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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Q = N, and the terminal function group of RD is Si(RE)(RF)(RG) in the reply filed on 11/21/2024 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12-15, 27, and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (US 2018/0019475 A1) in view Kaji et al. (US 2023/0106336).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 27, and 29, Adamson teaches a bipolar electrode (102, fig. 1) for rechargeable batteries [0002] comprising: a bipolar electrode plate (208, fig. 2B) having a cathode surface (212, fig. 2B, and [0119]) and an anode surface (214, fig. 2B, and [0117]), wherein the cathode surface opposes the anode surface (fig. 2B, where 212 and 214 oppose each other, and [0169]); and a cathode substrate (216, fig. 3, and [0120]) loaded with an electrolyte [0188] and [0190], wherein the cathode surface at least partially contacts the cathode substrate (figures 4A and 4B, and [0127]). Adamson teaches that the electrolyte may contain zinc bromide and one or more quaternary ammonium agents [0190]. It does not explicitly teach that the quaternary ammonium agent is a halogen complexing agent of Formula 1.
However, Kaji teaches operative electrolytes for rechargeable batteries [0002] by using an electrolyte comprising trimethyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to have used trimethyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride-containing electrolyte as the particular quaternary ammonium agent of Adamson with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a known electrolyte for rechargeable batteries.
Regarding claim 2, substituents are not positively required.
Regarding claim 8, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the cathode substrate (cathode cage 216, fig. 3, and [0120]) is oxidized (see [0188]).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 30, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the bipolar electrode plate (Adamson 208, fig. 2B) comprises a titanium material (see Adamson [0119]).
Regarding claim 14, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the titanium material (see Adamson [0119]) is at least partially coated with titanium carbide (see Adamson [0119]).
Regarding claim 27, Adamson teaches an aqueous zinc-halide electrolyte (see [0300]). To the extent that this is a second electrolyte identified for the system, it has been held to be obvious to combine compositions useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition to be used for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06.I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used both the zinc halide electrolyte of Adamson and the trimethyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride of Kaji together with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the bipolar electrode plate (Adamson 208, fig. 2B) comprises titanium (see Adamson [0119]), TiC, TiN, graphite, or an electrically conductive plastic.
Regarding claims 31-32, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the aqueous zinc-halide electrolyte comprises from about 30 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of ZnBr, and from about 0.5 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of one or more quaternary ammonium agents [0190]. The electrolyte may comprise 36-41% water (Tables 1-24).
Regarding claim 33, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the one or more quaternary ammonium agents comprises a quaternary agent selected from the group consisting of tetraethylammonium bromide (see electrolyte no. 1-24 formulation in Adamson table 24).
Regarding claim 34, Adamson in view of Kaji teaches wherein the one or more quaternary ammonium agents (see [0098]) comprises an alkyl substituted pyridinium chloride, an alkyl substituted pyridinium bromide (see electrolyte no. 1-24 formulation in Adamson table 24).
Claims 3-7, 9-11, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (US 2018/0019475 A1) in view Kaji et al. (US 2023/0106336), as applied to claims 1 and 27 above and further in view of Maschmeyer (WO 2020/051642).
Regarding claims 3-6 and 28, Adamson in view of Kaji does not teach wherein the cathode substrate comprises carbon felt, graphite felt, packed carbon powder, graphite powder, expanded graphite powder, carbon foam, aerogel carbon, xerogel carbon, sol-gelated carbon, carbon cloth, carbon paper, or reticulated carbon. However, Maschmeyer teaches that cathodes for zinc bromine batteries [0003-0004] may comprise carbon felt or packed carbon powder, such as carbon black [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have used a cathode comprising carbon felt or packed carbon black as the particular cathode of Adamson because Maschmeyer teaches it is a useful cathode for zinc bromide batteries.
Regarding claim 7, Adamson teaches wherein the cathode surface (Adamson 212, fig. 2B, and [0119]) in contact with the cathode substrate (Adamson 216, fig. 3, and [0120]) is connected to the cathode substrate using an adhesive (see Adamson [0128]).
Regarding claim 9, Adamson in view of Kaji does not teach wherein the cathode substrate loaded with a halogen complexing agent is chemically bonded with the halogen complexing agent.
However, Maschmeyer teaches the cathode substrate loaded with a halogen sequestering (i.e. complexing) agent (HSA) that is chemically bonded (“on” as opposed to “in”; see also [0108]) with the halogen complexing agent [0021] to confine the halogen to the cathode side of the battery [0007]. Preferred HSA’s include quaternary ammonium halide groups [000100]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an HAS within the ZnBr battery of Adamson to confine the halogen to the cathode side of the battery. Because Kaji’s electrolyte is also a quaternary ammonium halide, it would have been obvious to have used it as the particular HSA of Adamson and Maschmeyer.
Regarding claim 10, Kaji’s compound is a monomer.
Regarding claim 11, Maschmeyer teaches the HAS may be in polymeric form [000107] (bottom 7 lines of p. 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Adamson’s cathode substrate is not “loaded” with the electrolyte because it is interposed between the inner surface of the terminal endplate and the cathode assembly. The argument is unconvincing. The phrase “loaded with” merely requires a function connection when assembled. When assembled, the electrolyte has access to the cathode cage [0188]. That is, it is within pocket 218 of cathode cage 216. Therefore, cathode cage 216 is loaded with electrolyte.
Applicant’s statements bridging pp. 8-9 regarding the art cited in the arguments section of the previous Office Action is noted. The Office confirms that these references are not part of the rejection because they are not necessary to reject the instant claims. They were merely cited to demonstrate that narrowing the claims to “loaded onto” as opposed to “loaded with” would not render them patentable.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the trimethyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride as a suitable battery electrolyte because Kaji uses it in the form of a film. The argument is unconvincing because Adamson teaches that the electrolyte may contain zinc bromide and one or more quaternary ammonium agents [0190]. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to have looked to the related art for suitable quaternary ammonium agents. Kaji teaches that trimethyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride is a suitable electrolyte for rechargeable batteries. Applicant argues that it is not obvious because it is used in a comparative example. Applicant mischaracterizes this as a teaching away. A teaching that it is less preferable is still a teaching that it is operative. It could be chosen for reasons of cost or availability. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2123.II.
Applicant argues that the office action has not explained why the two quaternary ammonium agnets would be separated and placed in separate locations. The argument is unconvincing because it mischaracterizes the rejection. Claim 27 does not specify a location of the zinc halide electrolyte and does not exclude that it is mixed with the claimed haogen complexing agent. The rejection is based on using a mixture of the two.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel, can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712