Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 01/12/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-20 are amended. No claims are new. No claims are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Specification and Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Regarding the two IDS documents filed on 03/02/2023, the applicant remarks on page 4 that “Applicant addresses by separate paper the Examiner’s request at page 4 regarding non-patent literature documents”. The separate paper does not appear to be included in the applicant’s response. Thus, the prior action’s comments are maintained: “The two information disclosure statements filed 03/02/2023 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.”
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Priority
An excerpt of the Corrected Filing Receipt received 08/19/2025 is included infra.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/889,018, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
As addressed in the prior office action, claims 13-20 are granted an effective filing date of 10/28/2022.
The following claimed subject matter of amended independent claims 1, 7, & 10 is not disclosed by provisional application 61/889,018: “a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte”.
Application PCT/US 2014/059971 (see ¶ [22] of publication WO 2015/102716 A2), filed 10/09/2014, appears to be the earliest application which supports this subject matter.
Earlier application 62/019,952 (see ¶ [15] of specification, filed 07/02/2014) discloses “a level of halide impurities within the housing is no greater than 1,000 parts per million by combined weight of the storage cell and electrolyte”. This is insufficient to provide priority benefit for the claims subject matter of amended independent claims 1, 7, & 10.
Thus, claims 1-12 are granted an effective filing date of 10/09/2014.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“method” (claims 1-20) – The drawings do not depict the claimed methods and the associated steps:
“obtaining the HTRESD” (claims 1, 7)
“cycling the HTRESD” (claim 1)
“maintaining a voltage across the HTRESD” (claim 1)
“maintaining a voltage across the ultracapacitor (claim 7)
“obtaining the ultracapacitor” (claim 10)
“charging and discharging the ultracapacitor at least twice” (claim 10)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/12/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is the following excerpt of replacement paragraph [0419]:
“Additionally, in an embodiment, a method for using a high temperature rechargeable energy storage device comprises: (a) obtaining an HTRESD; and (b) at least one of (1) cycling the HTRESD by alternatively charging and discharging the HTRESD at least twice over a duration of 20 hours and (2) maintaining a voltage across the HTRESD for 20 hours; such that the HTRESD exhibits a peak power density between 0.005 W/liter and 75 kW/liter after 20 hours when operated at an ambient temperature in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 210 °C. The operating temperature range may comprise between about -40 °C and about 225 °C. The HTRESD may exhibit an initial peak power density that is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 10 kW/liter, between about 0.01 W/liter and about 5 kW/liter, or between about 0.01 W/liter and about 2 kW/liter. In another embodiment a method for using a high temperature rechargeable energy storage device (HTRESD) comprises: (a) obtaining an HTRESD comprising an ultracapacitor; and (b) maintaining a voltage across the ultracapacitor, such that the ultracapacitor will exhibit a peak power density of between about 0.005 W/liter and about 75 kW/liter after 20 hours when operated at an ambient temperature in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 210 °C. The operating temperature range may comprise between about -40 °C and about 225 °C. In another embodiment, a method for using an ultracapacitor comprises: (a) obtaining an ultracapacitor; and (b) charging and discharging the ultracapacitor at least twice to provide for an initial combination of peak power and energy densities in a range from about 0.1 Wh-kW / liter2 to about 100 Wh-kW / liter2, wherein said combination is mathematically a product of the peak power density and the energy density of the ultracapacitor; and wherein the ultracapacitor exhibits a durability period of at least 20 hours when exposed to an ambient temperature in an operational temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 210 °C, wherein the durability is indicated by a decrease in peak power density of no more than about 50 percent over the durability period. The operating temperature range may comprise between about -40 °C and about 225 °C. The ultracapacitor may exhibit a capacitance decrease less than about 60 percent while held at a constant voltage for at least 20 hours. The ultracapacitor may exhibit a decrease of capacitance of 20% or less and an increase in ESR of 20% or less during operation for at least 1500 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more. The ultracapacitor may exhibit a decrease of capacitance of 25% or less and an increase in ESR of 40% or less during operation for at least 2000 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”) in view of Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Eichenberg (Baseline Testing of Ultracapacitors for the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Project, Nov-2004, NASA) (hereinafter “Eich”), and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Vol. 3, pp. 1294–1301).
NOTE: Gell has an effective filing date of 03/13/2013 from priority to the provisional application number 61/802,221.
Regarding Claim 1, Alci discloses a method (“accelerated ageing and measurement protocol” performed on ultracapacitors per section III, pages 2-3) for using a high temperature rechargeable energy storage device (HTRESD) comprising the following.
Alci further discloses obtaining an HTRESD comprising an ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor” per section III, page 2; the device was inherently obtained in order to perform the disclosed test).
Alci further discloses the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor”) utilizes an electrolyte (page 1, section II: “elementary structure of ultracapacitor consists on aluminum current collectors, activated carbon electrodes impregnated in an organic or aqueous electrolyte”).
Alci further discloses the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor”) comprises the storage cell (combination of “two electrodes”, “organic or aqueous electrolyte”, and “separator” of section II, pages 1-2) that contains the electrolyte (“organic or aqueous electrolyte”).
Alci further discloses maintaining a voltage (“ultracapacitors n 1, 2, and 3 are polarized at 2.7 V”; section IV, page 3) across the HTRESD (“ultracapacitor”) for 20 hours (tested for 20 hours and longer, over 1000 hours, per Figs. 4, 5).
Alci further discloses the HTRESD (“ultracapacitor”) exhibits an increased ESR of 0-20% after 20 hours (from Fig. 5: ESR1-3 of the three ultracapacitors appears to increase by 0-20% by the unmarked 20-hour x-axis value) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 210 °C (65 °C is within this range).
NOTE: Stoller provides evidence that an ultracapacitor’s power density is linearly and inversely proportional to its ESR (page 1297: “an ultracapacitor’s power scales with the square of the voltage divided by its equivalent series resistance (ESR)”; page 1298: “main indicator for the power capability for a packaged cell is based upon its direct current resistance or ESR”). Thus, this relationship is an inherent and well-known property of ultracapacitors. Thus, a decrease in peak power density of 0-20% is inherent for an increase in ESR of 0-20% when the voltage is kept constant.
Thus, as evidenced by Stoller, Alci discloses the HTRESD exhibits a decreased peak power density of 0-20% after 20 hours (from Fig. 5: ESR1-3 of the three ultracapacitors appears to increase by 0-20% by the unmarked 20-hour x-axis value; by inverse proportionality, the peak power density decreases by 0-20% over 20 hours) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C (65 °C is within this range).
Alci does not explicitly disclose “the electrolyte comprises a gelling agent, wherein a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by a combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte”.
Gell teaches the electrolyte (¶ [108]: “electrolyte solution 18 (not shown) which permeates and fills the pores of the separator and one or more of the electrodes” in the “electrochemical double layer capacitor (EDLC) 10” of Fig. 1) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [19]: “one or more salts dissolved in at least one solvent together with at least one polymer to form a gel electrolyte”).
Gell further teaches the gelling agent improves the manufacturability of assembling the electrolyte into the ultracapacitor by improving cell consistency and product yield (¶ [118]). Gell further teaches this construction enables the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures (¶ [140-143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte disclosed by Alci to incorporate a gelling agent, as taught by Gell, to improve the manufacturability of the ultracapacitor and/or enable the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures.
Sig teaches a level of halide impurities (¶ [28]: “impurities, such as halide ions (chloride, bromide, fluoride, iodide)”) is no greater than 1,000 parts per million (¶ [8]: “the electrodes, electrolyte and current collector containing less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of impurities”; ¶ [28]; see note, included infra, regarding difference from claimed range), by a combined weight of a storage cell (combo of “electrodes 12, 14”, “electrolyte 24”, and “separator 26”; Fig. 1) and the electrolyte (“electrolyte 24”; Fig. 1).
Sig further teaches the low halide impurity content of the enables the ultracapacitors to operate more reliably in higher temperature applications (¶ [3-4]).
NOTE: Sig’s range (less than 1,000 ppm) is broader than, but encompasses the claimed range (“no greater than 50 ppm”). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to formulate the claimed range of “no greater than 50 ppm” by routine optimization within the prior art conditions. Sig generally teaches that lower halide impurity content is better for the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures. Thus, it would be obvious that operating an ultracapacitor with less than 50 ppm halide impurity content would produce better results than an ultracapacitor with less than 1,000 ppm halide impurity content. There is no evidence of criticality in the instant application’s disclosure to demonstrate that the claimed range of halide impurity content being “no greater than 50 ppm” would produce unexpected results. Rather, it would be expected that a lower impurity content would merely produce better results (higher temperature operation ability) than an ultracapacitor with a higher impurity content. Reference MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ultracapacitor disclosed by the combination of Alci and Gell to have a level of halide impurities no greater than 50 ppm, in view of Sig, to enable the ultracapacitor to be reliably operated at higher temperatures.
Alci further does not disclose “the HTRESD exhibits a peak power density between 0.005 W/liter and 75 kW/liter after 20 hours when operated at an ambient temperature in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C”.
In other words, Alci is silent as to the value of the peak power density of the HTRESD before, during, and after the 20-hour test. As discussed infra, it would have been obvious for the HTRESD to exhibit a peak power density in the claimed range following 20 hours of exposure to Alci’s disclosed test conditions.
Eich teaches an HTRESD (“Maxwell BCAP0010 ultracapacitor”; section 2.0, page 9) with an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter (inherent to device with specified values of power density = 4.3 kW/kg, weight = 525 g, volume = 0.42 L per section 2.0, page 9; calculated per the inherent and well-known relationship, included infra).
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
p
e
a
k
p
o
w
e
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
4.3
k
W
1
k
g
×
525
g
0.42
L
×
1
k
g
1000
g
=
5.4
k
W
/
l
i
t
e
r
Eich further teaches the use of this HTRESD for its excellent power density, which can be introduced in a power system to improve performance and reliability (Summary, page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify method disclosed by the combination of Alci, Gell, and Sig to be used for an HTRESD with an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter, as taught by Eich, for the advantages of improved performance and reliability.
Thus, as evidenced by Stoller, the combination of Alci, Gell, Sig and Eich teaches the HTRESD (Alci’s ultracapacitor; modified per Eich to have an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter) exhibits a peak power density between 0.005 W/liter and 75 kW/liter after 20 hours (per Alci evidenced by Stoller: the peak power density decreases by 0-20% over 20 hours; thus, the initial value of 5.4 kW/liter decreases to be 4.3-5.4 kW/liter after 20 hours) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C (65 °C is within this range).
Regarding Claim 2, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
Alci discloses the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 225 °C (ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 3, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
Alci discloses the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 210 °C (ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 4, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the HTRESD (Alci’s ultracapacitor; modified per Eich to have an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter) exhibits an initial peak power density that is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 10 kW/liter (5.4 kW/liter is within this range).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”) in view of Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Eichenberg (Baseline Testing of Ultracapacitors for the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Project, Nov-2004, NASA) (hereinafter “Eich”), Burke (Testing of Supercapacitors: Capacitance, Resistance, and Energy and Power Capacity, Jul-2009, UC-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies), and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Vol. 3, pp. 1294–1301).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich teaches the HTRESD (Alci’s ultracapacitor; modified per Eich to have an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter) exhibits an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter.
Regarding Claim 5, Alci does not teach “the HTRESD exhibits an initial peak power density that is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 5 kW/liter”.
Regarding Claim 6, Alci does not teach “the HTRESD exhibits an initial peak power density that is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 5 kW/liter”.
Burke teaches an HTRESD (second “Maxwell” ultracapacitor device of table on page 8) that exhibits an initial peak power density (1.1 kW/liter; inherent to device with values of specific power = 1139 W/kg, weight = 0.20 kg, volume = 0.211 liter per table on page 8; calculated per the inherent and well-known relationship, included infra) that is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 5 kW/liter (1.1 kW/liter is within this range). Burke further teaches the initial peak power density is between about 0.01 W/liter and about 2 kW/liter (1.1 kW/liter is within this range).
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
p
e
a
k
p
o
w
e
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
1139
W
1
k
g
×
0.20
k
g
0.211
L
×
1
k
W
1000
W
=
1.1
k
W
/
l
i
t
e
r
Burke further teaches the use of this HTRESD for because it is low weight (0.20 kg) and small volume (0.211 liters), to produce its power density (per table on page 8). In comparison, the HTRESD taught by Eich (discussed supra) has higher weight (525 g) and larger volume (0.42 liters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig & Eich to be for an HTRESD with an initial peak power density of 1.1 kW/liter, as taught by Burke, for the advantages of its lower weight and smaller volume, which makes the method easier to set up and execute.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”) in view of Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Eichenberg (Baseline Testing of Ultracapacitors for the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Project, Nov-2004, NASA) (hereinafter “Eich”) and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Volume 3, pages 1294–1301).
Regarding Claim 7, Alci discloses a method (“accelerated ageing and measurement protocol” performed on ultracapacitors per section III, pages 2-3) for using a high temperature rechargeable energy storage device (HTRESD) comprising the following.
Alci further discloses obtaining the HTRESD comprising an ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor” per section III, page 2; the device was inherently obtained in order to perform the disclosed test).
Alci further discloses the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor”) utilizes an electrolyte (page 1, section II: “elementary structure of ultracapacitor consists on aluminum current collectors, activated carbon electrodes impregnated in an organic or aqueous electrolyte”).
Alci further discloses the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor”) comprises the storage cell (combination of “two electrodes”, “organic or aqueous electrolyte”, and “separator” of section II, pages 1-2) that contains the electrolyte (“organic or aqueous electrolyte”).
Alci further discloses maintaining a voltage across the ultracapacitor (“ultracapacitors n 1, 2, and 3 are polarized at 2.7 V”; section IV, page 3).
Alci further discloses the ultracapacitor will exhibit an increased ESR of 0-20% after 20 hours (from Fig. 5: ESR1-3 of the three ultracapacitors appears to increase by 0-20% by the unmarked 20-hour x-axis value) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 210 °C (65 °C is within this range).
NOTE: Stoller provides evidence that an ultracapacitor’s power density is linearly and inversely proportional to its ESR (page 1297: “an ultracapacitor’s power scales with the square of the voltage divided by its equivalent series resistance (ESR)”; page 1298: “main indicator for the power capability for a packaged cell is based upon its direct current resistance or ESR”). Thus, this relationship is an inherent and well-known property of ultracapacitors. Thus, a decrease in peak power density of 0-20% is inherent for an increase in ESR of 0-20% when the voltage is kept constant.
