte in between the anode and the cathode [0006-0007; 0119];
wherein a discharge capacity of the rechargeable battery is above 800 mAh/g of the anode electrochemically active material above 1 Volt. [0123; 0155; 0185]
Young et al. discloses the conductive materials in the negative electrode being in a powder form [0036] and wherein the positive electrode active material is a powder form. [0056]
Young et al. does not disclose wherein the anode electrochemically active material in the powder form
Katsunori et al. discloses a proton-conducting rechargeable battery [abstract] comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode electrochemically active material capable of storing and releasing hydrogen [0043-0053];
an anode, the anode comprising an anode electrochemically active material comprising one or more group 14 elements, [0060-0068] the anode electrochemically active material in the powder form and associated by a binder [0055-0056].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the anode electrochemically active material in Young et al., to be in the powder form, as disclosed in Katsunori et al., in order to make it easier to increase the reaction area, and to produce a high-performance non-aqueous secondary battery.
With respect to claim 2, Young et al. discloses wherein the anode electrochemically active material comprises two or more group 14 elements (silicon with one or more of carbon, germanium and tin). [0026]
With respect to claim 3, Young et al. discloses wherein the anode electrochemically active material comprises Si. [0018-0026]
With respect to claim 4, Young et al. discloses wherein the anode electrochemically active material comprises Si and one or more non-Si group 14 elements (silicon with one or more of carbon, germanium and tin). [0026]
With respect to claim 5, Young et al. discloses wherein the one or more non-Si group 14 elements is C, Ge, or combinations thereof. [0026]
With respect to claim 6, Young et al. discloses wherein the amount of non-Si group 14 elements (Carbon) is 50 atomic percent or less relative (5%-90% for Si1-xCx if X is from 0.01-0.95) to the total group 14 elements in the anode electrochemically active material. [0026]
With respect to claim 7, Young et al. discloses wherein the discharge capacity of the rechargeable battery is above 1000 mAh/g of anode electrochemically active material above 1 Volt vs. Ni(OH)2 cathode. [0183; 0186]
With respect to claim 8, Young et al. discloses wherein the maximum discharge capacity of the rechargeable battery is above 3500 mAh/g of anode electrochemically active material. [0187]
With respect to claim 9, Young et al. discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises one or more aprotic compounds and acid(s) as proton source. [0064]
With respect to claim 10, Young et al. discloses wherein the aprotic compounds comprise 1,2,4-trimethylpyrazolium. [0084;0100]
With respect to claim 11, Young et al. discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises an additive, the additive comprising potassium, acetic acid, or combinations thereof. [0093; 0097; 0101]
With respect to claim 13, Young et al. discloses wherein the anode electrochemically active material further comprises one or more non-group 14 (Carbon) element containing hydrogen storage materials, wherein the non-Si hydrogen storage materials are present at 50 weight percent or less. (5%-90% for Si1-xCx if X is from 0.01-0.95) [0026]
Young et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the anode electrochemically active material further comprises one or more non-group 14 element
Katsunori et al. discloses a proton-conducting rechargeable battery [abstract] comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode electrochemically active material capable of storing and releasing hydrogen [0043-0053];
an anode, the anode comprising an anode electrochemically active material comprising one or more group 14 elements, [0060-0068] the anode electrochemically active material in the powder form and associated by a binder [0055-0056]. wherein the anode electrochemically active material further comprises one or more non-group 14 element containing hydrogen storage materials. [0064-0080]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the anode electrochemically active material in Young et al., to comprise one or more non-group 14 element, as disclosed in Katsunori et al., in order to make it easier to increase the reaction area, and to produce a high-performance non-aqueous secondary battery.
With respect to claim 14, Young et al. discloses wherein the cathode electrochemically active material comprises Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, Lu, Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, a hydride thereof, an oxide thereof, a hydroxide thereof, or an oxyhydroxide thereof. [0057-0060]
With respect to claim 15, Young et al. discloses wherein the cathode electrochemically active material comprises Ni. [0056-0060]
With respect to claim 16, Young et al. discloses wherein the cathode electrochemically active material comprises Ni at greater than or equal to 10 atomic percent relative to all metals in the cathode electrochemically active material. [0056-0060]
With respect to claim 17, Young et al. discloses wherein Ni is present at equal to or greater than 80 atomic percent, in the metallic content of the cathode electrochemically active material. [0056]
With respect to claim 18, Young et al. discloses wherein the cathode electrochemically active material comprises a hydroxide of Ni, Co, Mn, Zn, Al, or combinations thereof. [0056-0060]
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues
Katsunori describes anode electrochemically active material in the powder form. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that such a configuration in which the anode electrochemically active material in the powder form is held together by a binder is inherently more porous and less durable compared to a CVD film, which inherently possesses high durability and structural integrity due to atomic or molecular level bonding.
Given that Young explicitly emphasizes the importance of the durability and
functionality of the SEI layer, it would have been counterintuitive to replace Young's CVD film with Katsunori's powdered configuration because such a modification would compromise the durability that Young seeks to achieve.
At least because the Office Action fails to reconcile how/why the proposed modification would not compromise the durability that Young seeks to achieve and/or explain why the proposed modification would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the
durability that Young seeks to achieve, the Office Action's factual findings and motivation to combine findings are insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness and the rejection should be withdrawn. That is, the rejection is deficient at least because the evidence of record lacks an articulation of any proper motivation for one skilled in the art to specifically modify Young in the manner necessary to arrive at the claimed combination of features. "[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combination or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention." Belden Inc. v. Berk- TekLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Young et al. discloses a proton conducting battery comprising a cathode electrochemically active material capable of storing and releasing hydrogen [0006-0012];
an anode, [0018-0026] the anode electrochemically active material is associated by a binder [0034-0036] and
a non-aqueous electrolyte in between the anode and the cathode [0006-0007; 0119];
Katsunori et al. discloses a proton-conducting rechargeable battery [abstract] comprising: a cathode comprising a cathode electrochemically active material capable of storing and releasing hydrogen [0043-0053];
an anode, the anode comprising an anode electrochemically active material comprising one or more group 14 elements, [0060-0068] the anode electrochemically active material in the powder form and associated by a binder [0055-0056].
Katsunori et al. discloses the use of a fine structure such as powder for a negative electrode active material allowing for the negative electrode active material particles to function effectively [0068-0071]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the anode electrochemically active material in Young et al., to be in the powder form, as disclosed in Katsunori et al., in order to make it easier to increase the reaction area, and to produce a high-performance non-aqueous secondary battery.
Given that Katsunori et al. discloses a proton-conducting rechargeable battery comprising a negative electrode electrochemically active material in the powder form and associated by a binder, which allows for an increase in the reaction area a high-performance non-aqueous secondary battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a negative electrode electrochemically active material in the powder form in a similar proton conducting battery such the battery disclosed in Young et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan et al. US 20180277894
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights