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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed June 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10-12, and 14-18 are pending in the application. Claims 2-9 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 17-18 are new. Claims 1 and 10-12, 14 and 16 have been amended. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 has overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 30th, 2026.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification lacks written description to support the limitation “a molar ratio of Fe is greater than that of Ge in the composition”. The examples provided [0032, 0063, 0068] are not sufficient to support this limitation.
Dependent claims10-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description as the parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 fails to further limit claim 1. Fe and Ge are already required in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 10-12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (US 2020/0259187 A1).
Claim 1: Ogawa teaches a metal-air battery positive electrode catalyst comprising a melilite-type complex oxides such as Sr2Fe2GeO7 (Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B), with sparsely coordinated metal ions that makes it highly absorptive compared to perovskite-type oxides [0041]. This property that enhances the catalytic activity of melilite-type oxides, also enhances the ion conductivity of these compounds. Thus, Ogawa’s material is capable of being used in a fluoride ion battery. The recitation “active material for a fluoride ion battery” is a statement of intended use which does not result in a structural difference in the claim.
Claim 10-12: As described above, Park in combination with Ogawa teach an electrode catalyst comprising melilite-type complex oxide, Sr2Fe2GeO7.
Claim 15: As described above, Ogawa teaches an electrode comprising an electrode catalyst capable of high anion conductivity, thus capable of being used in a fluoride ion battery. The recitation “for a fluoride ion battery” is a statement of intended use which does not result in a structural difference in the claim.
Claim 17: As described above, Ogawa teaches compound Sr2Fe2GeO7. This compound is identical to the compound described in the specification [0072]. Thus, if Ogawa’s electrode comprising this compound was used in a fluoride battery it would be expected to show a first plateau region and a second plateau region at a higher potential than the first plateau region in its charging curve.
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.
Claims 1, 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (US 2017/0237067), and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2020/0259187 A1).
Claim 1: Miki teaches an electrode active material for a fluoride ion battery electrode comprising a complex oxide, La1.2Sr1.8Mn1.5Cu0.5O7 [0010, 0100]. However, Miki does not teach complex oxides with melilite-type crystal structure. Specifically, Miki teaches electrode active material comprising a complex oxide having a layered perovskite structure that has a favorable cycle property [0010]. The layered perovskite structure allows easy intercalation and desorption of fluoride without large changes in crystal structure, thus, giving the active material favorable cycle property [0032, 0036].
Miki does not teach a mellite-type oxide wherein a molar ratio of Fe is greater than that of Ge in the composition. However, Ogawa teaches electrode positive electrode catalyst comprising a melilite-type complex oxides such as Sr2Fe2GeO7 [0036] (Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B), with sparsely coordinated metal ions that makes it highly absorptive compared to perovskite-type oxides [0041]. This property that enhances the catalytic activity of melilite-type oxides, also enhances the ion conductivity of these compounds, thus making it suitable for use as electrode active material where high ion conductivity is required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the perovskite oxide active material in Miki’s fluoride ion battery electrode with active material comprising a melilite-type complex oxide Sr2Fe2GeO7 to achieve high ionic conductivity and favorable cycle property.
Claims 10-12: As described above, Miki in combination Ogawa teach an electrode active material comprising melilite-type complex oxide, Sr2Fe2GeO7.
Claim 14: Miki teaches the complex oxide has an average particle diameter (i.e., volume mean particle diameter) that is in the range 100 nm to 50 μm [0055]. This diameter overlaps with the range 20 nm to 10 μm (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claims 15: As described above, Miki in combination with Park and Ogawa teach an electrode for a fluoride ion battery comprising electrode active material which contains melilite-type complex oxide, Sr2Fe2GeO7.
Claim 16-18: As described above, Miki in combination Ogawa teach an electrode for a fluoride ion battery comprising electrode active material comprising melilite-type complex oxide, Sr2Fe2GeO7. Miki further teaches a fluoride ion battery comprising: the electrode for a fluoride ion battery above; and an electrolyte La0.9Ba0.1F2.9, and a PbF2 powder [0100].
Miki does not teach the battery exhibits a first plateau region and a second plateau region at a higher potential than the first plateau region in its charging curve. However, as described above, Miki in combination with Ogawa teach a fluoride battery comprising electrode active material comprising Sr2Fe2GeO7. This compound is identical to the compound described in the specification [0072]. Thus, the charging curve for Miki’s electrode comprising this compound would be expected to show a first plateau region and a second plateau region at a higher potential than the first plateau region in its charging curve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/remarks (Page 5-6), filed 6/26/2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ogawa.
Applicant argues that Park discloses the oxide having a composition represented by Formula 1, but fails to disclose a complex oxide having the composition in which a molar ratio of Fe is greater than that of Ge. This amendment overcomes the prior rejection. However, the amendment does not overcome the new grounds of rejection in view of Ogawa. Ogawa teaches the compound Sr2Fe2GeO7 wherein the molar ratio of Fe is greater than that of Ge.
Applicant argues that Park fails to disclose such a second plateau region in the charging curve. This amendment overcomes the prior rejection. However, the amendment does not overcome the new grounds of rejection in view of Ogawa. Ogawa teaches the compound Sr2Fe2GeO7, identical to the example presented in the specification and is therefore expected to have the same properties.
Applicant argues that claims 17 and 18 would not have been anticipated by, or obvious over, the art of record. Claims 17 and 18 are newly presented and have been addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights