CTNF 18/139,759 CTNF 75663 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0026]-[0028]) are drawn to disclosing the n-type organic compound in the anode material. In [0026] it is recited that the n-type material is in the anode, however, in [0027] and [0028], it appears that there are typographical errors reciting that the n-type compound is in the cathode(paragraph [0029] discusses the cathode material and p-type organic compound, and figures and claim 1 are clear that the p-type compound is in the cathode and the n-type compound having the conjugated carbonyl is in the anode) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 6-8, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (WO2021/144050 and its English language equivalent 2023/0036848) Khan et al disclose a battery comprising an aqueous polymer electrolyte, a positive electrode, and a negative electrode, wherein the aqueous electrolyte maybe a polymeric potassium salt ([0029], [0037]), and does not contain lithium ([0013], [0040]; instant claim 16. The negative electrode comprises a compound capable of electrochemical redox reactions, including PEDOT, and polyimides having conjugates carbonyl groups ([0022]). The positive electrode comprises an organic electrode comprising a redox active polymer having catechol (p-type) groups. Therefore, the reference material includes the potassium electrolyte, a p-type cathode material, and an n-type compound having a conjugated carbonyl group as required by the instant claim 1. The n-type compound of the reference would have greater than 12 carbon atoms (instant claim 2). The electrolyte preferably includes water as a non-limiting solvent which has a boiling point of 100 o C, and the polymers have melting point of greater than 100 o C, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the boiling point of the electrolyte to be at least o C. Both electrodes further comprise conductive carbon, such as carbon black ([0024; instant claims 6 and 7). Additional examples of conductive materials include carbon nanotubes, graphene, and graphite ([0019], [0047], claim 8; instant claim 8). The reference is silent with respect to broad ranges of compound/ polymer to conductive material, however, given the non-limiting exemplified ranges in the examples, the ratios of the compound/ polymer to the conductive material would fall within the scope of 20:1 to 1:1 as required by the instant claims 10 and 11 (in at least one, preferably both electrodes, [0127]-[0130], 40:25, 50:50, 62:31). While the reference provides non-limiting examples of the electrode compositions, the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio of material to conductive additive as set forth by the instant claims, however, the reference does teach that the carbon conductive compounds are included to increase conductivity, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ratio of about 8:1 polymer to conductive compound through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the optimal electrode conductivity for the battery application and meet the limitations of the instant claims12 and 13.. The reference material includes embodiments which are free of transition metal ([0041]-[0043]; instant claim 17). Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing as the organic electrode materials, those as described above including a p-type organic polymer and the counter electrode with an n-type organic compound having a conjugated carbonyl group. The resultant device from the teachings of the reference would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. With respect to the property limitations set forth by the instant claims 18-20, the instant specification teaches that batteries having organic electrodes comprising a p-type cathode and an n-type anode and an electrolyte comprising a potassium ion (preferably free of transition metal and lithium) results in the claimed capacity and charge/ discharge cycles. The material of Khan would fall within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification and claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a material having similar materials to inherently possess the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 5, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al in view of Yada et al (JP 2515547 and its machine translation) . Khan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a battery having a potassium-containing electrolyte comprising a pair of organic electrodes. The reference teaches conductive p-type polymers/ compounds and n-type compounds which may have a conjugated carbonyl are contemplated, and the various known electrolyte additives such as solvents and potassium salts may be included. Yada et al disclose an organic electrolyte battery comprising polyaniline as the positive electrode material (polyaniline is a conductive polymer having a structure of instant claim 5, polyamine of instant claim 4; claim 2, 3, 6), and a conductive carbon such as carbon black or graphite. The battery further comprises a negative electrode and an electrolyte comprising a Li, Na. or K salt, wherein suitable K alts include KPF6 (page 6, column 1, paragraph 1, claim 13; instant claim 14). Therefore, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing as the p-type polymer, the polyamine as taught by Yada et al as known and useful in the art. Also, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al choosing as the known potassium salt, the KPF6- as taught to be common and known in the art by Yada. With respect to the property limitations set forth by the instant claims 18-20, the instant specification teaches that batteries having organic electrodes comprising a p-type cathode and an n-type anode and an electrolyte comprising a potassium ion (preferably free of transition metal and lithium) results in the claimed capacity and charge/ discharge cycles. The material of Khan in view of Yada et al would fall within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification and claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a material having similar materials to inherently possess the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al in view of Zhao et al (Angewandte Chemie article) . Khan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a battery having a potassium-containing electrolyte comprising a pair of organic electrodes. The reference teaches conductive p-type polymers/ compounds and n-type compounds which may have a conjugated carbonyl are contemplated. Zhao et al disclose an n-type electrode salt material comprising the structure as set forth by the instant claim 3. The compound is usable as an anode material with an organic cathode material in potassium batteries. Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing as the n-type compound, the anode material as taught to be known as an n-type material with an organic cathode by Zhao et al. PNG media_image1.png 56 72 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to the property limitations set forth by the instant claims 18-20, the instant specification teaches that batteries having organic electrodes comprising a p-type cathode and an n-type anode and an electrolyte comprising a potassium ion (preferably free of transition metal and lithium) results in the claimed capacity and charge/ discharge cycles. The material of Khan in view of Zhao would fall within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification and claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a material having similar materials to inherently possess the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 9, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al in view of Zhamu et al (2017/0077546) . Khan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a battery having a potassium-containing electrolyte comprising a pair of organic electrodes. The reference teaches conductive carbon additives such as graphite, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, and the like known in the art may be included, and the various known electrolyte additives such as solvents and potassium salts may be included. Zhamu et al disclose an alkali -ion battery (Na or K, which may be combined with Li; abstract) wherein the reference teaches that known potassium salts include KPF6 (claim 8), and solvents includes ethylene glycols (claim 22). The reference further teaches conductive carbons for anodes and cathode materials including graphite, graphene, carbon black, carbon nanowires, graphene oxide, and nitrogen-doped graphene, and while these are used in some cases as conductive carbon collectors, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the equivalence between various conductive carbon additives that may be used in electrode or as conductive carriers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing as the conductive carbon, nitro-doped graphene, graphite, carbon nanowires, graphene oxide, and/or carbon black as known conductive materials as taught to be known in the art by Zhamu et al. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing as a KPF6 potassium salt as taught to be known by Zhamu et al. With respect to the property limitations set forth by the instant claims 18-20, the instant specification teaches that batteries having organic electrodes comprising a p-type cathode and an n-type anode and an electrolyte comprising a potassium ion (preferably free of transition metal and lithium) results in the claimed capacity and charge/ discharge cycles. The material of Khan in view of Zhamu et alwould fall within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification and claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a material having similar materials to inherently possess the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al in view of Komaba et al (10,593,992) . Khan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a battery having a potassium-containing electrolyte comprising a pair of organic electrodes. The reference teaches that various known electrolyte additives such as solvents and potassium salts may be included. Komaba et al disclose a potassium ion battery comprising KPF6 as one of two preferred salts (column 10, lines 26-36), and known solvents including diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (column 10 line 65 to column 11, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Khan et al, choosing a KPF6 potassium salt and a DGDME solvent, each taught to be known by Komaba et al. With respect to the property limitations set forth by the instant claims 18-20, the instant specification teaches that batteries having organic electrodes comprising a p-type cathode and an n-type anode and an electrolyte comprising a potassium ion (preferably free of transition metal and lithium) results in the claimed capacity and charge/ discharge cycles. The material of Khan in view of Komaba et al would fall within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification and claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a material having similar materials to inherently possess the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm. 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 2 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 3 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 4 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 5 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 6 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 7 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/139,759 Page 8 Art Unit: 1722