Thus, as evidenced by Stoller, Alci discloses the ultracapacitor will exhibit a decreased peak power density of 0-20% after 20 hours (from Fig. 5: ESR1-3 of the three ultracapacitors appears to increase by 0-20% by the unmarked 20-hour x-axis value; by inverse proportionality, the peak power density decreases by 0-20% over 20 hours) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C (65 °C is within this range).
Alci does not explicitly disclose “the electrolyte comprises a gelling agent, wherein a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by a combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte”.
Gell teaches the electrolyte (¶ [108]: “electrolyte solution 18 (not shown) which permeates and fills the pores of the separator and one or more of the electrodes” in the “electrochemical double layer capacitor (EDLC) 10” of Fig. 1) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [19]: “one or more salts dissolved in at least one solvent together with at least one polymer to form a gel electrolyte”).
Gell further teaches the gelling agent improves the manufacturability of assembling the electrolyte into the ultracapacitor by improving cell consistency and product yield (¶ [118]). Gell further teaches this construction enables the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures (¶ [140-143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte disclosed by Alci to incorporate a gelling agent, as taught by Gell, to improve the manufacturability of the ultracapacitor and/or enable the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures.
Sig teaches a level of halide impurities (¶ [28]: “impurities, such as halide ions (chloride, bromide, fluoride, iodide)”) is no greater than 1,000 parts per million (¶ [8]: “the electrodes, electrolyte and current collector containing less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of impurities”; ¶ [28]; see note, included infra, regarding difference from claimed range), by a combined weight of a storage cell (combo of “electrodes 12, 14”, “electrolyte 24”, and “separator 26”; Fig. 1) and the electrolyte (“electrolyte 24”; Fig. 1).
Sig further teaches the low halide impurity content of the enables the ultracapacitors to operate more reliably in higher temperature applications (¶ [3-4]).
NOTE: Sig’s range (less than 1,000 ppm) is broader than, but encompasses the claimed range (“no greater than 50 ppm”). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to formulate the claimed range of “no greater than 50 ppm” by routine optimization within the prior art conditions. Sig generally teaches that lower halide impurity content is better for the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures. Thus, it would be obvious that operating an ultracapacitor with less than 50 ppm halide impurity content would produce better results than an ultracapacitor with less than 1,000 ppm halide impurity content. There is no evidence of criticality in the instant application’s disclosure to demonstrate that the claimed range of halide impurity content being “no greater than 50 ppm” would produce unexpected results. Rather, it would be expected that a lower impurity content would merely produce better results (higher temperature operation ability) than an ultracapacitor with a higher impurity content. Reference MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ultracapacitor disclosed by the combination of Alci and Gell to have a level of halide impurities no greater than 50 ppm, in view of Sig, to enable the ultracapacitor to be reliably operated at higher temperatures.
Alci further does not disclose “the ultracapacitor will exhibit a peak power density between 0.005 W/liter and 75 kW/liter after 20 hours when operated at an ambient temperature in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C”.
In other words, Alci is silent as to the value of the peak power density of the ultracapacitor before, during, and after the 20-hour test. As discussed infra, it would have been obvious for the ultracapacitor to exhibit a peak power density in the claimed range following 20 hours of exposure to Alci’s disclosed test conditions.
Eich teaches an ultracapacitor (“Maxwell BCAP0010 ultracapacitor”; section 2.0, page 9) with an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter (inherent to device with specified values of power density = 4.3 kW/kg, weight = 525 g, volume = 0.42 L per section 2.0, page 9; calculated per the inherent and well-known relationship, included infra).
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
p
e
a
k
p
o
w
e
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
4.3
k
W
1
k
g
×
525
g
0.42
L
×
1
k
g
1000
g
=
5.4
k
W
/
l
i
t
e
r
Eich further teaches the use of this ultracapacitor for its excellent power density, which can be introduced in a power system to improve performance and reliability (Summary, page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Alci, Gell, & Sig to be used for an ultracapacitor with an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter, as taught by Eich, for the advantages of improved performance and reliability.
Thus, as evidenced by Stoller, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig, & Eich teaches the ultracapacitor (Alci’s ultracapacitor; modified per Eich to have an initial peak power density of 5.4 kW/liter) will exhibit a peak power density between 0.005 W/liter and 75 kW/liter after 20 hours (per Alci evidenced by Stoller: the peak power density decreases by 0-20% over 20 hours; thus, the initial value of 5.4 kW/liter decreases to be 4.3-5.4 kW/liter after 20 hours) when operated at an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operating temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C (65 °C is within this range).
Regarding Claim 8, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig, & Eich teaches the method of claim 7.
Alci discloses the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 225 °C (ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 9, the combo of Alci, Gell, Sig, & Eich teaches the method of claim 7.
Alci discloses the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 210 °C (ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (Testing of Supercapacitors: Capacitance, Resistance, and Energy and Power Capacity, Jul-2009, UC-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies) in view of Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), and Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Vol. 3, pp. 1294–1301).
Regarding Claim 10, Burke discloses a method (“Approach UCDavis” on page 25) for using an ultracapacitor (“ApowerCap AC/AC 450F device” on page 26) comprising the following.
Burke further discloses obtaining the ultracapacitor (“ApowerCap” is an ultracapacitor per its listing on the table of page 8; the device was inherently obtained in order to perform the disclosed test).
Burke further discloses charging and discharging the ultracapacitor at least twice (charged/discharged more than twice over the steps of the “Approach UCDavis” on page 25 in order to find peak power and energy densities) to provide for an initial combination of peak power and energy densities (value of 18.0 Wh-kW/liter2 is inherent for the ApowerCap ultracapacitor’s measured 2105 W/kg, 5.31 Wh/kg and specified 57 g, 45 cm3; pages 26-27; see infra note on inherency) in a range from about 0.1 Wh-kW / liter2 to about 100 Wh-kW / liter2 (18.0 Wh-kW/liter2 is within this range) wherein said combination is mathematically a product of the peak power density (2.67 kW/liter; inherent per the infra note) and the energy density (6.73 Wh/liter; inherent per the infra note) of the ultracapacitor (ApowerCap ultracapacitor; pages 26-27).
NOTE: The values of peak power density (2.67 kW/liter), energy density (6.73 Wh/liter), and their initial combination (18.0 Wh-kW/liter2) are inherent for the ultracapacitor’s characteristics taught by Burke for the ApowerCap ultracapacitor (pages 26-27: 57 g, 45 cm3, 2105 W/kg, 5.31 Wh/kg). The claim language does not require the method to calculate these values. The claim merely limits the characteristics of the ultracapacitor device. The following are calculations for the inherent characteristics of peak power density, energy density, and their initial combination.
p
e
a
k
p
o
w
e
r
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
2.105
k
W
1
k
g
×
0.057
k
g
45
c
m
3
×
1000
c
m
3
1
l
i
t
e
r
=
2.67
k
W
/
l
i
t
e
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
5.31
W
h
1
k
g
×
0.057
k
g
45
c
m
3
×
1000
c
m
3
1
l
i
t
e
r
=
6.73
W
h
/
l
i
t
e
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
=
2.67
k
W
1
l
i
t
e
r
×
6.73
W
h
1
l
i
t
e
r
=
18.0
W
h
∙
k
W
/
l
i
t
e
r
2
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor utilizes an electrolyte and the electrolyte comprises a gelling agent, wherein a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by a combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte, and wherein the ultracapacitor comprises the storage cell that contains the electrolyte”.
Burke further does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a durability period of at least 20 hours when exposed to an ambient temperature in an operational temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C, wherein the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease in peak power density of no more than about 50 percent over the durability period”.
Gell teaches the ultracapacitor (“electrochemical double layer capacitor (EDLC) 10”; Fig. 1) utilizes an electrolyte (¶ [108]: “electrolyte solution 18 (not shown) which permeates and fills the pores of the separator and one or more of the electrodes”).
Gell further teaches the electrolyte (“electrolyte solution 18”) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [19]: “one or more salts dissolved in at least one solvent together with at least one polymer to form a gel electrolyte”).
Gell further teaches the gelling agent improves the manufacturability of assembling the electrolyte into the ultracapacitor by improving cell consistency and product yield (¶ [118]). Gell further teaches this construction enables the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures (¶ [140-143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ultracapacitor disclosed by Burke to incorporate an electrolyte with a gelling agent, as taught by Gell, to improve the manufacturability of the ultracapacitor and/or enable the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures.
Sig teaches a level of halide impurities (¶ [28]: “impurities, such as halide ions (chloride, bromide, fluoride, iodide)”) is no greater than 1,000 parts per million (¶ [8]: “the electrodes, electrolyte and current collector containing less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of impurities”; ¶ [28]; see note, included infra, regarding difference from claimed range), by a combined weight of a storage cell (combo of “electrodes 12, 14”, “electrolyte 24”, and “separator 26”; Fig. 1) and the electrolyte (“electrolyte 24”; Fig. 1).
Sig further teaches the ultracapacitor (“electrochemical double-layer capacitor 10”; Fig. 1) comprises the storage cell (combo of 12, 14, 24, 26) that contains the electrolyte (24).
Sig further teaches the low halide impurity content of the enables the ultracapacitors to operate more reliably in higher temperature applications (¶ [3-4]).
NOTE: Sig’s range (less than 1,000 ppm) is broader than, but encompasses the claimed range (“no greater than 50 ppm”). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to formulate the claimed range of “no greater than 50 ppm” by routine optimization within the prior art conditions. Sig generally teaches that lower halide impurity content is better for the ultracapacitor to operate at higher temperatures. Thus, it would be obvious that operating an ultracapacitor with less than 50 ppm halide impurity content would produce better results than an ultracapacitor with less than 1,000 ppm halide impurity content. There is no evidence of criticality in the instant application’s disclosure to demonstrate that the claimed range of halide impurity content being “no greater than 50 ppm” would produce unexpected results. Rather, it would be expected that a lower impurity content would merely produce better results (higher temperature operation ability) than an ultracapacitor with a higher impurity content. Reference MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ultracapacitor disclosed by the combination of Burke and Gell to have a level of halide impurities no greater than 50 ppm, in view of Sig, to enable the ultracapacitor to be reliably operated at higher temperatures.
Alci teaches the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor” per section III, page 2) exhibits a durability period of at least 20 hours (from Fig. 5: ESR1-3 of the three ultracapacitors appears to increase by 0-20% by the unmarked 20-hour x-axis value; evidence from Stoller, included infra, indicates the decrease in peak power density is inherently 0-20% after 20 hours; thus, the durability period is at least 20 hours) when exposed to an ambient temperature (“placed in a climatic chamber which temperature is regulated at 65°C”; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5) in an operational temperature range comprising between about -40 °C and about 250 °C (65 °C is within this range) wherein the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease in peak power density of no more than about 50 percent over the durability period (evidence from Stoller, included infra, indicates the decrease in peak power density is inherently 0-20% over the period because the increase in ESR is 0-20% over the period).
NOTE: Stoller provides evidence that an ultracapacitor’s power density is linearly and inversely proportional to its ESR (page 1297: “an ultracapacitor’s power scales with the square of the voltage divided by its equivalent series resistance (ESR)”; page 1298: “main indicator for the power capability for a packaged cell is based upon its direct current resistance or ESR”). Thus, this relationship is an inherent and well-known property of ultracapacitors. Thus, a decrease in peak power density of 0-20% is inherent for an increase in ESR of 0-20% when the voltage is kept constant.
Alci teaches this durability of ultracapacitors is advantageous because it provides a long lifetime for the ultracapacitor, which improves reliability of the system it is used in.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor disclosed by the combo of Burke, Gell, & Sig to be used for an ultracapacitor with a durability period of at least 20 hours at an ambient temperature of 65 °C, as taught by Alci, to improve the reliability of the system the ultracapacitor is used in, due to the device’s long lifetime.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
The combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 225 °C (incorporated from Alci as discussed supra: ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 11.
The combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the operating temperature range comprises between about -40 °C and about 210 °C (incorporated from Alci as discussed supra: ambient temperature of 65 °C is within this range; section IV, page 3; Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a capacitance decrease less than about 60 percent while held at a constant voltage for at least 20 hours”.
Alci teaches the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor” per section III, page 2) exhibits a capacitance decrease less than about 60 percent (after 500 hours at 2.7V and 65°C, the capacitance decreases from 2950 F to 2350 F, approx. 20%; Fig. 4) while held at a constant voltage (“ultracapacitors n 1, 2, and 3 are polarized at 2.7 V”; section IV, page 3) for at least 20 hours (data is at the 500-hour mark; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor disclosed by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to be used for an ultracapacitor that exhibits a capacitance decrease less than 60% over 20 hours at a constant voltage, as further taught by Alci, to improve the reliability of the system the ultracapacitor is used in, due to the device’s long lifetime.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits an equivalent series resistance (ESR) increase less than about 300 percent while held at a constant voltage for at least 20 hours”.
Alci teaches the ultracapacitor (“Maxwell Technologies MC2600 ultracapacitor” per section III, page 2) exhibits an equivalent series resistance (ESR) increase less than about 300 percent (after 500 hours at 2.7V and 65°C, the ESR1 appears to increase from 4E-04 Ω to 5.5E-04 Ω, approx. 38%; Fig. 5) while held at a constant voltage (“ultracapacitors n 1, 2, and 3 are polarized at 2.7 V”; section IV, page 3) for at least 20 hours (data is at the 500-hour mark; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor disclosed by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to be used for an ultracapacitor that exhibits an ESR increase less than 300% over 20 hours at a constant voltage, as taught by Alcicek, to improve the reliability of the system the ultracapacitor is used in, due to the device’s long lifetime.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (Testing of Supercapacitors: Capacitance, Resistance, and Energy and Power Capacity, Jul-2009, UC-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies) in view of Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Eaton (Technical Note PS-5006, Dec-2017, Eaton), and Kötz (Temperature behavior and impedance fundamentals of supercapacitors, 1-Dec-2005, Journal of Power Sources 154, pages 550-555), and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Vol. 3, pp. 1294–1301).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a time before failure of at least 100 hours operating at a temperature of about 200 degrees Celsius or greater, wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50% or greater or an increase in the ESR of 50% or greater”.
Eaton teaches an ultracapacitor (“electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC), also known as supercapacitors” per Overview, page 1) exhibits a time before failure of approximately 15,000 hours operating at a temperature of 70 °C, wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50% (heaviest line in Figure 1 Operating life vs. temperature and charge voltage).
Eaton further teaches a calculation can model the time before failure at higher temperatures by decreasing the lifetime by a factor of two for every 10°C increase in ambient temperature (page 2, “Ambient temperature” paragraph). Thus, Eaton teaches the ultracapacitor’s time before failure can be modeled for a broader range of thermal environments, such as at 200°C, as an adjustment from the data at 70°C, per the calculations below.
T
f
a
i
l
70
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
15,000
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
80
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
7,500
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
90
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
3,750
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
100
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
1,875
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
110
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
937
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
120
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
469
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
130
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
234
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
140
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
117
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
150
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
59
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
160
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
29
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
170
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
15
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
180
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
7.3
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
190
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
3.7
h
o
u
r
s
;
T
f
a
i
l
200
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
1.8
h
o
u
r
s
Thus, Eaton teaches an ultracapacitor that exhibits a time before failure of approximately 1.8 hours operating at a temperature of 200 °C, wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor disclosed the by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to use the ultracapacitor with a time of failure of 1.8 hours at 200 °C and 2.5V, wherein a failure condition is a 50% decrease of capacitance, as taught by Eaton, to broaden the range of applicable thermal environments the device can operate in.
Thus, the ultracapacitor taught by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, Alci, & Eaton exhibits a time before failure (50% decrease in capacitance) of approximately 1.8 hours at 200°C with a potential of 2.5V.
Kötz teaches a lifetime calculation model for ultracapacitors in which the lifetime decreases by a factor of two for a potential increase of 0.1 V (Abstract). Thus, Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor’s time before failure is improved by lowering the potential across the device. Kötz’s model is used infra to adjust the time before failure for a potential of 1.2V at 200°C.
T
f
a
i
l
200
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
1.8
h
o
u
r
s
(
t
a
u
g
h
t
b
y
c
o
m
b
o
o
f
B
u
r
k
e
,
A
l
c
i
c
e
k
,
a
n
d
K
o
t
z
)
T
f
a
i
l
200
°
C
,
2.4
V
=
3.7
h
o
u
r
s
T
f
a
i
l
200
°
C
,
2.3
V
=
7.3
h
o
u
r
s
…
T
f
a
i
l
200
°
C
,
1.2
V
=
15,000
h
o
u
r
s
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor disclosed by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, Alci, & Eaton to use the capacitor with a time of failure of approximately 15,000 hours at 200 °C and 1.2V, wherein a failure condition is a 50% decrease of capacitance, as taught by Kötz, to improve the lifetime of the ultracapacitor.
Thus, the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, Alci, Eaton, & Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor exhibits a time before failure of at least 100 hours operating at a temperature of about 200 degrees Celsius (combo teaches 15,000 hours at 200°C with potential of 1.2V), wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50% or greater.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a time before failure of at least 600 hours operating at a temperature of about 200 degrees Celsius or greater, wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50% or greater or an increase in the ESR of 50% or greater”.
The same modifications to the references and justifications thereof from the Claim 15 rejection are also applicable to the Claim 16 rejection, without additional modifications.
Thus, the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, Alci, Eaton, & Kötz (set forth in Claim 15 rejection supra) teaches the ultracapacitor exhibits a time before failure of at least 600 hours operating at a temperature of about 200 degrees Celsius or greater (combo teaches 15,000 hours at 200°C with potential of 1.2V), wherein a failure condition is a decrease of capacitance of 50% or greater.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (Testing of Supercapacitors: Capacitance, Resistance, and Energy and Power Capacity, Jul-2009, UC-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies) in view of Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), Gellett et al. (US 2014/0266075 A1; hereinafter “Gell”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), and Kötz (Temperature behavior and impedance fundamentals of supercapacitors, 1-Dec-2005, Journal of Power Sources 154, pp. 550-555), and as evidenced by Stoller (Best practice methods for determining an electrode material’s performance for ultracapacitors, 2010, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010 Vol. 3, pp. 1294–1301).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 10% or less and an increase in the ESR of 20% or less during operation for at least 500 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more”.
Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 10% or less (capacitance appears to decrease 9.7% from 360 F to 325 F at 0.7 years; Fig. 10, bold blue line) an increase in the ESR of 20% or less (ESR appears to increase 6.3% from 3.2 mΩ to 3.4 mΩ at 0.7 years; Fig. 10, bold pink line) during operation for at least 500 hours (at the 0.7-years mark of Fig. 10) at a temperature of at 25°C and an operating voltage of 2.5V.
Thus, at 25°C and 2.5V, Kötz teaches the lifetime for the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) based on criteria of both capacitance (max decrease of 10%) and ESR (max increase of 20%) is approximately 0.7 years / 6,132 hours.
