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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-7 & 9-10 are canceled. Claims 1 & 8 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 2020/0091556 A1) in view of Vaughey (US 2019/0067743 A1) and evidenced by Keyzer (US 2020/0220221 A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 8, Lau teaches a magnesium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous solvent including triglyme; and an organoaluminumate complex salt represented by the claimed formula (1) where each of R1, R2, R3 and R4 are a perfluoro-tert-butyl group and in which the magnesium ion forms a coordination bond with an ether (i.e Z component in formula (I) of Lau) such as tetrahydrofuran (THF), wherein the concentration of the organoaluminate complex salt is 0.1 mol/L (fig. 7; [0046]-[0054] & [0064]-[0065]) Lau is silent as to the electrolyte comprising a magnesium salt, different from the organoaluminumate complex salt, and having an anion selected from the claimed group, wherein the magnesium salt has a concentration of 0.35 mol/L to 0.85 mol/L and wherein a molar ratio of magnesium ions in the organoaluminate complex salt to a total of magnesium ion in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is in a range of (0.05/0.4) to (0.15/1) which can equivalently be rewritten as a range of 0.125 to 0.15. Vaughey teaches a magnesium secondary battery electrolyte comprising a magnesium salt including an anion such as [N(FSO2)2]- (i.e FSI) and [N(C2F5SO2)2]- and a solvent including a glyme such as diglyme or triglyme, wherein the metal salt has a concentration of 0.1 M to 1.0 M ([0023]-[0026]). Thus for a 0.1 M concentration of the organoaluminate complex salt in Lau’s electrolyte, when Vaughey’s magnesium salt is further included at a concentration of from 0.56 M to 0.7 M (i.e within the above cited range of 0.1 M to 1.0 M), the resulting molar ratio of magnesium ions in the organoalumunate complex salt to a total of magnesium ions in the electrolyte would range from 0.1/0.8 (or equivalently 1/8 = 0.125) to 0.1/0.666 (or equivalently 1/6.66 = 0.15) since the electrolyte comprises 0.1 moles of magnesium ions in the organoaluminate complex salt per liter of electrolyte and 0.56 moles or 0.7 moles of magnesium ions in Lau’s magnesium salt per liter of electrolyte which results in a total of 0.66 moles or 0.8 moles of magnesium ions per liter of electrolyte. Therefore, when the concentration of magnesium salt included in the electrolyte is from 0.56 M to 0.7 M, which is within the range of 0.1 to 1.0 M disclosed in Vaughey, the claimed range for the molar ratio is rendered obvious over the teachings of Lau and Vaughey. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use 0.1 M to 1.0 M of a magnesium salt comprising an anion such as FSI or [N(C2F5SO2)2]- as a suitable magnesium salt for a magnesium secondary battery electrolyte as taught by Vaughey above. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, Vaughey’s electrolyte provides for reversible deposition of magnesium, and is compatible with high voltage cathode active materials while being less corrosive than halogen-containing electrolytes ([0021]-[0023]).
Furthermore, it is noted that the use of an organualuminate complex salt such as the one described in Lau in a conventional electrolyte including a magnesium salt to form a non-aqueous electrolyte of a magnesium battery is known as evidenced by Keyzer ([0005]-[0014] & [0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 & 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Vaughey. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1 & 8 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Lau, Vaughey and Keyzer.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 8 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights