DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed October 6, 2025. The following rejection are maintained:
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN 114566390A.
With respect to claim 1, Ma teaches an electrolyte composition, comprising: zinc chloride (zinc chloride; Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12), an alkali metal chloride (sodium chloride; Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12), acetonitrile (acetonitrile; Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12), and water (water; Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12). With respect to claim 2, the alkali metal chloride is selected from the group consisting of lithium chloride, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and combinations thereof (sodium chloride; Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12).
Ma does not expressly disclose: a no specific example of zinc, an alkali metal chloride, acetonitrile, and water components together (claim 1); the acetonitrile is present in a molality ranging from 6 mol/kg to 12 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 3); the acetonitrile is present in a molality ranging from 8 mol/kg to 12 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 4); the zinc chloride is present in a molality ranging from 19 mol/kg to 40 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 5); the alkali metal chloride is present in a molality ranging from 1 mol/kg to 22 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 7); the alkali metal chloride is present in a molality ranging from 11 mol/kg to 22 mol/kg, based on (claim 8).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a no specific example of zinc, an alkali metal chloride, acetonitrile, and water components (claim 1) together in Ma to improve electrolyte composition.
With respect to acetonitrile being present in a molality ranging from 6 mol/kg to 12 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the electrolyte of Ma, as Ma teaches the concentration of the active electrolyte solution is 0.01 to 10 mol/L. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the acetonitrile is present in a molality ranging from 8 mol/kg to 12 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the electrolyte of Ma, as Ma teaches the concentration of the active electrolyte solution is 0.01 to 10 mol/L. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the zinc chloride is present in a molality ranging from 19 mol/kg to 40 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the electrolyte of Ma, the concentration of the active electrolyte solution can be 0.01 to 10 mol/L. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the alkali metal chloride is present in a molality ranging from 1 mol/kg to 22 mol/kg, based on the total weight of the water (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the electrolyte of Ma, the concentration of the active electrolyte solution can be 0.01 to 10 mol/L. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the alkali metal chloride is present in a molality ranging from 11 mol/kg to 22 mol/kg, based on (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the electrolyte of Ma, the concentration of the active electrolyte solution can be 0.01 to 10 mol/L. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 12. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that CN 114566390A is not obvious over the instant claims, as the reference teaches an electrode where the pores could not accommodate the size of the electrolyte claimed. Specifically, CN 114566390A teaches at least one of Al3+, Mg2+and Ca2+, electrolyte that has a specific particle size, and the reference teaches that the electrode have pores that would occupy a certain particle size based on the solvated metals. In contrast, the claimed electrolyte would include coordination bonds of Zn, water , acrylonitrile and an alkali metal chloride that would be much larger than the taught electrolyte, and therefore the ionic groups could not be inserted into the characteristic pores of the taught electrode, and could not reshape the characteristic pores. Therefore, the there is no motivation to choose the electrolyte claimed including acetonitrile. This argument is not persuasive, as CN 114566390A teaches the method for remodeling the electrode material hole structure can effectively contain the large size of solvated Al3 +, Mg2 +, Ca2 + plasma, at the same time. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 5. Also, the electrode material can continuously adapt to the ion storage requirement of the adaptive remodeling of the characteristic hole. See Contents of the Invention, paragraph 5. Furthermore, acetonitrile is listed 6 times in the reference in short lists of solvents where water is the only non-organic solvent, and it appears that all of the organic solvents listed would form larger coordination compounds. See teaching claims 2 & 4. Therefore, there appears to be capacity of expansion of the characteristic hole, and it is not limited to exclude the results of larger solvents, and the coordination bonds they would form.
Stated differently, if the solvent size really caused a pore-adaptability problem, the bulky organics would all be excluded or warned against. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that acetonitrile is a solvent option. Lastly, Example 8 shows Zn and water as the electrolyte. The solute may include, but are not limited to lithium chloride, sodium chloride, potassium chloride. See “Specific implementation examples” section, paragraph 18. Therefore, along with the explicit teaching of acetonitrile, the claimed electrolyte composition is obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723