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 .
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 2 and 4 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 2 is indefinite because “like” in the limitation “sheet-like current collector” extends the scope of expression to render the limitation indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E)). It is unclear how similar to a sheet the current collector must be to be considered “sheet-like.”
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends from claim 2.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikayo et al., JP 2018200759 A in view of Mallet et al., US 2020/0052302 A1 as evidenced by Vidal et al., US 2002/0040508 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mikayo teaches a magnesium water battery (abstract), which reads on the claimed “primary battery.” The magnesium water battery comprises:
A positive electrode 101 (Fig.1; abstract), which reads on the claimed “positive electrode.”
A negative electrode 102 containing magnesium (Fig.1; abstract), which reads on the claimed “negative electrode containing magnesium or aluminum.”
An electrolyte 103 disposed between the positive electrode 101 and the negative electrode 102 (Fig.1; abstract), which reads on the claimed “electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.”
Mikayo differs from claim 1 because it is silent to the magnesium water battery positive electrode containing isatin. But Mallet teaches a cathode electrochemically active material comprising an indigoid compound such as indolinedione (i.e., isatin) ([0005], [0017]-[0018]). Note that indolinedione is a synonym for as isatin (see Vidal [0005]). The compound is an additive to the cathode that is beneficial because it contributes as a capacity reservoir, an electron conductive, or ion diffusing agent ([0061], [0082]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the positive electrode of Mikayo to include the electrochemically active compound indolinedione (i.e., isatin) of Mallet to act as a capacity reservoir, an electron conductive, or ion diffusing agent.
Regarding claim 2, Mikayo teaches the magnesium water battery to comprise the negative electrode fixed to a copper foil, which is a negative electrode current collector (p. 19) and the positive electrode pressure bonded to a copper foil (p.19) as a current collector for the positive electrode, which reads on the claimed “the positive electrode and the negative electrode are each formed on a sheet-like current collector containing at least one selected from the group consisting of copper, iron, and carbon.”
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikayo et al., JP 2018200759 A in view of Mallet et al., CN 110291668 A in further view of Whitacre et al., US 2012/0064388 A1 and as evidenced by Vidal et al., US 2002/0040508 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mikayo as modified differs from claim 3 and 4 because it is silent to the magnesium water battery having a bipolar stack structure. But Whitacre teaches an electrochemical device, including a primary battery [0026], comprising an anode electrode, a cathode electrode, an electrolyte, and a current collector (abstract). Whitacre further teaches the electrochemical device comprising a bipolar stack of electrochemical cells (Fig. 9-11; [0024]). The bipolar stack is beneficial because it uses half as many current collectors ([0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the magnesium water battery of Mikayo to have a bipolar stack structure to reduce the number of current collectors.
With this modification, the magnesium water battery reads on the claimed “primary battery having a bipolar stack structure.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sandra M Arias whose telephone number is (571)438-9468. 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, Insuk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/S.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights