DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 07/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 07/17/2023 and 08/13/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 07/17/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In claim 1 it is not clear what kind of characteristics described by the term “ main”: content Bi in an electrode active material by mass (which one), molar content of Bi (which one), electrochemical characteristics ( power density, how much?).
In claim 5, it is not clear, what is “Bi simple substance”: metallic Bi, Bi based alloy?
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning et. al., Journal of Power Sources 275 (2015) 370-376 (Ning).
Regarding claim 1, Ning discloses a battery (Title) comprising: a first electrode (cathode ) a second electrode (anode) and an electrolyte layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the first electrode comprises a current collector (p. 273, para 2. 3) and an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer (p. 371, left. Col. second para), the active material layer contains Bi as a main component of an active material (Table 1), and when the first electrode is a positive electrode (Table 1), the density of the active material is a density of the active material of the battery in a fully charged state is about 10.5 g/cm3 (Table 1). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the density of the positive electrode active material based on Ning data in order to improve a retention of capacity, columbic efficiency and energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Ning discloses wherein the active material layer contains a Bi simple substance (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, Ning discloses Li3Bi (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Table1).
Alternatively, claims 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et. al. Electrochemistry Communications 16 (2012) 103–106 in view of US 20110311880 to Matsui (Matsui).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Arthur discloses a battery (Title) comprising: a first electrode, a second electrode, wherein the first electrode comprises a current collector (copper foil, para 2.1) and an active material layer (Bi-film, para 3.1 ), the active material layer contains Bi as a main component of an active material (Bi-film, para 3.1). Since anode active material is metallic Bi, the density of the anode active material in fully discharged state is 9.8 g/cm3 (re claim 2, see supplemental material provided). Arthur does not expressly dispose an electrolyte layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and wherein an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer.
Matsui teaches a Mg- battery comprising an anode active material disposed on anode current collector and an electrolyte layer located between the first electrode (anode) and the second electrode (cathode) (Fig. 2). Therefore, such structural device is a typical for Mg-battery. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the electrolyte layer located between the first electrode (anode) and the second electrode an active material layer located between the current collector and the electrolyte layer as taught by Matsui in order to improve an energy density in the battery employing Bi-film anode.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Arthur discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since B-film of Arthur prepared by method substantially similar to that in the instant Application, X-ray structural parameters of the claimed active material are inherently present.
Alternatively, the X-ray diffraction pattern depicted in fig. 3 of Arthur appears to show peak intensities 1(1) and 1(2) falling within claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the condition of electrodeposition based on date disclosed by Arthur in order to improve an energy density in the battery employing Bi-film anode.
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer contains a Bi simple substance (B-film, para 3.4).
Regarding claim 8, , modified Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer contains no electrolyte (Matsui, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Arthur discloses wherein the current collector contains Cu (Arthur , Cu-foil, para 2.1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Arthur discloses wherein the active material layer is a plating layer (electrodeposited) layer (Arthur, para 2.1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Arthur discloses wherein the first electrode is a negative electrode (Bi anode (Title, Abstract) and the second electrode (nessarely) is a positive electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751