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 .
PHENAZINE DERIVATIVE-BASED ALKALINE BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/366,641 Art Unit: 1727 June 11, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Response to Restriction filed on May 04, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A1 and B2 in the reply filed on May 04, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name Ketjenblack. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe conductive particles and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (A phenazine anode for high-performance aqueous rechargeable batteries in a wide temperature range; as found in IDS dated 03/15/24).
As to Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 10-11, Sun discloses an aqueous alkaline battery, comprising: a phenazine anode comprising a current collector, ketjenblack and PvDF binder; a cathode comprising a current collector, an active material, Super-P and PTFE binder; and an aqueous electrolyte comprising sodium hydroxide or 5M lithium hydroxide and water (Abstract; Introduction, second paragraph; pg. 677, 2.4; pg. 678, first full paragraph). In addition, the battery of Sun intrinsically comprises the claimed characteristics given that the structure and materials of the battery of Sun and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claims 2-3, the phenazine anode of Sun intrinsically comprises the claimed electron-donating groups given that the materials and structure of the claimed invention and the prior art are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claims 13-14, the battery of Sun intrinsically comprises the claimed characteristics given that the structure and materials of the battery of Sun and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (A phenazine anode for high-performance aqueous rechargeable batteries in a wide temperature range; as found in IDS dated 03/15/24) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0254366 A1).
A to Claim 5, Sun does not specifically disclose the claimed collectors.
However, Kobayashi teaches of an alkaline battery that comprises nickel foam plate collectors (reads on foil) (paragraphs [0041 and 0044]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the collectors of Sun to comprise nickel foil because Kobayashi teaches that suitable current collectors for alkaline batteries can be formed (paragraphs [0041 and 0044]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (A phenazine anode for high-performance aqueous rechargeable batteries in a wide temperature range; as found in IDS dated 03/15/24) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2017183204; using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 9, Sun does not specifically disclose the claimed cathode.
However, Sato teaches of a cathode for an alkaline battery, comprising nickel compounds such as oxygen and nickel hydroxide and Pt/C (paragraph [0032]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Sun to comprise nickel hydroxide and Pt/C because Sato taches that a suitable cathode for an alkaline battery is provided (paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (A phenazine anode for high-performance aqueous rechargeable batteries in a wide temperature range; as found in IDS dated 03/15/24) in view of Yadav et al. (US 2020/0411846 A1).
As to Claim 12, Sun does not specifically disclose the claimed graphene oxide layer.
However, Yadav teaches of an alkaline battery, comprising a graphene oxide layer provided on the separator (paragraphs [0054]). There are a finite number of known options to place the graphene oxide layer (between the anode and the separator or between the cathode and the separator) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the known options with a reasonable expectation of success, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Sun to comprise the claimed graphene oxide layer because Yadav teaches that an improved rechargeable alkaline battery can be provided (paragraph [0004]). In addition, the courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2113, I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights