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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed November 17, 2025. The following rejections are reapplied in light o9f current amendments:
Claim(s) 1-15, 18-22, 24-27 & 29-32, 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzberg U.S. Pub. 2019/0386348 in view of Wang et al. CN 113314773A.
Claim(s) 16-17, 23, 28, 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzberg U.S. Pub. 2019/0386348 in view of Wang et al. CN 113314773A, and further in view of Adamson et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0131662.
Claims 1-34, and newly claims 35-36, are rejected as necessitated by amendment as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 18-22, 24-27 & 29-32, 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzberg U.S. Pub. 2019/0386348 in view of Wang et al. CN 113314773A.
With respect to claim 1, Hertzberg teaches an electrolyte for use in a secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell comprising: from about 20 wt% to about 70 wt.% of a zinc halide of formula ZnY2 (zinc bromide; 27.42% in Table 1); any combination of zinc halides of formula ZnY2,wherein Y is a halide selected from fluoride, chloride, bromide- iodide, or any combination thereof (zinc bromide, zinc chloride; [0015]) from about 10 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of H2O (20% water; [0005]; 44.34%; Table 1). With respect to claim 2, from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KBr: and from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KCl (6.78% KBr, 9.83% KCl; Table 1). With respect to claim 3,
about 0.05 wt.% to about 20 vt.% of one or more quaternary ammonium agents, wherein each quaternary ammonium agent is independently selected from a quaternary ammonium agent having a formula N (R')(R')(R,)(R+)X-,wherein R' is hydrogen or an alkyl group. R,R', and R4are each independently an alkyl group that is same or different from R', and X- is chloride or bromide (tetramethylammonium chloride 1.94%; Table 1).
With respect to claim 11, from about 25 wt% to about 45 wt.% of the zinc halide of formula ZnY2 or any combination of zinc halides of formula ZnY2 (zinc bromide; 27.42% in Table 1); from about 25 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of H20 (20% water; [0005]; 44.34%; Table 1); from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KBr (6.78% KBr, 9.83% KCl; Table 1); from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KCI (6.78% KBr, 9.83% KCl; Table 1); and from about 0.05 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of the one or more quaternary ammonium agents (tetramethylammonium chloride 1.94%; Table 1). With respect to claim 12,
one or more quaternary ammonium agents comprises a first quaternary ammonium agent with a concentration from about 0.05 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, wherein the first quatemary ammonium agent is selected from a tetra-C1-6 alkyl ammonium chloride or a tetra-Ci-r, alkyl ammonium bromide (tetramethylammonium chloride 1.94%; Table 1).
With respect to claim 13, the first quaternary ammonium agent is tetramethylammonium chloride, tetra ethyl ammonium chloride, tetrapropylammonium chloride, tetrabutylamimonium chloride, tetramethylammonium bromide, tetraethylammomum bromide, tetrapropylammonium bromide, or tetrabutylammonium bromide (tetramethylammonium chloride 1.94%; Table 1). With respect to claim 14,
one or more quaternary ammonium agents further comprises a second quaternary ammonium agent, wherein the second quaternary ammonium agent has a formula N(Rt)(R2)(R')(R4)X-, wherein R' is hydrogen or an alkyl group R, R' and R4 are each independently an alkyl group that is same or different from R and X- is chloride or bromide, and wherein a concentration of the second quaternary ammonium agent is from about 0.05 wt.% to about 20 % (trimethylethylamrnmonium bromide 2.03%; Table 1). With respect to claim 15, the second quaternary ammonium agent is a chloride or bromide of trimethylethylamrnmonium. trimethyl propylammonium, trimethylbutylammoniumn,triethylmethylammonium, triethylpropylammoniurn, triethylbutylammonium, tripropylmethylammoniurn. tripropylethylammonium, or tripropylbutylammoniurn (trimethylethylamrnmonium bromide 2.03%; Table 1). With respect to claim 18, about 0.25wt. % to about 5 wt. % of a glycol, wherein the glycol is ethylene glycol, propylene glycol,1,3-butylene glycol, 1,4-butylene glycol, neopentyl glycol, hexalene glycol, or any combination thereof (methoxyethylene glycol 1.29%; Table 1). With respect to claim 19, a glyme, wherein the glyme is monoglyme, diglyme. Triglyme, tetraglyme, pentaulyme, hexaglyme, or any combination thereof (monoglyme, diglyme; [0081]. With respect to claim 20, comprising less than 1 wt. % of one or more additives selected from Sn, In, Ga, Al, TL, Bi, Pb. Sb. Ag, Mn. Fe, or any combination thereof (tin chloride; 7ppm). With respect to claim 21, comprising from 01 wt % to 2 wt.% of acetic acid, sodium acetate, potassium acetate, or any combination thereof (acetic acid; 1.25%; [0176]). With respect to claim 22, the zinc halide electrochemical cell is a static zinc halide electrochemical cell (zinc halide non-flowing electrochemical cells; Example 1). With respect to claim 25, a secondary zinc halide battery cell (zinc halide non-flowing electrochemical cells; Example 1), comprising: at least one electrochemical cell comprising, at least one bipolar electrode (bipolar electrodes 130a ; Example 1) and a zinc halide electrolyte (zinc bromide electrolyte; Example 1) , wherein the bipolar electrode comprises a bipolar electrode plate having an anode surface on one side of the bipolar electrode plate and a cathode surface on another side of the bipolar electrode plate that is opposite the anode surface (bipolar electrodes 130a ; Example 1), wherein the zinc halide electrolyte is in contact with the bipolar electrode plate (zinc halide electrolyte; Example 1), and wherein the zinc halide electrolyte comprises: from about 20 wt% to about 70 wt.% of a zinc halide of formula ZnY2 (zinc bromide; 27.42% in Table 1); any combination of zinc halides of formula ZnY2,wherein Y is a halide selected from fluoride, chloride, bromide- iodide, or any combination thereof (zinc bromide, zinc chloride; [0015]) from about 10 wt.% to about 79 wt.% of H2O (20% water; [0005]; 44.34%; Table 1). With respect to claim 26, the electrolyte further comprises: from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KBr (6.78% KBr, 9.83% KCl; Table 1) and from about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of KCl (6.78% KBr, 9.83% KCl; Table 1). With respect to claim 27, the electrolyte further comprises: from about 0.05 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more quaternary ammonium agents, wherein each quaternary ammonium agent is independently selected from a quaternary ammonium agent having a formula N (R )(R2)(R')(R4)X. wherein R is hydrogen or an alkylgroup.R,R, and R4 are each independently an alkyl group that is same or different from R', and X- is chloride or bromide (tetramethylammonium chloride 1.94%; Table 1). With respect to claim 32, secondary zinc halide battery is a static secondary zinc halide battery (zinc halide non-flowing electrochemical cells; Example 1).
Hertzberg does not teach or suggest: about 0.5wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more zinc additives, wherein the one or more zinc additives comprises a first zinc additive, wherein the first zinc additive is a salt that is not a zinc halide and comprises an anion with a van der Waals volume of greater than about 65 A3 (claims 1 & 25); about 0.5 wt.% to about 3 wt% of the first zinc additive (claim 4); a molar ratio of total zinc ion to halide ion in the electrolyte is from about 1:2 to about 1:3 (claim 5); about 0.5 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of the first zinc additive (claim 6); a molar ratio of total zinc ion to halide ion in the electrolyte is from about 1:1 to about 1:2.5 (claim 7); one or more zinc additives further comprises a second zinc additive, wherein the second zinc additive is a salt that is not a zinc halide and comprises an anion with a van der Waals volume of smaller than about 65 (claims 8 & 30); about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the second zinc additive (claims 9 & 31); the first zinc additive is zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate, zinc perfluorobutanesulfonate, zinc bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonim ide. zinc methanosul fonate, zinc p-toluenesulfonate, zinc hexatluorophosphate. zinc tetrakis[3.5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]borate, or any combination thereof (claims 10 & 29); from about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of the one or more zinc additives (claim 11); about 0.5 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of a glyme (claim 19); a zinc halide utilization in the electrolyte of the secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell is increased by about 5% to about 40% compared to an equivalent electrolyte in a secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell without the one or more zinc additives (claims 24 & 34); a second zinc additive of zinc nitrate, zinc sulfate, zinc perchlorate, zinc tetrafluoroborate, or any combination thereof (claims 35-36).
Wang teaches that it is well known in the art to employ an electrolyte wherein the one or more zinc additives, wherein the first zinc additive is a salt that is not a zinc halide and comprises an anion with a van der Waals volume of greater than about 65 A3 (zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate; teaching claim 5; claims 1 & 25); one or more zinc additives further comprises a second zinc additive, wherein the second zinc additive is a salt that is not a zinc halide and comprises an anion with a van der Waals volume of smaller than about 65 (zinc sulphate; teaching claim 5; claims 8 & 30); the first zinc additive is zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate, zinc perfluorobutanesulfonate, zinc bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonim ide. zinc methanosul fonate, zinc p-toluenesulfonate, zinc hexatluorophosphate. zinc tetrakis[3.5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]borate, or any combination thereof (zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate; teaching claim 5; claims 10 & 29); a second zinc additive of zinc nitrate, zinc sulfate, zinc perchlorate, zinc tetrafluoroborate, or any combination thereof (zinc sulphate; teaching claim 5; claims 35-36).
Hertzberg and Wang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating zinc electrolytes with zinc chloride in deionized water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a first zinc additive is a salt that is not a zinc halide and comprises an anion with a van der Waals volume of greater than about 65 A3 , such as zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate of Wang, as the zinc additive of Hertzberg, in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1. With respect to the zinc additives being present in an amount of
about 0.5wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more, Wang teaches that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to about 0.5 wt.% to about 3 wt% of the first zinc additive (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1. With respect to the zinc additives being present in an amount of
about 0.5wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more, wang teaches that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a molar ratio of total zinc ion to halide ion in the electrolyte is from about 1:2 to about 1:3 (claim 5); a molar ratio of total zinc ion to halide ion in the electrolyte is from about 1:1 to about 1:2.5 (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Hertzberg teaches 27.42% zinc bromide and 44.34% distilled water. See Table 1. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to about 0.5 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of the first zinc additive (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1. Wang teaches that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the second zinc additive (claims 9 & 31); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1. Wang teaches that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of the one or more zinc additives (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1. Wang teaches that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to about 0.5 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of a glyme (claim 19); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, as "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a zinc halide utilization in the electrolyte of the secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell is increased by about 5% to about 40% compared to an equivalent electrolyte in a secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell without the one or more zinc additives (claims 24 & 34); it would have been obvious in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, as the combination of references teach the same zinc halide cell of the instant claims. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, zinc halide utilization in the electrolyte of the secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell is increased by about 5% to about 40% compared to an equivalent electrolyte in a secondary zinc halide electrochemical cell without the one or more zinc additives is necessarily present. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 23, 28, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzberg U.S. Pub. 2019/0386348 in view of Wang et al. CN 113314773A, and further in view of Adamson et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0131662.
Hertzberg in view of Wang teach an electrolyte as described in the rejection recited herein above.
Hertzberg does not teach or suggest: about 0.2 wt.% to about 2.5 wt.% of DME-PEG (claims 16 & 28); the electrolyte comprises DME-PEG with a number average molecular weight of about 1000 amu. DME -PEG with a number average molecular weight of about 2000 amu, or a combination thereof (claim 17); the zinc halide electrochemical cell is a flow zinc halide electrochemical cell (claim 23 & 33).
Adamson teaches that it is well known in the art to employ DME-PEG in the zinc electrolytes of zinc halide electrochemical cells (0.5 wt % to about 2.5 wt % DME-PEG; [0016]; claims 16 & 28); the electrolyte comprises DME-PEG with a number average molecular weight of about 1000 amu. DME -PEG with a number average molecular weight of about 2000 amu, or a combination thereof (200 amu to about 3000 amu; [0016]; claim 17); the zinc halide electrochemical cell is a flow zinc halide electrochemical cell (bipolar flow or non-flow batteries; [0153]; claim 23 & 33).
Hertzberg, Wang and Adamson are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating zinc electrolytes with zinc chloride in deionized water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ about 0.5 wt % to about 2.5 wt % DME-PEG of Adamson, in the zinc electrolyte of Hertzberg in view of Wang, as 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). With respect to about 0.2 wt.% to about 2.5 wt.% of DME-PEG, Adamson teaches 0.5 wt % to about 2.5 wt % DME-PEG; [0016]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that Wang et al. CN 113314773A teaching zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate (teaching claim 5) and zinc sulphate (teaching claim 5) are not the first and second electrolyte additives. Specifically in teaching claim 5, Wang teaches the presence of the zinc salts in a “matrix electrolyte” and in the alternative, not as a combination of salts used together. This argument is not persuasive as Wang teaches the use of the salts together in the Abstract: “the preparation method is as follows: dissolving zinc sulphate, zinc chloride and zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate in de-ionized water; stirring and dissolving at normal temperature to prepare matrix electrolyte”. Furthermore, “one of” in the reference precedes “zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate”, and never all three of the salts. Specifically, in teaching claim 5 provided: “A preparation method of the aqueous zinc ion battery electrolyte according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein it comprises the following steps: (1) dissolving zinc sulphate, zinc chloride, one of zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate in de-ionized water”. It is the Examiner’s position that there is more than one type of zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate including anhydrous salts, hydrates and solvates. However, irrespective of whether the salts are present together, it is well within the artisan’s skill to choose and combine well known salts to increase ion conductivity. Furthermore, 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). Regarding the physical state of the Wang electrolyte being a “matrix electrolyte”, it would have been obvious to employ salts from any phased electrolyte, such as solid or “matrix electrolytes”, into gel or liquid electrolytes, as the ions being provided for conduction are the same.
Applicant asserts that the obviousness conclusion of relying on Wang is mere hindsight. This argument is not persuasive as the motivation provided included:
Hertzberg and Wang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating zinc electrolytes with zinc chloride in deionized water.
obviousness in order form stable mussel bionic solid electrolyte interface film on the zinc cathode surface in situ, inducing non-dendritic crystal deposition of zinc; improving the circulation performance and coulomb efficiency of the zinc cathode, and improve the electrochemical performance of the zinc ion battery, See Wang at Contents of the Invention, paragraph 1.
Based on the arguments provided, an additional motivation for employing zinc salts of Wang, is that 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). It is the Examiner’s position that Wang is relied upon primarily to show the conventionality of using zinc salts in aqueous electrolytes. The polymer additives of Wang do not deter the obviousness of employing said salts in other electrolyte configurations.
With respect to the zinc additives being present in an amount of about 0.5wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more, Applicant asserts that Wang teaching that the concentration of the base electrolyte is 0.5 to 3mol/L does not translate to “about 0.5wt.% to about 20 wt.% of one or more zinc additives”. This argument is not persuasive as the teaching was relied upon as a “general condition” of the presence to satisfy the case law. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Unless there are unexpected ameliorative results, the claims are obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723