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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 9, line 3, "KaSO4" should read "KSO4",.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson et al. (hereinafter "Adamson"; US 20190131662 A1) in view of Oh et al. (hereinafter “Oh”; US 6187475 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Adamson teaches an electrolyte for a zinc-bromine aqueous battery, comprising: zinc bromide (ZnBr2) salt [0008], a bromine complexing agent such as ammonium bromide [0019], and a metal ion additive SnCl2 [0023].
Adamson does not teach the additive MnSO4.
However, Oh teaches examples of manganese (II) salts added to an electrolyte, including MnSO4, Mn(NO3)2, Mn(CO2CH3)2, MnCl2 (col. 9, lines 10-12). In outlined in col. 2, lines 6-24, Oh teaches that his additives produce the following effects:
the prohibition of hydrogen evolution,
the prohibition of the zinc compound's dissolution,
the formation of a rigid zinc electrode surface via electrodeposition together with zinc (the prohibition of dendritic growth),
the formation of a metal surface having good electrical conductivity for the rigid electrodeposition of zinc,
the guiding out uniform current distribution,
the improvement of wettability of the zinc electrode,
the improvement of electronic conductivity of the zinc electrode,
the decrease in mass transfer resulting from the formation of a complex with a water soluble zinc compound,
the improvement of availability of the zinc electrode, and
the maintenance of a porous structure for the zinc electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte for a zinc-bromine aqueous battery comprising zinc bromide and a bromine complexing agent disclosed by Adamson by including a metal ion additive—specifically a salt containing Mn such as MnSO4—as suggested by Oh in order to reduce the effects of side reactions, preventing degradation of the electrode and improving battery stability.
It is deemed that inhibiting zinc dendrite formation by selectively capping surface protrusions of a zinc metal layer during charging is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed metal ion additive MnSO4. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, given that the instant application and the prior art both teach a MnSO4 additive and a zinc electrode, the metal ion additive inhibiting zinc dendrite formation by selectively capping surface protrusions of a zinc metal layer during charging is deemed an inherent property.
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)
Furthermore, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
As to claim 2, Adamson as modified by Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, and teaches wherein the bromine complexing agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of 1-
ethyl-1-methylpyrrolidin-1-ium bromide ([MEP]Br), 1-n-hexyl-1-methylpyrrolidin-1-
iumbromide ([C6MP]Br), 1-n-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidin-1-iumbromide ([C4MP]Br), 1-ethyl-1-
methylmorpholin-1-ium bromide ([MEM]Br), 1-n-butyl-1-methylmorpholin-1-iumbromide ([C4MM]Br), 1,1,1-trimethyl-1-n-hexadecylammoniumbromide ([CTA]Br), and tetraethylammonium bromide ([TEA]Br) (page 2, [0019]), as well as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazol-1-iumbromide ([C2MIm]Br), and 1-n-butyl-3-methylimidazol-1-iumbromide ([C4MIm]Br) (page 10, [0178]).
As to claim 4, it is deemed that the standard reduction potential and standard oxidation potential are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed manganese salts (i.e., metal ion additive). In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, Oh teaches a rechargeable cell were Mn(II) salts are utilized. The Mn(II) salts taught by Oh are the same as those disclosed by Applicant which inherently have the characteristic property of having a lower standard reduction potential than the standard reduction potential of zinc, and a higher standard oxidation potential than the standard oxidation potential of bromine. Once dissociated, the Mn(II) salts produce Mn2+ ions in solution. Thus, the prior art and instant application describe metal ion additives with the same structure and chemical properties.
Oh teaches that when even small quantities of manganese sulfate is utilized as a manganese salt, the pH of the electrolyte decreases significantly (Table 1). He recognizes that this decrease of pH of the aqueous electrolyte reduces the formation of zinc sulfate hydrates that may destruct the surface structure of the electrode (col. 9, lines 63-66). The formation of zinc bromide hydrides would promote deterioration of the surface structure of the electrode, and reduced pH would prevent these events in the same manner.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add an Mn(II) salt of Oh, such as MnSO4, in the electrolyte of Adamson because it would have been expected to preserve the electrode surface structure and increase battery cycle life and performance.
As to claims 7 and 8, Adamson does not teach the metal ion additive having a molarity of 0.05 M to 0.1 M, and they do not teach the ZnBr2 having a molarity of 2.0 M to 3.0 M. However, Oh teaches that the concentration of zinc sulfate (substitute of zinc bromide) is in the range of about 0.5M to 3M (col. 8, lines 26-28) and that the concentration of manganese (II) salt is less than 0.5M (col. 9, lines 32-33).
It follows that the claimed molarity ranges in the instant application are not novel and therefore would not produce unexpected results compared to prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate ZnBr2 in a molarity between 2.0 M and 3.0 M and to incorporate the manganese metal ion additive in a concentration of 0.05 M to 0.1 M before the effective filing date of the application with reasonable expectation of reducing deterioration of the electrode surface (col. 9, lines 63-66) and producing a stable and conductive electrolyte, improving charge/discharge cycling characteristics of the cell (col. 8, lines 30-34).
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson in view of Oh as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Eidler et al. (hereinafter "Eidler"; US 5591538 A).
Regarding claim 3, Adamson teaches a range for the concentration of bromine complexing agent in wt%. The instant application does not disclose the volume of its product; the calculation of wt% by dimensional analysis is inhibited by the absence of data. However, Eidler teaches an electrolyte with a bromine complexing agent analogous to Adamson’s, wherein MEP is contained in electrolyte solution, having a composition of about 0.8M (col. 5, line 65).
Eidler (1995) teaches that including a complexing agent such as a quaternary amine allows the battery to be discharged at a fairly high rate without a simultaneous amount of self-discharge (col. 5, lines 35-38). In comparison, Adamson (2017) teaches that his quaternary ammonium agents (bromine complexing agents) provide the beneficial effect of enhancing electrochemistry by creating a buoyancy effect with the bromine complexes which thereby increases kinetics in the electrochemical cell ([0287]), which is expected to enhance cycle lifetime and inhibit self-discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use one of the bromine complexing agents of Adamson in a composition of 0.8M as taught by Eidler by experimentally adjusting the electrolyte’s composition with the reasonable expectation of obtaining improved battery performance.
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Thus, the molarity of the bromine complexing agents as claimed does not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art, especially since the molarity can be manipulated by experimental processes such as diluting with DI water or thermal evaporation.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eidler in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 9, Eidler teaches an aqueous zinc-bromine non-flow battery (FIG. 4, 139; col. 4, line 32) comprising:
a negative electrode (110—anodic half-cell) in which a zinc metal layer is formed on a negative electrode conductive plate and
a positive electrode (130—cathodic half-cell) in which carbon felt (145, col. 4, lines 38-42) is formed on a positive electrode conductive plate; and
an electrolyte charged in a space between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (col. 5, lines 20-28),
wherein the electrolyte comprises ZnBr2 (col. 5, lines 63-64), and bromine complexing agent 1-ethyl-1-methyl pyrrolidinium bromide (col. 2, lines 63-65; col. 5, lines 29-34).
With respect to "zinc reduction occurs during a charging operation;" and "bromine oxidation occurs during a charging operation," the courts have held, "while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
MPEP 2114 states: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Eidler does not teach the metal ion additive MnSO4 in the electrolyte, nor does he teach wherein the metal ion additive inhibits zinc dendrite formation by capping a surface of a surface protrusion of the zinc metal layer on the negative electrode during the charging operation.
However, Oh et al. teach an electrolyte for an aqueous zinc sulfate (II) rechargeable battery with a metal ion additive manganese (II) salt (col. 9, lines 10-12). Oh et al. teach that their additives produce favorable effects, improving reversibility and stability of the battery (col. 2, lines 6-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous zinc-bromine non-flow battery disclosed by Eidler et al. by including a metal ion additive—such as MnSO4—as suggested by Oh et al. with reasonable expectation of reducing deterioration of electrode surface structure (col. 9, lines 63-66) and reducing the effects of side reactions.
The metal ion additive inhibiting zinc dendrite formation by selectively capping surface protrusions of a zinc metal layer during charging is deemed an inherent property.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)
Furthermore, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
As to claim 10, Eidler et al. teach a positive electrode comprising a carbon material such as carbon felt (col. 2, lines 57-59; col. 4, lines 38-42) soaked in electrolyte containing a salt such as [MEP]Br, which forms a liquid bromine complex (col 2, lines 63-65). Complexation is expected to occur during charging operation, when bromine is oxidized and Br2(g) is released at the cathode (col. 6, lines 50-53).
As to claim 11, Eidler et al. teach the bromine complexing agent 1-ethyl-1-methylpyrrolidin-1-iumbromide ([C2MP]Br)(=[MEP]Br) (col. 2, lines 63-64; col 5, lines 33-35).
As to claim 13, it is deemed that the standard reduction potential and standard oxidation potential are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed manganese salts (i.e., metal ion additive). In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, the metal ion additive disclosed by Oh et al. were Mn(II) salts, which inherently have the characteristic property of having a lower standard reduction potential than the standard reduction potential of zinc, and a higher standard oxidation potential than the standard oxidation potential of bromine. Once dissociated, the Mn(II) salts produce Mn2+ ions in solution. Thus, the prior art and instant application describe metal ion additives with the same structure and chemical properties.
As to claim 15, Eidler does not teach the metal ion additive being one selected from the group consisting of MnSO4, MnCl2, Mn(NO3)2, Mn3(PO4)2, and Mn(CH3CO2)2.
However, Oh teaches examples of manganese (II) salts added to an electrolyte, including MnSO4, Mn(NO3)2, Mn(CO2CH3)2, MnCl2 (col. 9, lines 10-12). Oh teaches that his additives produce favorable effects outlined in col. 2, lines 6-24. According to Le Chatelier’s Principle (est. 1885), when manganese oxide is used in the cathode, the addition of manganese salt to the electrolyte may reduce the depletion of Mn content in the cathode due to other side reactions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte for a zinc-bromine aqueous battery comprising zinc bromide and a bromine complexing agent disclosed by Adamson et al. by including a metal ion additive—specifically a salt containing Mn such as MnSO4—as suggested by Oh et al. with reasonable expectation of reducing deterioration of electrode surface structure (col. 9, lines 63-66) and reducing the effects of side reactions on cycle life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10 of Remarks, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-and 9-11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's arguments that Oh does not fairly teach or suggest the presently claimed invention, that Adamson modified with Oh is not relevant, and that it would not have been obvious to combine Eidler with Oh, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the MnSO4 additive in Oh's ZnSO4 battery system is not related, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Oh teaches that adding MnSO4 to the battery electrolyte system with zinc anodes is beneficial for preventing deterioration of the electrodes and improving battery stability. Furthermore, the mechanism of preventing dendrite formation is inherent to MnSO4. Through the addition, the benefits would follow that are in the limitations, or the prevention of dendrite formation would be inherent following modifying Adamson with the teaching of Oh.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)
Furthermore, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
Additionally, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. see MPEP § 2143, C.). Thus, the use of including MnSO4 additive in the nonaqueous electrolyte to protect the zinc electrode and improve stability in a ZnBr battery is likely to be obvious.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Oh individually not teaching the bromine complexing agent regarding claim 4, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, claim 4 remains rejected.
Applicant does not have arguments for claims 7-8, which remain rejected.
Following the rationale that the Mn additive of Oh is not related due to a different battery system, applicant argues that it, for claim 9, it would not have been obvious to combine the metal ion additive of Oh with the bromine complexing agent of Eidler to achieve the effect of capping the electrodes or providing an electrostatic shielding effect.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing an electrostatic shielding effect) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the lack of obviousness to combine, 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 if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
To solve the problem of zinc dendrite formation in zinc secondary batteries with a nonaqueous electrolyte, an MnSO4 additive would have been one of the many finite possible solutions as it has been discussed in the prior art as an additive to nonaqueous electrolytes in battery systems with a zinc electrode, taught by Oh. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tried using MnSO4 in a ZnBr battery system with a nonaqueous electrolyte.
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 depend on claim 9 and therefore remain rejected.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, claims 4, 7-8, 9-11, 13, and 15 stand rejected.
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 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 ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights