Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 18/226,047 filed on 25 July 2023. The application is a CON of application 17/068,894 with a priority date of 13 October 2020.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 the Rejection
The prior art rejections of record are maintained
New §112(a) and §112(b) grounds are introduced responsive to Applicant’s amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Particularly, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite “providing an electrode including a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state” (emphasis added). However, the instant specification does not disclose that the claimed compounds have been synthesized. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under §112(a) because they include subject matter that lacks written description in the original disclosure. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 lack written description by extension because each of them depends from one of claims 1, 8, and 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite "to form a second material from the first material". However, the initial recitations of a first material in claims 1, 8, and 15, which provided antecedent basis for “the first material” in the previous claim set, have each been deleted in Applicant’s amendment. There is now insufficient antecedent basis for “the first material” in any of the claims. For the sake of treating the claims against the art in this action, Examiner interprets that the antecedent of “the first material” in these claims is the recited first compound.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 each recite "the synthesized first material". There insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of treating the claims against the art in this action, Examiner interprets that the antecedent of “the synthesized first material” in these claims is the recited electrode.
Claim 19 recites “a framework of the FeyCu-z(CN)6 remains cubic after Ca2+ substitution”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the limitation “the FeyCuz(CN)6”. For the purpose of treating the claims against the art in this action, Examiner interprets that the antecedent of “the FeyCuz(CN)6” in this claim is the recited first compound.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are each indefinite by extension because they depend on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Xu” (Xu et al, “Selective Pseudocapacitive Deionization of Calcium Ions in Copper Hexacyanoferrate”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 12, 41437-41445 (2020)).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a desalination method (pg 41438 left column para 3 – right column para 1, “for highly selective electrosorption of Ca2+ in a multiple-cation mixed solution”) comprising: before a desalination step, providing an electrode (pg 41437 abstract, “copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) as a pseudocapacitive electrode ... hybrid CDI cell consisting of a CuHCF cathode and an activated carbon anode”; pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF electrode is intercalated with sodium in an activation cycle of the cell, then is de-intercalated of sodium, and in another activation cycle the electrode removes calcium water to become intercalated with calcium; therefore the electrode, at the point when it is intercalated with sodium, is before a step of desalinating calcium) including a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state (pg 41438 right column paragraph 2 describes synthesizing CuHCF; intercalation of CuHCF with sodium (pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b)) results in a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state) having at least one compound of a formula AxFeyCuz(CN)6, where an alkali ion A is Na, x = 0.187, y =1, and z = 1.5 (per pg 41439 right column para 1, the CuHCF material before intercalation of any Na or Ca atoms is Cu3[Fe(CN)6]2, equivalently FeCu1.5(CN)6; per pg 41442 left column para 2, the electrosorption capacities of Na+ was 13.97 mg Na per gram of CuHCF; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 13.97 mg Na / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.187 mol Na / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6; therefore, the compound in its alkali intercalated state has an empirical formula of Na0.187FeCu1.5(CN)6 ); and
during the desalination step, electrochemical exchanging the alkali ion A in AxFeyCuz(CN)6 with Ca2+ from an aqueous inlet solution, to form a second material from the first compound (pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in an electrochemical charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF that was intercalated with sodium is then de-intercalated of sodium, and intercalated with calcium from an aqueous CaCl2 solution; pg 41442 left column para 2, “the electrosorption capacities of Na+ and Ca2+ were 13.97 and 21.57 mg·g−1 at the molar ratio of 1:1, respectively”; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 21.57 mg Ca / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.165 mol Ca / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6 , i.e., the second material has an empirical formula of Ca0.165FeCu1.5(CN)6).
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches a desalination method (pg 41438 left column para 3 – right column para 1, “for highly selective electrosorption of Ca2+ in a multiple-cation mixed solution”) comprising: before an activation cycle, providing an electrode including a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state (pg 41437 abstract, “copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) as a pseudocapacitive electrode ... hybrid CDI cell consisting of a CuHCF cathode and an activated carbon anode”; pg 41438 right column paragraph 2 describes synthesizing CuHCF; pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF electrode is intercalated with sodium in one activation cycle of the cell, then is de-intercalated of sodium, and in another activation cycle the electrode removes calcium water to become intercalated with calcium; therefore the electrode, at the point when it is intercalated with sodium, comprises a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state before another activation cycle), the first compound having a formula:
AxFeyCuz(CN)6,
where an alkali ion A is Na, x = 0.187, y =1, and z = 1.5 (per pg 41439 right column para 1, the as-synthesized CuHCF material, before intercalation of any Na or Ca atoms, is Cu3[Fe(CN)6]2, equivalently FeCu1.5(CN)6; per pg 41442 left column para 2, the electrosorption capacities of Na+ was 13.97 mg Na per gram of CuHCF; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 13.97 mg Na / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.187 mol Na / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6 ; therefore, the compound in its alkali intercalated state has an empirical formula of Na0.187FeCu1.5(CN)6); and
during the activation cycle, electrochemically exchanging the alkali ion A in AxFeyCuz(CN)6 with Ca2+ from an aqueous inlet solution to form a second material from the first material (pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF electrode that has been intercalated with sodium in one activation cycle of the cell is then de-intercalated of sodium and intercalated with calcium from an aqueous CaCl2 solution in another activation cycle; pg 41442 left column para 2, “the electrosorption capacities of Na+ and Ca2+ were 13.97 and 21.57 mg·g−1 at the molar ratio of 1:1, respectively”; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 21.57 mg Ca / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.165 mol Ca / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6 , i.e., the second material is Ca0.165FeCu1.5(CN)6).
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches a desalination method (pg 41438 left column para 3 – right column para 1, “for highly selective electrosorption of Ca2+ in a multiple-cation mixed solution”) comprising: providing an electrode including a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state (pg 41437 abstract, “copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) as a pseudocapacitive electrode ... hybrid CDI cell consisting of a CuHCF cathode and an activated carbon anode”; pg 41438 right column paragraph 2 describes synthesizing CuHCF; pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF electrode is intercalated with sodium in an activation cycle of the cell, then is de-intercalated of sodium, and in another activation cycle the electrode removes calcium from water to become intercalated with calcium; therefore the electrode, at the point when it is intercalated with sodium, comprises a first synthesized alkali-intercalated compound composition as described below) having at least one compound of a formula:
AxFeyCuz(CN)6,
where an alkali ion A is Na, x = 0.187, y =1, and z = 1.5 (per pg 41439 right column para 1, the as-synthesized CuHCF material, before intercalation of any Na or Ca atoms, is Cu3[Fe(CN)6]2, equivalently FeCu1.5(CN)6; per pg 41442 left column para 2, the electrosorption capacities of Na+ was 13.97 mg Na per gram of CuHCF; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 13.97 mg Na / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.187 mol Na / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6); therefore, the first compound in its alkali intercalated state has an empirical formula of Na0.187FeCu1.5(CN)6); and
electrochemically substituting the A in AxFeyCuz(CN)6 with Ca2+ from an aqueous inlet solution to form a second material from the first material (pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF that had been intercalated with sodium is then de-intercalated of sodium and intercalated with calcium ions from an aqueous CaCl2 solution; pg 41442 left column para 2, “the electrosorption capacities of Na+ and Ca2+ were 13.97 and 21.57 mg·g−1 at the molar ratio of 1:1, respectively”; seeing as 1 mmol of FeCu1.5(CN)6 is 307 mg, 21.57 mg Ca / g FeCu1.5(CN)6 equals 0.165 mol Ca / mol FeCu1.5(CN)6 , i.e., the second material is Ca0.165FeCu1.5(CN)6).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Xu teaches the desalination methods of claims 1 and 8, respectively, and further teaches that the electrode includes a conductivity agent (pg 41438 right column para 3, “electrodes were ... the active constituent (CuHCF ...), acetylene black, and Nafion”; note, acetylene black is a variety of carbon black, and the instant specification at para [0039] teaches carbon black is a conductivity agent).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Xu teaches the desalination methods of claims 5 and 12 respectively, wherein the conductivity agent includes carbon black (pg 41438 right column para 3, “acetylene black”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Xu teaches the desalination methods of claims 1, and 8, respectively, and further teaches the first material includes one or more polymeric binders (pg 41438 right column para 3, “electrodes were ... the active constituent (CuHCF ...), acetylene black, and Nafion”; note, Nafion is a polymeric binder).
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches the desalination method of claim 15 and further teaches wherein a framework of the first compound remains cubic after Ca2+ substitution (see XRD patterns in pg 41442 figure 5c; pg 41442 right column para 1, “Notably, the lattice expansion without the observation of new peaks also confirmed that the ion intercalation in the CuHCF electrode was a single-phase process”).
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches the desalination method of claim 15, wherein and further teaches the alkali-to-calcium substitution occurs during a desalination cycle (pg 41442 left column para 3 and figure 5(b), showing that the cell is tested in a charge-discharge sequence, where the CuHCF electrode is intercalated with sodium in an activation cycle of the cell, then is de-intercalated of sodium, and the cell is activated again and the electrode removes calcium from water to become intercalated with calcium). As to the limitation that Xu’s desalination cycle is a “first” desalination cycle, this limitation is met by Xu, because it is the first cycle of desalination performed within the course of the recited method. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method comprising a first step does not forbid an operator for performing other unrecited steps before beginning the claimed method (MPEP 2111.03, “The transitional term "comprising", ... is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”). Any of the various desalination cycles disclosed in Xu (pg 41441-41442) can arbitrary be called a “first” desalination cycle, depending on at what moment the operator identifies that a desalination method has started.
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 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of “Wu” (Wu et al, “Energetic Aqueous Rechargeable Sodium-Ion Battery Based on Na2CuFe(CN)6–NaTi2(PO4)3 Intercalation Chemistry”, ChemSusChem, 7, 407-411 (2014)).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Xu teaches the desalination cells of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein AxFeyCuz(CN)6 is NaxFeCuz(CN)6. Xu does not teach x = 2 or z = 1.
Wu is directed to an intercalation battery anode of NaxFeCu(CN)6, and teaches that when the electrode material is intercalated to its full capacity with sodium, x = 2 (pg 407 right column para 3, “we synthesized a Na-rich copper hexacyanoferrate(II) (Na2CuFe(CN)6, denoted as NaCuHCF) as a high potential cathode”; pg 408 figure 1a inset, showing that Na2CuFe(CN)6 is formed when a sodium atom is present in every possible cubic vacancy of the structure; pg 408 right column para 1, the reaction formula showing that the sodium-charged state is Na2CuFe(CN)6). Wu teaches the redox-active portion of the copper hexacyanoferrate material is the iron atom (pg 408 right column, para 1 reaction equation, showing that the Fe atom oxidizes/reduces between oxidation states of II and III as sodium is added or removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the proportion of copper to hexacyanoferrate ions in the copper hexacyanoferrate material of Xu, including to the 1:1 ratio as taught in Wu, because Wu teaches that the iron atom of the hexacyanoferrate is the redox active species (pg 446 left column reaction equation 1), and therefore one would reasonably expect the electrode capacity can be improved by reducing the amount of redox-inactive species. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when using Xu’s desalination electrode material to absorb alkali ions from water, to make the most efficient possible use of the desalination electrode, by filling the electrode to its full capacity; and, based on the teaching of Na2CuFe(CN)6 by Wu, one would reasonably conclude that the full capacity of the material is x = 2, i.e. Na2FeCu(CN)6. Note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Wu, and further in view of “Kim” (Kim et al, “Low Energy Desalination Using Battery Electrode Deionization”, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 4, 444-449 (2017)).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Xu teaches the desalination cells of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, but Xu does not teach AxFeyCuz(CN)6 is K2FeCu(CN)6.
Wu is directed to an intercalation battery anode of NaxFeCu(CN)6, and teaches that when the electrode material is intercalated to its full capacity with sodium, x = 2 (pg 407 right column para 3, “we synthesized a Na-rich copper hexacyanoferrate(II) (Na2CuFe(CN)6, denoted as NaCuHCF) as a high potential cathode”; pg 408 figure 1a inset, showing that Na2CuFe(CN)6 is formed when a sodium atom is present in every possible cubic vacancy of the structure; pg 408 right column para 1, the reaction formula showing that the sodium-charged state is Na2CuFe(CN)6). Wu teaches the redox-active portion of the copper hexacyanoferrate material is the iron atom (pg 408 right column, para 1 reaction equation, showing that the Fe atom oxidizes/reduces between oxidation states of II and III as sodium is added or removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the proportion of copper to hexacyanoferrate ions in the copper hexacyanoferrate material of Xu, including to the 1:1 ratio as taught in Wu, because Wu teaches that the iron atom of the hexacyanoferrate is the redox active species (pg 446 left column reaction equation 1), and therefore one would reasonably expect the electrode capacity can be improved by reducing the amount of redox-inactive species. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when using Xu’s desalination electrode material to absorb alkali ions from water, to make the most efficient possible use of the desalination electrode, by filling the electrode to its full capacity; and, based on the teaching of Na2CuFe(CN)6 by Wu, one would reasonably conclude that the full capacity of the material is x = 2, i.e. Na2FeCu(CN)6. Note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Wu does not teach the A atom of A2FeCu(CN)6 is K.
Kim teaches a desalination cell comprising a copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) electrode (pg 444 abstract, “In the battery electrode deionization (BDI) system developed here, two identical copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) battery electrodes were used that release and bind cations”) having a formula of AxFeCu(CN)6, wherein A is Na and 1 ≤ x ≤ 2 (pg 446 left column formula 1, “Na1+xCu [FeII(CN)6]x [FeIII(CN)6]1-x”). Kim further teaches that that sodium (Na) ion can be replaced with potassium (K) (pg 446 right column para 1, “CuHCF can also interact with other cations, including Li+, K+, NH4+ ... other cations in water would also be removed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to absorb and intercalate potassium ions as taught in Kim, rather than sodium ions as shown in Xu and Wu, because Kim, similarly directed to use of copper hexacyanoferrate, teaches that CuHCF is capable of intercalating potassium in place of sodium, and because the modification would broaden the utility of Xu’s desalination method by using the method to treat a wider variety of brackish feedwaters.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Xu teaches the desalination cells of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, but Xu does not teach AxFeyCuz(CN)6 is Li2FeCu(CN)6.
Wu is directed to an intercalation battery anode of NaxFeCu(CN)6, and teaches that when the electrode material is intercalated to its full capacity with sodium, x = 2 (pg 407 right column para 3, “we synthesized a Na-rich copper hexacyanoferrate(II) (Na2CuFe(CN)6, denoted as NaCuHCF) as a high potential cathode”; pg 408 figure 1a inset, showing that Na2CuFe(CN)6 is formed when a sodium atom is present in every possible cubic vacancy of the structure; pg 408 right column para 1, the reaction formula showing that the sodium-charged state is Na2CuFe(CN)6). Wu teaches the redox-active portion of the copper hexacyanoferrate material is the iron atom (pg 408 right column, para 1 reaction equation, showing that the Fe atom oxidizes/reduces between oxidation states of II and III as sodium is added or removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the proportion of copper to hexacyanoferrate ions in the copper hexacyanoferrate material of Xu, including to the 1:1 ratio as taught in Wu, because Wu teaches that the iron atom of the hexacyanoferrate is the redox active species (pg 446 left column reaction equation 1), and therefore one would reasonably expect the electrode capacity can be improved by reducing the amount of redox-inactive species. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when using Xu’s desalination electrode material to absorb alkali ions from water, to make the most efficient possible use of the desalination electrode, by filling the electrode to its full capacity; and, based on the teaching of Na2CuFe(CN)6 by Wu, one would reasonably conclude that the full capacity of the material is x = 2, i.e. Na2FeCu(CN)6. Note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Wu does not teach the A atom of A2FeCu(CN)6 is Li.
Kim teaches a desalination cell comprising a copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) electrode (pg 444 abstract, “In the battery electrode deionization (BDI) system developed here, two identical copper hexacyanoferrate (CuHCF) battery electrodes were used that release and bind cations”) having a formula of AxFeCu(CN)6, wherein A is Na and 1 ≤ x ≤ 2 (pg 446 left column formula 1, “Na1+xCu[FeII(CN)6]x[FeIII(CN)6]1-x”). Kim further teaches that that sodium (Na) ion can be replaced with lithium (Li) (pg 446 right column para 1, “CuHCF can also interact with other cations, including Li+, K+, NH4+ ... other cations in water would also be removed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to intercalate lithium ions as taught in Kim, rather than sodium ions as shown in Xu and Wu, because Kim, similarly directed to use of copper hexacyanoferrate, teaches that CuHCF is capable of intercalating lithium in place of sodium, and because the modification would broaden the utility of Xu’s desalination method by using the method to treat a wider variety of brackish feedwaters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg 5-9) that amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are each distinguished from Xu by the recitation “providing an electrode including a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state”. Applicant argues:
(1) that Xu does not read on the claim because Xu’s compound is instead synthesized in a non-intercalated state and subsequently intercalated; and,
(2) that Xu does not disclose the feature of exchanging alkali ion A, in the material AxFeyCuz(CN)6, with a Ca2+ from an aqueous inlet solution, but rather that Xu is testing intercalation of Na from a NaCl solution, then testing intercalation of Ca from a CaCl2 solution.
With respect to argument (1), Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111). Xu’s disclosure, in which they first synthesize a non-alkali-intercalated CuHCF compound, and then intercalate that compound with an alkali ion, is reasonably interpreted as a two step synthesis of an alkali-intercalated CuHCF compound. Xu therefore anticipates the feature of “a synthesized first compound in an alkali-intercalated state”.
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not disclose synthesizing the claimed compound. The claim feature in question, wherein the compound is synthesized in an alkali-intercalated state, appears to lack written description in the original disclosure.
With respect to argument (2), this argument is unpersuasive because Applicant does not distinctly identify an alleged difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art work. As Applicant points out, Xu tests the ability of their FeyCuz(CN)6 electrode to intercalate sodium and desalinate a sodium chloride solution. In so doing, Xu forms an electrode comprising a first AxFeyCuz(CN)6 material. Xu discharges the sodium (pg 41442 figure 4b showing galvanostatic charge-discharge) then electrochemically intercalates calcium ions from an aqueous CaCl2 solution (pg 41442 left column para 3). The alkali “A” ion in the first material is thereby electrochemically exchanged with Ca2+, converting the first material to a second material, as claimed.
The rejections of record are therefore maintained.
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 R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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 KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights