DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 13, 17, 20-21, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 49-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 13, 17, 20-21, 29-31, 33-35, 38 and 49-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0161706 hereinafter Cao in view of US Patent 4049892 hereinafter Kronenberg.
Regarding Claim 1, Cao teaches an electrolyte comprising: an active salt; and a solvent (paragraph 193), wherein the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Kronenberg teaches 77 vol % dioxolane and 23 vol% DME in the electrolyte.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Cao teaches that the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Regarding Claim 8, Cao teaches that the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200).
Regarding Claims 13 and 17, Cao teaches that the active salt has a molar concentration in the electrolyte within a range of from 0.1 M to 3 M (paragraph 201).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Cao teaches an electrolyte that comprises an active salt (i.e., sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI]) (paragraph 200), and a solvent (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL)) (paragraph 195). With regards to recitation “operable below -40oC” and “operable below -150oC”, such recitation is considered a functional limitation and therefore not given patentable weight. In addition, the electrolyte composition of Cao is substantially similar to that of the claims and therefore capable of being operated at similar temperatures (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 29, Cao teaches an energy storage device (paragraph 214) comprising an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising: an active salt; and a solvent (paragraph 193), wherein the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Alternatively, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claim 30, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a battery (paragraph 214).
Regarding Claim 31, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a lithium ion or sodium ion battery (paragraph 174).
Regarding Claims 33 and 34, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a sodium metal battery (paragraph 173).
Regarding Claim 35, Cao teaches that the energy storage device comprises an electrode, wherein the electrode is a carbon-based electrode (paragraph 174).
Regarding Claim 38, Cao teaches that the energy storage device comprises an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises a sodium metal anode (paragraph 182).
Regarding Claim 49, Cao teaches that the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Regarding Claim 50, Cao teaches that the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200).
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, Cao teaches that the active salt has a molar concentration in the electrolyte within a range of from 0.1 M to 3 M (paragraph 201).
Regarding Claim 53, Cao teaches an electrolyte that comprises an active salt (i.e., sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI]) (paragraph 200), and a solvent (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL)) (paragraph 195). With regards to recitation “operable below -40oC”, such recitation is considered a functional limitation in an apparatus claim and therefore not given patentable weight. In addition, the electrolyte composition of Cao is substantially similar to that of the claims and therefore capable of being operated at similar temperatures (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Claim(s) 1 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0057795 hereinafter Bi in view of US Patent 4049892 hereinafter Kronenberg.
Regarding Claims 1 and 29, Bi teaches an energy storage device comprising an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising: an electrolyte salt; and a solvent, wherein the electrolyte salt comprises sodium perchlorate [NaClO4] (paragraph 21), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 23).
Kronenberg teaches 77 vol % dioxolane and 23 vol% DME in the electrolyte.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752