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 .
Rejections Withdrawn
1. The U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 1-7,10-14,16-20 anticipated by Ryu et al. has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/2/26.
2. The U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 8-9 unpatentable over Ryu et al. in view of Dai et al. has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/2/26.
3. The U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 15 unpatentable over Ryu et al. has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/2/26.
4. The U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 21 unpatentable over Ryu et al. in view of Hui et al. has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/2/26.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (US20130209894).
Ryu et al. discloses comprising: an aluminum salt component having a structure according to a formula AIX3, wherein each independently is a halogen atom (paragraph 0043); and an ether-based solvent having a structure according to a formula R1-0-R2, wherein each of R1 and R2 independently is selected from C3-2oalkyl, C3-2oalkenyl, C3-2oalkynyl, C3-2ohaloalkyl, C3-2ohaloalkenyl, or C3- 2ohaloalkynyl (paragraph 0044-0045). As to the optional additives, since it is optional and not positively claimed Ryu et al. does not need to disclose optional additives.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-7,10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US20130209894).
As to claim 1, Ryu et al. discloses comprising: an aluminum salt component having a structure according to a formula AIX3, wherein each independently is a halogen atom (paragraph 0043); and an ether-based solvent having a structure according to a formula R1-0-R2, wherein each of R1 and R2 independently is selected from C3-2oalkyl, C3-2oalkenyl, C3-2oalkynyl, C3-2ohaloalkyl, C3-2ohaloalkenyl, or C3- 2ohaloalkynyl (paragraph 0044-0045) and the aluminum-ether-based composition does not comprise, or is free of, a metal hydride and/or an ionic liquid (paragraph 0049).
As to an aluminum-ether-based composition for use in electroplating an aluminum metal coating or for use in an aluminum battery is intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed particle is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article form a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As to wherein the aluminum salt component and the ether-based solvent are present in amounts that provide a molar ratio of 0.5 to 1.5 (aluminum salt component: ether-based solvent), Ryu et al. teaches a range of 0.001M to 10M (paragraph 0049).It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Ryu et al. with wherein the aluminum salt component and the ether-based solvent are present in amounts that provide a molar ratio of 0.5 to 1.5 overlaps Ryu’s claimed range of 0.001M to 10M. MPEP 2144.05 states that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 2, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the aluminum salt component is AICI3, AIF3, AIBr3, AI(I)3, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0043).
As to claim 3, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the aluminum salt component is AICI3 (paragraph 0043).
As to claim 4, Ryu et al. discloses wherein each of R1 and R2 independently is selected from C3-1oalkyl or C3-1ohaloalkyl (paragraph 0045).
As to claim 5, Ryu et al. discloses, wherein each of R1 and R2 independently is selected from n-propyl, n-butyl, n-pentyl, or any fluorinated version thereof (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 6, Ryu et al. discloses comprising AICI3 and a mixture of two or more ether-based solvents (paragraph 0043,0047).
As to claim 7, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the molar ratio ranges from 0.5 to 1 (paragraph 0049).
As to claim 10, Ryu et al. discloses a battery, comprising: the aluminum-ether- based composition of claim 1; an aluminum anode; and a cathode (paragraph 0063).
As to claim 11, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the cathode is a metal-halid-based cathode, a vanadium-based cathode, an organic cathode, or a metal-chalcogenide- based cathode (paragraph 0056).
As to claim 12, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the aluminum-ether-based composition comprises (i)AIC3 and (ii) dipropyl ether or dibutyl ether, wherein (i) and (ii) are present in amounts providing a ratio ranging from 0.5 to 1 (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 13, Ryu et al. discloses a method, comprising applying a voltage to a system comprising an aluminum-containing substrate, a second substrate, and the aluminum-ether-based composition of claim 1, wherein the aluminum-containing substrate and the second substrate are positioned at a distance from one another, and the aluminum-ether-based composition comes into fluid contact with both the aluminum- containing substrate and the second substrate (paragraph 0077, figure 3 number 3,2,4).
As to claim 14, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the aluminum-containing substrate is an aluminum anode and the second substrate is a cathode (paragraph 0063,0054,0077).
As to claim 16, Ryu et al. discloses wherein applying the voltage to the system results in AI3+ ion transport between the aluminum anode and the cathode and through the aluminum-ether-based composition (paragraph 0043).
As to claim 17, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the method produces electrical energy (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 18, Ryu et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a separator and/or a membrane component positioned between the aluminum-containing substrate and the second substrate (paragraph 0077, figure 3 number 4).
7. Claim(s) 8-9,23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. in view of Dai et al. (US20150056499).
Ryu et al. discloses the aluminum ether based composition described above. Ryu et al. fail to disclose further comprising a rare earth element component having a formula REE(Z)n, wherein: REE is selected from lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), or combinations thereof; each Z independently is selected from a halogen; a polyatomic anion; an alkoxy group having a formula R30-, wherein R3 is selected from an aliphatic group, an aromatic group, a haloaliphatic group, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof; and n is an integer selected from 3 or 4 and wherein the rare earth element component is CeCI3.
Dai et al. teaches further comprising a rare earth element component having a formula REE(Z)n, wherein: REE is selected from lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), or combinations thereof; each Z independently is selected from a halogen; a polyatomic anion; an alkoxy group having a formula R30-, wherein R3 is selected from an aliphatic group, an aromatic group, a haloaliphatic group, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof; and n is an integer selected from 3 or 4 and wherein the rare earth element component is CeCI3 for the purpose of providing electrolyte material that is environmentally benign and of lower cost (paragraph 0003,0065,0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Ryu et al. with further comprising a rare earth element component having a formula REE(Z)n, wherein: REE is selected from lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy),holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), or combinations thereof; each Z independently is selected from a halogen; a polyatomic anion; an alkoxy group having a formula R30-, wherein R3 is selected from an aliphatic group, an aromatic group, a haloaliphatic group, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof; and n is an integer selected from 3 or 4
and wherein the rare earth element component is CeCI3 for the purpose of providing electrolyte material that is environmentally benign and of lower cost (paragraph 0003,0065,0073).
8. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US20130209894).
Ryu et al. discloses the aluminum ether based composition described above. Ryu et al. discloses wherein the voltage is a charging voltage (paragraph 0101). Ryu et al. fail to disclose wherein the voltage is a charging voltage and is applied as DC, AC, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Ryu et al. with wherein the voltage is a charging voltage and is applied as DC, AC, or a combination thereof for the purpose of providing optimal results in absence of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fail to teach or suggest wherein the aluminum-containing substrate is an aluminum metal counter electrode and the second substrate is a working electrode
and comprises a substrate upon which aluminum metal formed from the aluminum salt component is deposited upon exposure of the system to the voltage. Applicant teaches the aluminum based coating exhibits desirable morphology and durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
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 JANE J RHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6:30).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/JANE J RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724