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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-26 in the reply filed on 6/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/30/26.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zimmerman is directed to a Li+ conducing polymer not a proton conducting polymer and therefore does not support lack of unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because Li ions contain protons; in light of the specification this includes cations (instant claim 7; instant specification [0014-18] wherein cycling of H+ is also a cation not a single proton as argued). Lastly, should Applicant maintain that proton conducting polymers exclude cation conducting separators then at least claim 7 (and dependents) will be rejected under 35USC112 for new matter/failure to further limit claim 1. Moreover, as provided below the art rejections further support the lack of unity between groups by teaching all the limitations of the pending claims were known in the art at the time of filing; demonstrating there is no special technical feature among the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “of any one” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “an combination” should read “a combination”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 6-12, 14-19 and 24-26 are 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 3 recites the limitation "an anode or a cathode" in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For consistency and clarity, the articles should read “the” or “said”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 6, 10, 12, 15-16, 19 and 24, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims will be treated as not requiring the matter after “optionally”. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 which was amended to specify that the separator is a proton conducting polymer by removing the “hydroxide ion” (anion) option however claim 7 appears to reintroduce and select the alternative species. The instant claims (throughout) and the instant specification appear to treat the proton/cation and the anion/hydroxide ion embodiments as mutually exclusive species (instant specification: listed as alternatives in the “or” see [0012-13], [0030], [0036] for example and exclusive see [0014-18]). Examiner suggest cancelling “or an anion” from claim 7 as well as claims 8-10 which appear to be directed to the mutually exclusive embodiment from that as amended in claim 1. Claims 8-11 and 14-18 are rejected as depending therefrom. Clarification is required. Additionally, failure to clarify may lead to a rejection under 35USC112a and/or 35USC112d (see restriction discussion above).
Claims 11, 14, 16 and 18 recite the limitation "said ion conducting polymer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referencing the “proton conducting polymer” of claim 1 of the separator of a different/additional structure. Claims 12, 15 and 17 are rejected as depending from an above claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said at least a portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the anode active material comprises a hydrogen absorbing metal or metal alloy and depends from claim 1 which was amended to require specific metals and so it is unclear if claim 20 attempts to broaden the metals of claim 1 which is improper or further require and additional metal. Claims 21-22 are rejected as depending therefrom. Clarification is required. Failure to clarify may result in an improper broadening rejection under 35USC112.
Claim 25 depends from claim 23 which has set forth a list of elements including hydroxides thereof. Claim 25 then appears to narrow this list of elements but also broadens to include Al. This broadening language is unclear. Clarification is required.
Claims 24-26 recite the limitation "the cathode electrochemically active material” in line 3, 1 and 1 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing this to "the cathode active material”. Clarification is required.
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) 1-2, 4-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US8801810) and Young (US20120183835).
AS to claims 1, Cui teaches a battery comprising: a stacked plurality of cells (fig. 8A) comprising a cathode containing cathode active material, an anode active material and separator (col. 14, lines 4-30); the anode active material comprising materials including titanium, nickel and copper (col. 4, lines 10-20); wherein the separator can be a solid electrolyte including proton conducting polymers including mixtures of the ion conducting polymers taught (second in the mixture reads on solid polymer capable of conducting a proton: i.e. PTFE) (col. 12, line 49 to col. 13, line 14). Cui is silent the battery being a bipolar battery with a bipolar metallic plate.
Young teaches that monopolar (Cui’s examples) and bipolar configurations are known art recognized equivalents in the battery art ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the bipolar configuration of Young in Cui because bipolar allows for multiple units, larger cells as taught by Young ([0036]) with fewer metallic substrates (Young: fig 1 vs 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cui teaches the bipolar metallic plate associated with both electrodes (Young: fig. 2 as symbolized by 1’).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cui teaches the separator as a coating on the electrodes (Cui: fig. 8 Layering reads on coating thereon).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cui teaches pasting active layers on substrates (202) (Cui: col. 5, lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cui teaches the substrate (202) is a Ni foil (Cui: col. 6, lines 18-25).
Regarding claims 7-12, modified Cui teaches various electrolytes which are capable of selectively conducting cations, anions and/or protons including the perfluorinated polymer PTFE (Cui: col. 14, lines 4-30).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cui teaches separators in the form of membranes are known in the art and would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. ionic conduction and electron insulation (Cui: col. 13, lines 15-60).
Regarding claim 19, modified Cui teaches coulombic efficiency of at least 70% (col. 2, lines 15-30).
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Cui teaches the anode active material is Si or a silicide (col. 4, lines 10-25) these materials read on the claimed invention note that x can be zero.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11-15, 19-21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Mohri (US4977045) and Takahashi (US20150155530).
As to claim 1, Young teaches a bipolar metal hydride battery comprising: a stacked plurality of cells each cell comprising ([0036]): a cathode containing cathode active material (5; [0027]); an anode containing anode active material comprising at least Ni (3; [0023-26]) a proton conducting inorganic electrolyte/separator (4; [0029]) and a bipolar metallic plate (2) associated with the anode and cathode (fig. 1-2 and [0036]). Young teaches that solid state electrolytes provide leak proof and miniaturization (thin and light) advantages over their counterparts ([0019]). Young is silent to the proton conducting electrolyte/separator comprising a two solid proton conducting polymers (claimed electrolyte and separator).
Mohri also teaches a metal hydride battery (col. 3) and that inorganic solid electrolytes are art recognized equivalents of perfluorinated polymeric electrolytes capable of performing the same function of proton conduction between electrodes (col. 2, lines 56-65). Similarly, Mohri teaches multilayering and desire for leak proof and extremely thin devices (col. 1, line 30; col. 2, lines 37-42).
Takahashi teaches that the ideal of first and second separators (wherein one reads on claimed electrolyte) in batteries including solid state and metal hydrogen batteries ([0130]) having different properties increases the variety of properties as compared to the use of a single separator (i.e. electrolyte) itself ([0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use multiple separators/electrolytes taught by the art in Young (inorganics) and Mohri (inorganics and perfluorinated polymers) as art recognized equivalents (hydrogen conducting and electron insulating layers) wherein it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06-7) with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. preventing short circuit between electrodes while allowing ion movement barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results. Wherein the use of more than one separator/electrolyte is known in the battery art to provide for increasing the variety of properties as taught by Takahashi ([0108]). The modification results in a multilayered separator/electrolyte using art recognized combinations of materials capable of proton/H+ conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, modified Young teaches the bipolar metallic plate associated with both electrodes (Young: fig. 2 as symbolized by 1’).
Regarding claim 4, modified Young teaches the separator as a coating on the electrodes (Young: fig. 2; 4 is on 3 and 5 reads on coating thereon).
Regarding claim 5, “formed by pasting” is a product by process limitation and even 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. (MPEP 2113) In this case the final product requires at least one active material on a respective electrode substrate. Modified Young teaches a second collector terminal in the multilayered final product which reads on the claimed substrate (Young: [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Young teaches the substrate may be Ni and as thin as possible (reads on foil) (Young: [0022]). Moreover, Young teaches use of foils ([0038]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Young teaches a cation (H+) (Young: [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Young teaches proton conducting (Young: [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Young teaches perfluorinated polymer (Mohri: col. 2, lines 56-65).
Regarding claim 13, modified Young teaches the solid electrolyte in the form of a membrane. Note all reference separator/electrolytes read on membrane which without special definition is a thin material forming a barrier (electrical insulator).
Regarding claim 14, modified Young teaches the proton conducting polymer is coated onto a solid ion conducting substrate (wherein each structure reads on a layer of separator or electrolyte in modified Young which are layered reading on “coated onto”). See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Young teaches that the substrate comprises a perovskite (Young: [0029]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Young is comprised of the same structure as the claimed invention and will therefore demonstrate the same properties including a coulombic efficiency above 70% barring evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20, modified Young teaches a hydrogen absorbing metal anode active material (Young: [0023-24]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Young teaches ABx materials where x is 2 or 5 (Young: [0023]).
Regarding claim 23 and 25-26, modified Young teaches the cathode active material comprises Ni hydroxide (Young: [0026]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Young teaches Ni hydroxide and that the inclusion of expensive metals should be minimized (Young: [0026 and 0039]) such that it is 100% Ni and/or obvious to increase Ni content over additional metal atomic percent in the cathode active materials to keep cost low.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Mohri and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Naoi (US20100124705).
Regarding claim 3, modified Young teaches a separator film (Young: fig. 1) but does not explicitly teach bonding or not bonding present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try not bonding from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions (bonded or unbonded) layer/film with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. separator present between electrodes providing the function of electrical insulation and ion conduction barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results MPEP 2143 especially in light of the fact that Naoi teaches that it was known and preferable at the time of filing to provide an unbonded separator between electrodes ([0100]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Mohri and Takahashi as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Venugopal (US5853916).
Regarding claim 16, modified Young is silent to the proton conducting polymer embedded in a porous substrate. Venugopal teaches a multilayered polymeric electrolyte for batteries wherein a substrate (microporous separator layer) acts as a carrier engaging the active species therein (reads on embedded electrolyte) in order to provide mechanical integrity and prevent shorting (col. 3, lines 35-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the porous embedded substrate as a layer or additional layer in the electrolyte/separator system of modified Young to prevent shorting and ensure mechanical integrity as taught by Venugopal (col. 3, lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 17, modified Young teaches proton conducting separator/electrolyte layers in a multilayered system on both sides of the porous substrate (col. 3, lines 35-60).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Mohri and Takahashi as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Dasgupta (US20040175626).
Regarding claim 16, modified Young is silent to the proton conducting polymer embedded in a porous substrate. Dasgupta teaches a multilayered polymeric composite electrolyte for batteries wherein a porous substrate (microporous separator layer) acts as a carrier filled with the active species ([0028-32]) in order to provide mechanical integrity, strength, high ionic conductivity without unwanted increase in thickness ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the porous embedded substrate as a layer or additional layer in the electrolyte/separator system of modified Young to prevent shorting and ensure mechanical integrity as taught by Venugopal ([0012]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Young teaches proton conducting separator/electrolyte layers in a multilayered system on both sides of the porous substrate ([0029]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Young is silent to the proton conducting polymer further comprising ion conducting inorganic powder. Dasgupta teaches the ion conducting polymer (organic) may comprise powder ([0045, 47]: submicroscopic particles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the powder containing proton conducting polymer composition of Dasgupta in modified Young because the means of impregnating the ion containing compound increases the population of electro active species without notable increasing the volume of the planar cell and provides support should overheating occur ([0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights