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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1-6 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1,2, and 6, the term “typical” in claims 1, 2, and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “typical” 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. Therefore, the limitation of “metal selected from…” is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the conductive metal spacer” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation “the spacer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation "the alkaline region" in lines 2, 4, 6, and 8. Claim 6 also recites the limitation “the anode side” in lines 2 and 7. Claim 6 also recites the limitation “the cathode side” in lines 4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gakh (US20210104751A1) as evidenced by Grahame (Grahame, D. C. (1947). The electrical double layer and the theory of electrocapillarity. Chemical reviews, 41(3), 441-501.).
Regarding claim 1, Gakh discloses a pulsed aluminum battery which is a type of metal-air battery with aqueous alkaline electrolytes (Gakh, [0007]). Gakh discloses that the air cathode in this battery may be copper (Gakh, [0007]). Gakh also discloses an aluminum anode (Gakh, Abstract) and a complex water-based electrolyte that might include and internal oxidant with hydrogen peroxide (Gakh, [0023], [0024]). Gakh however does not disclose an electric double layer containing hydrogen peroxide as a dipole formed at the interface between the air electrode and the electrolytic solution. However, Grahame discloses that electric double layers are thought to exists at all interfaces, and that these double layers consist of charged particles and oriented dipoles (Grahame, Pg. 442, Para. 2). Since Gakh already discloses an air electrode with an electrolytic solution there is and interface present and as evidenced by Grahame at this interface exists an electric double layer with dipoles consisting of species in the electrolytic solution including hydrogen peroxide.
Regarding claim 2, Gakh discloses a pulsed aluminum battery which is a type of metal-air battery with aqueous alkaline electrolytes (Gakh, [0007]). Gakh discloses that the air cathode in this battery may be copper (Gakh, [0007]). Gakh also discloses an aluminum anode (Gakh, Abstract) and a complex water-based electrolyte that might include and internal oxidant with hydrogen peroxide (Gakh, [0023], [0024]). Gakh however does not disclose an electric double layer containing hydrogen peroxide as a dipole formed at the interface between the air electrode and the electrolytic solution. However, Grahame discloses that electric double layers are thought to exists at all interfaces, and that these double layers consist of charged particles and oriented dipoles (Grahame, Pg. 442, Para. 2). Since Gakh already discloses an air electrode with an electrolytic solution there is and interface present and as evidenced by Grahame at this interface exists an electric double layer with dipoles consisting of species in the electrolytic solution including hydrogen peroxide.
Regarding claim 3, Gakh discloses all of claim 2 as shown above. Gakh also discloses an electrolyte comprising sodium percarbonate and/or hydrogen peroxide solution (Gakh, [0024]). And Gakh discloses the electrolyte comprising an electrolyte being either alkali metal or alkaline earth metal halides (Gakh, [0040]). Specifically, the mention of salts with a cation of Li and anion of Cl- (Gakh, [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Gakh discloses all of claim 2 as shown above, but, Gakh does not directly disclose the reactions as described in the instant claim. However, it is understood that the metal-air battery disclosed by Gakh has the same structure and materials for the metal-air battery of claim 2. As understood when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The instant application does not specify any further actions taken to induce the reactions of the instant claim. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gakh (US20210104751A1) as evidenced by Grahame (Grahame, D. C. (1947). The electrical double layer and the theory of electrocapillarity. Chemical reviews, 41(3), 441-501.) in view of Shiue et al (US6500575B1, hereinafter Shiue).
Regarding claim 4, Gakh discloses all of claim 2 as shown above. Gakh also discloses the anode electrode and air electrode having at least one pair of electrode structures arranged to face each other, as this is interpreted to mean two electrodes facing each other (Gakh, Fig.1). Gakh does not disclose a conductive metal spacer. Shiue discloses spacer sheets with dots attached to the cathode and anode in a metal-air battery that faces each other (Shiue, Fig.5, 2211) to allow for fluid to flow in the pathways left by the dots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the metal-air battery of Gakh with the spacer sheets with dots of Shiue to improve fluid flow around the electrodes in the metal-air battery.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gakh (US20210104751A1) as evidenced by Grahame (Grahame, D. C. (1947). The electrical double layer and the theory of electrocapillarity. Chemical reviews, 41(3), 441-501.) as applied to claim 3 above, and in view of Tsukada et al (US20150086883A1, hereinafter Tsukada).
Regarding claim 5, Gakh discloses all of claim 3 as shown above. However, Gakh does not disclose a spacer made out of the same metal copper or copper alloy as the air electrode and the air electrode having point like contact portions distributed on the anode electrode. Tsukaba discloses that a copper electrode in a metal-air battery might have a mesh shape or an expanded metal shape, interpreted as meaning a uniform layer (Tsukaba, [0054]).
Since the prior art of Tsukaba recognizes the equivalency of a mesh shape and an expanded metal shaper (uniform layer) in the field of metal-air cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to replace the uniform layer air cathode of Gakh with the mesh shaped electrode of Tsukaba as it is merely the selection of functionality equivalents electrode shapes recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Modified Gakh now discloses a mesh shaped air-electrode. This mesh shape having portions that protrude away and towards the opposite anode. The portions protruding towards the opposite anode acting as a spacer and being made of the same copper as the air-electrode. This mesh also has contact portions distributed on the anode electrode as “on” can include intervening layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights