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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 2019/0006701) in view of Ihara (US 2008/0292970) and Son (EP 3509152 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses an energy storage device made of an aluminum electrode, comprising:
a positive electrode (102, see paragraph 35 which discloses graphite as a cathode active material);
a negative electrode (104), wherein the negative electrode is the aluminum electrode (see paragraph 62 which discloses an aluminum electrode);
a separator (106), disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (as depicted in Fig. 1); and
an electrolyte (108), disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and partly located in the separator (due to the porous nature of the separator as described in paragraph 28), wherein the electrolyte comprises an aluminum halide and an ionic liquid (see paragraphs 10-13 which discloses an ionic liquid electrolyte containing an aluminum halide, in this case AlCl3), the aluminum halide is configured to produce a faradaic pseudo-capacitance reaction in the energy storage device, and the ionic liquid is configured to cooperate with the faradaic pseudo-capacitance reaction in the energy storage device (the italicized portion is directed toward a function of the claimed energy storage device and does not set forth any structure that is not exhibited by Dai. In other words, Dai, due to the identical structure of the claimed invention, is also capable of exhibiting such functions).
Dai teaches a separator can comprise a number of materials such as polyethylene, but does not explicitly disclose a separator comprising PTFE.
Ihara also discloses an energy storage device (see abstract).
Ihara, like Dai, teach a separator in between a positive and negative electrode (paragraph 84) and like Dai, teaches that polyethylene is an appropriate separator material. Ihara goes on to teach that other separator materials can be used in the same service, including PTFE (see paragraph 84).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polyethylene of Dai with the PTFE of Ihara as such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield entirely predictable results and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
In addition, Dai does not explicitly teach a mesh metal included in the negative electrode.
Son also discloses a secondary battery (see abstract).
Son teaches that the negative electrode active material is coated on a mesh metal material which also serves as a current collector, in order to improve the adhesion between the current collector and the active material layer (paragraph 51).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the mesh metal of Son to the negative electrode of modified Dai in order to improve adhesion between the current collector and the active material layer of the anode.
Furthermore, Dai further discloses the intercalation material (the graphite of the positive electrode) has at least a first-sized particle (such as a natural graphite particle, of which there are many and the many particles have an average particle size between 20 microns and 300 microns, see claim 12 of Dai) and a second-sized particle (such as another particle of natural graphite that ), and the first-sized particle is different from the second-sized particle (the first and second sized particles of natural graphite are not the same particle). This limitation is claimed in such a way that it can be interpreted different ways. Applicant has not actually claimed that the particles are differently sized or are made of different materials. In the claim, it only states that the first sized particle (singular particle) is different than the second sized particle (also a singular particle). Dia teaches a plurality of particles which are made of natural graphite and therefore teaches one particle and another particle which are different particles from each other.
Furthermore, while not explicitly stating the claimed size range of the first and second sized particles, Dia does teach that all the natural graphite particles have an average size between 1-500 microns (paragraph 16) which provides for a range of particle sizes that the first and second sized particles can be that overlaps with the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, as above, this claim claims more functional limitation regarding the capabilities of the claimed structure. The structure of Dai, which is identical to the claimed structure, is capable of such functions.
Regarding claims 3-4, Dai further discloses the positive electrode is formed by coating a nickel foil with an intercalation material (see paragraph 97 which discloses coating the graphite on a nickel foil).
Regarding claim 8, Dai further discloses a molar ratio of the aluminum halide to the ionic liquid is greater than at least 1.5 (see paragraph 10 which shows a molar ratio of 1.1-1.7 which overlaps the claimed range). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Dai further discloses a moisture content of the electrolyte is less than at least 1,000 ppm (see paragraph 91 which discloses completely removing all water from the electrolyte).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5, Applicant argues that Dai does not teach the claimed “first sized particle” and “second sized particle” having the claimed size. The Office notes, as explained in the rejection above, that Dai does indeed teach these claimed limitations. The way the claim is written with “first sized particle” and “second sized particle” does nothing to give these particles a size and/or a composition. It merely claims that they are different particles which may or may not have the same size and may or may not have the same composition. It is understood that the specification is light on details regarding these particles and therefore the examiner cannot provide a suggested amendment to overcome the generic/non-descript nature of these particles.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725