Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 04/28/2026, 05/13/2026, and 05/18/2026 have been entered.
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 04/28/2026 and 05/13/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are amended. No claims are new. No claims are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the amendments. An annotated copy of the drawings filed 04/28/2026 is attached to indicate the replacement drawings are approved.
The prior new matter objections to the Specification are withdrawn due to the explanation provided in the applicant’s remarks (filed 04/28/2026; see pp. 9-10). The examiner further acknowledges the subject matter of the specification ¶ [0419] was included in the instant application’s original claims (filed 10/28/2022). Annotated copies of the specification revisions filed 01/12/2026 and 04/28/2026 are attached to indicate they are okay to enter.
Prior objections to the IDS documents (filed 03/02/2023) are withdrawn after the non-patent literature documents were provided by the applicant.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/02/2023, 03/02/2023, and 05/18/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
For the same reasons as addressed in a prior office action (Final Rejection, 01/29/2026), claims 1-12 are granted an effective filing date of 10/09/2014.
For the same reasons as addressed in a prior office action (Non-Final Rejection, 07/10/2025), claims 13-20 are granted an effective filing date of 10/28/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), 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).
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 1-1: 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 the gelling agent is a silicate”.
Alci further does not explicitly disclose “a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by a combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte”.
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.
Flet teaches the ultracapacitor (“supercapacitor device 105”, made up of at least one “supercapacitor cell”; Figs. 1-2) utilizes an electrolyte (¶ [7]: “supercapacitor cell may include: … an ionic liquid electrolyte disposed within the area occupied by the working electrode layers and the electrode separator”).
Flet further teaches the electrolyte (“ionic liquid electrolyte”) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [26]: “the ionic liquid electrolyte phase may further include a viscosifier added thereto to modify the viscosity of the electrolyte to substantially immobilize the ionic liquid electrolyte (so that the liquid does not undergo convective flow into undesired locations) but still allows for internal diffusion of the ions therein”), wherein the gelling agent is a silicate (Abstract: “The ionic liquid electrolyte may be gelled by a silica gellant to inhibit electrolyte flow”; ¶ [26]: “the viscosifier may include a silica gellant”; Figs. 3-4 show characteristics influenced by the “silica gellant”).
Flet further teaches the silicate gelling agent to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures (¶ [5, 16, 21, 29, 39]), thus improving reliability in harsh environments such as may be experienced in downhole drilling.
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 silicate gelling agent, as taught by Flet, to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures, thus improving reliability in harsh environments.
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 1-2: 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 combo of Alci & Flet 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.
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 the method disclosed by the combo of Alci, Flet, & 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 combo of Alci, Flet, Sig, & 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, Sig, & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Alci, Flet, 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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), 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, Flet, Sig & Eich teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Alci, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), and 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 7-1: 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 the gelling agent is a silicate”.
Alci further does not explicitly disclose “a level of halide impurities is no greater than 50 parts per million, by a combined weight of a storage cell and the electrolyte”.
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.
Flet teaches the ultracapacitor (“supercapacitor device 105”, made up of at least one “supercapacitor cell”; Figs. 1-2) utilizes an electrolyte (¶ [7]: “supercapacitor cell may include: … an ionic liquid electrolyte disposed within the area occupied by the working electrode layers and the electrode separator”).
Flet further teaches the electrolyte (“ionic liquid electrolyte”) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [26]: “the ionic liquid electrolyte phase may further include a viscosifier added thereto to modify the viscosity of the electrolyte to substantially immobilize the ionic liquid electrolyte (so that the liquid does not undergo convective flow into undesired locations) but still allows for internal diffusion of the ions therein”), wherein the gelling agent is a silicate (Abstract: “The ionic liquid electrolyte may be gelled by a silica gellant to inhibit electrolyte flow”; ¶ [26]: “the viscosifier may include a silica gellant”; Figs. 3-4 show characteristics influenced by the “silica gellant”).
Flet further teaches the silicate gelling agent to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures (¶ [5, 16, 21, 29, 39]), thus improving reliability in harsh environments such as may be experienced in downhole drilling.
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 silicate gelling agent, as taught by Flet, to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures, thus improving reliability in harsh environments.
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 7-2, 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 7-2: 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 combo of Alci & Flet 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.
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, Flet, & 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), and Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), 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 note 10-1, included infra) of the ultracapacitor (ApowerCap ultracapacitor; pages 26-27).
NOTE 10-1: 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 the gelling agent is a silicate; 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”.
Flet teaches the ultracapacitor (“supercapacitor device 105”, made up of at least one “supercapacitor cell”; Figs. 1-2) utilizes an electrolyte (¶ [7]: “supercapacitor cell may include: … an ionic liquid electrolyte disposed within the area occupied by the working electrode layers and the electrode separator”).
Flet further teaches the electrolyte (“ionic liquid electrolyte”) comprises a gelling agent (¶ [26]: “the ionic liquid electrolyte phase may further include a viscosifier added thereto to modify the viscosity of the electrolyte to substantially immobilize the ionic liquid electrolyte (so that the liquid does not undergo convective flow into undesired locations) but still allows for internal diffusion of the ions therein”), wherein the gelling agent is a silicate (Abstract: “The ionic liquid electrolyte may be gelled by a silica gellant to inhibit electrolyte flow”; ¶ [26]: “the viscosifier may include a silica gellant”; Figs. 3-4 show characteristics influenced by the “silica gellant”).
Flet further teaches the silicate gelling agent to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures (¶ [5, 16, 21, 29, 39]), thus improving reliability in harsh environments such as may be experienced in downhole drilling.
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 silicate gelling agent, as taught by Flet, to improve the robustness of the ultracapacitor to withstand high temperatures and high pressures, thus improving reliability in harsh environments.
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 10-2: 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 combo of Burke & Flet 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 10-3: 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, Flet, & 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, Flet, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 10.
The combo of Burke, Flet, 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, Flet, Sig, & Alci teaches the method of claim 11.
The combo of Burke, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, Sig, & Alci to be used for an ultracapacitor that exhibits an ESR increase less than 300% 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.
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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 Fletcher et al. (US 2013/0342962 A1; hereinafter “Flet”), Signorelli et al. (US 2012/0154979 A1; hereinafter “Sig”), Alcicek (Experimental study of temperature effect on ultracapacitor aging, 4-Jan-2008, IEEE Xplore) (hereinafter “Alci”), 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 17, the combination of Burke, Flet, 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, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 combo of Burke, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 19-1: 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 combo of Burke, Flet, 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, Flet, 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 20-1: 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 combo of Burke, Flet, 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
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
Prosecution Insights