Kötz further teaches the lifetime of the ultracapacitor can be modeled at different temperatures and operating voltages. Kötz teaches the lifetime decreases by a factor of two for a potential increase of 0.1 V (Abstract, Conclusions). Kötz further teaches the lifetime decreases by a factor of two for a temperature increase of 10°C. Thus, Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor’s time before failure is improved by lowering the potential across the device. Kötz’s model is used infra to calculate the lifetime of the same ultracapacitor at 200°C with an operating voltage of 0.5V. The calculation starts with the lifetime value taught by Kötz:
T
l
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
25
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
0.7
y
e
a
r
s
=
6,132
h
o
u
r
s
The calculation then adjusts for the 175°C change to adjust the lifetime prediction for 200°C, decreasing the lifetime by a factor of 2 for each 10°C step increase, as taught by Kötz.
T
l
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
200
°
C
,
2.5
V
=
1
2
18
×
6,132
h
o
u
r
s
=
0.0234
h
o
u
r
s
The calculation then adjusts for the 2.0V change to adjust the lifetime prediction for 200°C, increasing the lifetime by a factor of 2 for each 0.1V step decrease, as taught by Kötz.
T
l
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
200
°
C
,
0.5
V
=
2
20
×
0.0234
h
o
u
r
s
=
24,528
h
o
u
r
s
Thus, at 25°C and 2.5V, Kötz teaches the lifetime for the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) based on criteria of both capacitance (max decrease of 10%) and ESR (max increase of 20%) is approximately 24,528 hours.
Thus, Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 10% or less (9.7%) and an increase in the ESR of 20% or less (6.3%) during operation for at least 500 hours (24,528 hours; based on Fig. 10 data and the adjustment factors taught for temperature and operating voltage in the Abstract and Conclusions) at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius (200°C; based on adjustment from 25°C) and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more (0.5V; based on adjustment from 2.5V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor taught by the combo of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to use an ultracapacitor that exhibits ≤ 10% decrease of capacitance and ≤ 20% increase of ESR after operation for at least 500 hours at 200°C and 0.5V, as taught by Kötz, to improve the lifetime of the ultracapacitor.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor is characterized by a decrease of capacitance of 10% or less and an increase in the ESR of 10% or less during operation for at least 1000 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more”.
Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) is characterized by a decrease of capacitance of 10% or less (9.7%) and an increase in the ESR of 10% or less (6.3%) during operation for at least 1000 hours (24,528 hours; based on Fig. 10 data and the adjustment factors taught for temperature and operating voltage in the Abstract and Conclusions) at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius (200°C; based on adjustment from 25°C) and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more (0.5V; based on adjustment from 2.5V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor taught by the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to use an ultracapacitor characterized by ≤ 10% decrease of capacitance and ≤ 10% increase of ESR after operation for at least 1000 hours at 200°C and 0.5V, as taught by Kötz, to improve the lifetime of the ultracapacitor.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 20% or less and an increase in the ESR of 20% or less during operation for at least 1500 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more”.
NOTE: Some of the values taught by Kötz are based on calculations included infra herein (see claim 17 rejection). For brevity, these calculations are not repeated.
Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 20% or less (9.7%) and an increase in the ESR of 20% or less (6.3%) during operation for at least 1500 hours (24,528 hours; based on Fig. 10 data and the adjustment factors taught for temperature and operating voltage in the Abstract and Conclusions) at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius (200°C; based on adjustment from 25°C) and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more (0.5V; based on adjustment from 2.5V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor taught by the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to use an ultracapacitor that exhibits ≤ 20% decrease of capacitance and ≤ 20% increase of ESR after operation for at least 1500 hours at 200°C and 0.5V, as taught by Kötz, to improve the lifetime of the ultracapacitor.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
Burke does not disclose “the ultracapacitor exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 25% or less and an increase in the ESR of 40% or less during operation for at least 2000 hours at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more”.
NOTE: Some of the values taught by Kötz are based on calculations included infra herein (see claim 17 rejection). For brevity, these calculations are not repeated.
Kötz teaches the ultracapacitor (BCAP0350) exhibits a decrease of capacitance of 25% or less (9.7%) and an increase in the ESR of 40% or less (6.3%) during operation for at least 2000 hours (24,528 hours; based on Fig. 10 data and the adjustment factors taught for temperature and operating voltage in the Abstract and Conclusions) at a temperature of at least 200 degrees Celsius (200°C; based on adjustment from 25°C) and an operating voltage of 0.5 V or more (0.5V; based on adjustment from 2.5V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and ultracapacitor taught by the combination of Burke, Gell, Sig, & Alci to use an ultracapacitor characterized by ≤ 25% decrease of capacitance and ≤ 40% increase of ESR after operation for at least 2000 hours at 200°C and 0.5V, as taught by Kötz, to improve the lifetime of the ultracapacitor.
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 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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859