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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/21/26 with respect to the species claims, species restriction A, which was persuasive and therefore the species are rejoined.
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.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taviot-Gueho et al. “Synthesis and Structural Characterization of two new rare earth manganese germanates. . .” (TG) and in view of Yashima (JP 2015/063438) and in view of JP 5869169.
TG describes the compound CeMn2Ge4O12 (title). This compound meets at least one of Formula I, II or III.
As to the oxygen generation feature, TG does not specifically disclose this feature.
Yashima teaches a composition with the formula: AxA’yBXz (formula A) (page 4, line 11). Where A and A’ can be one of: Mn, Co or Ce (see page 4, last two para) and B can be Ge (page 5, lines 3-6) and X can be an oxide (page 5, lines 7-8). The composition can be used in a number of devices, to include batteries, catalyst, photocatalyst, oxygen concentrators, electrodes, catalysts, oxygen separation membranes, oxygen permeable membranes and others (see page 6, lines 28-31).
The reference does not specifically describe a source configured to generate oxygen ions via a redox reaction. The “configured to” feature is an intended use feature, but the oxygen feature will be treated even though the device does not actively claim the oxygen feature.
‘169 teaches an oxide catalyst for oxygen evolution reactions (title). The reference describes an A-site ordered oxide as an oxygen generating catalyst (page 6, last para.) that has the formula: AA’3B4O12 (Claim 1, line 1), where A can be Ce, A’ can be Mn and B can be Ge (Claim 1). The compound is part of an air electrode catalyst layer for use in a metal air battery (see page 5, “Air Electrode Catalyst Layer”, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the mixed oxide of TG in the air-generating air electrode of a battery of ‘169 because Yashima explains that these mixed oxides are effective in a number of devices, to include electrodes and batteries.
As to the composition classified as an oxygen ion transport material, where oxygen ions are transported, this is considered an intended use feature. The system can generate oxygen, as described by ‘169, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effectiveness.
As to the other compounds, they are alternative to each other to meeting one meets the entire claim.
As to Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, the claims further limits the specific oxygen ion transport material, which is an optional embodiment of claim 1 (i.e. the oxygen ion transport material is either one of formula I, formula II or formula III) and therefore not required. As such, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected based on identical/substantially identical reasons as claims 1, 12.
As to Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, TG teaches the composition of CeMn2Ge4O12 (abstract). The reference explains that the oxidation states of each is: 4+ for Ce, 2+ for Mn (abstract). Ge typically has an oxidation state of +4, which is balanced by the -2 O oxidation state (since the formula is CeMn2Ge4O12 (abstract of TG). In the formula of Formula I of Claim 1, A is Ce and would have an x value of 4, B of formula I is Mn and the y value is 2 and the C value is Ge and the z value is 4.
As to Claim 21, JP ‘169 teaches that the oxide catalyst is used in air electrodes (see “air electrode catalyst layer” on page 6).
As to Claim 22, Yashima teaches that this mixed oxide can be used in oxygen separation membranes or electrodes (see page 6, lines 28-32).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TG, Yashima and JP ‘169 as applied to claim 20 above, and in view of Yamamura (CN 106104909).
JP ‘169 describes that their catalyst electrode of the A-site ordered oxide is combined with a Pt-counter electrode (Example 1). The device contains an electrolyte (example 1), but the reference does not describe the structure of Claim 22.
Yamamura describes an air electrode placed in a battery (title). The structure of the electrode is made such that there is an air electrode (Fig. 4, 22), followed by an electrolyte at 25 (see Fig. 4, 25) and a counter electrode on the other side (see Fig. 4, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the air electrode by placing the air electrode on one side, followed by an electrolyte with a counter electrode on the other side, as taught by Yamamura for use with the air battery of TG, Yashima and JP ‘169 because inclusion of air electrodes in batteries is effective when placed in this structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights