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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 3-6 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim 6 has been newly added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/10/2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 13 August 2026
The double patenting rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All the 103 rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new ground(s) rejection has been set forth below over Yoshima in view of Yuan (Already on the record) as necessitated by Applicant amendment.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshima, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0269537 A1 (cited in IDS) in view of Yuan et al., U.S. 2019/0036147 A1 (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshima teaches a secondary battery (10; Fig.5) comprising:
A partition (19; Fig.5) that is disposed between a positive electrode space (2a) and a negative electrode space (2b), thereby allowing a metal ion to pass therethrough ([0057-0058] and [0111-0112]); the limitation of “thereby allowing a metal ion to pass therethrough” is a functional limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The partition member 19 of Yoshima is capable of passing through a metal ion (lithium ions);
A positive electrode (5) that is disposed in the positive electrode space (2a) and which the metal is to be inserted into and extracted from;
A negative electrode (3) that is disposed in the negative electrode space (2b) and which the metal ion is to be inserted and extracted from;
A positive electrode electrolytic solution (11) that is contained in the positive electrode space and includes an aqueous solvent [0100];
A negative electrode electrolytic solution (12) that is contained in the negative electrode space and includes an aqueous solvent [0100];
The partition (19) includes a contact part (see annotated figure below) that is provided between the positive electrode space (2a) and negative electrode space (2b) and is in contact with each of the positive electrode electrolytic solution (11) and the negative electrode electrolytic solution (12);
A non-contact part that is not provided between the positive electrode space (2a) and the negative electrode space (2b) and is not in contact with the positive electrode electrolytic solution (11) and the negative electrolytic solution (12).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Partition 19 of Yoshima forms a liquid junction between the positive electrolytic solution 11 and the negative electrolytic solution 12 and is ion exchanged with the metal ion of the positive electrolytic solution and the negative electrolytic solution [0111].
Although Yoshima does not explicitly teach the partition 19 to be made of a cation exchange membrane, but it does teach the ion exchange membranes (i.e. partitions) can be made of a cation-exchange membrane, wherein only lithium cations can selectively permeate through the ion exchange membrane [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a cation-exchange membrane for the material of the ion-exchange membrane of Yoshima in order to selectively permeate lithium cations through the ion exchange membrane between the positive electrolytic solution and the negative electrolytic solution. Moreover, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Yoshima does not specifically teach that the negative electrolytic solution having a pH that is higher than a pH of the positive electrode electrolytic solution.
However, Yuan teaches a hybrid aqueous rechargeable battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are in aqueous electrolytes with different PHs respectively (abstract). Yuan teaches that the pH value of the negative electrolytic solution is higher than a pH of the positive electrode electrolytic solution, which results in a good cycling stability, higher output voltage and a higher energy density [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a higher pH for the negative electrode than the positive electrode of Yoshima to provide good cycling stability, higher output voltage and a higher energy density as taught by Yuan [0020].
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoshima teaches that the positive electrode may be in a neutral, weakly acidic or acidic aqueous electrolyte meaning that the pH of the positive electrolytic solution should be equal or smaller than 7 and the negative electrode may be in an alkaline aqueous solution meaning that the pH is greater than 7 [0009], overlapping with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the material and concentration [0011-0012] of the electrolytic solutions of Yuan can be adjusted to obtain a desired pH level. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoshima teaches that the metal ion comprises an alkali metal ion (Yoshima: lithium ions [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshima teaches that the metal ion comprises a lithium ion (Yoshima: [0030] and [0058]), wherein the non-contact part includes the cation exchange member that is ion exchanged with the lithium ion. Note that the entirety of the partition 19 of Yoshima is made of cation exchange member that is exchanging lithium ion between the positive and negative electrolytic solutions.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshima, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0269537 A1 (cited in IDS) in view of Yuan et al., U.S. 2019/0036147 A1 (cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawai, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0373351
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshima teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above. Moreover, Yoshima teaches that the positive electrode electrolytic solution and the negative electrode electrolytic solution each includes a lithium salt including a metal ion as a cation [0030]. Modified Yoshima does not specifically teach one or both of the positive electrode electrolytic solution and the negative electrode electrolytic solution is a saturated solution of the metal salt.
However, Kawai teaches a novel aqueous electrolyte solution for an electrical storage device containing a high concentration alkali metal salt, which results in a high voltage. Kawai specifically teaches aqueous electrolyte saturated solutions with metal salts (see table 1 and table 2, [0152-0158]) have significantly increased the amount of charge that is stored in the electrical storage device, which significantly increases the output voltage [0145].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the saturated metal salt aqueous electrolyte solution of Kawai for at least one of the positive and negative electrode electrolytic solutions of modified Yoshima in order to increase the amount of charge stored in the electrochemical device of Yuan and further increase the output voltage as taught by Kawai [0145]. Moreover, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended, in the instant case an electrolytic solution with metal salts for an electrochemical device, use supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 11/10/20245, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) amended claim 1 under Yuan in view of Yoshima have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Yoshima in view of Yuan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 PM.
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.
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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights