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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on May 19, 2026, were received. Claims 1, 6-14 and 16-19 have been amended. None of the Claims have been cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on February 19, 2026.
Specification
4. Amendments to the Specification, submitted May 19, 2026, have been considered and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yushin et al. (US 2020/0343580 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Yushin et al. disclose a composition for a metal-ion battery electrolyte comprising: a calcium salt containing at least a calcium atom, a boron atom, and a hydrogen atom and having a cage structure (paragraphs 0044, 0107-0111).
It is the position of the Examiner that the recitation, “for preparing a calcium battery electrolyte solution”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product and does not add structure to the Claim. Intended use of a known compound does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943.
Also, the recitation, “for preparing a calcium battery electrolyte solution”, is recited in the preamble, therefore the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claims 2-5, Yushin et al. disclose wherein the calcium salt contains a component expressed by a general formula Ca(CBn-1Hn)2 (where n is an integer of four or more), wherein the calcium salt contains a component selected from a group including Ca(CB11H12)2 and a mixture of Ca(CB11H12)2 and Ca(CB9H10)2, wherein the calcium salt contains a component Ca(CB11H12)2, wherein the calcium salt further contains a component Ca(CB9H10)2 (paragraphs 0110-0111).
With regard to Claim 6, Yushin et al. disclose a calcium battery electrolyte solution comprising: a medium for an electrolyte (not labeled); and a calcium salt containing at least a calcium atom, a boron atom, and a hydrogen atom and having a cage structure (paragraphs 0044, 0107-0111).
With regard to Claims 7-10, Yushin et al. disclose wherein the calcium salt contains a component expressed by a general formula Ca(CBn-1Hn)2 (where n is an integer of four or more), wherein the calcium salt contains a component selected from a group including Ca(CB11H12)2 and a mixture of Ca(CB11H12)2 and Ca(CB9H10)2, wherein the calcium salt contains a component Ca(CB11H12)2, wherein the calcium salt further contains a component Ca(CB9H10)2 (paragraphs 0110-0111).
With regard to Claims 13-14, Yushin et al. disclose in Figure 1, a metal-ion battery (100), such as a calcium battery, comprising: a positive electrode (103); a negative electrode (102); and a calcium battery electrolyte solution (not labeled) (paragraph 0044) comprising: a medium for an electrolyte; and a calcium salt containing at least a calcium atom, a boron atom, and a hydrogen atom and having a cage structure (paragraphs 0107-0111), wherein the calcium battery electrolyte is impregnated in a separator (104) that insulates the positive electrode (103) from the negative electrode (102) (paragraph 0044).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The rejection of Claims 11-12 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2020/0343580 A1), as applied to Claims 1-10 and 13-14 above, and in further view of Park et al. (KR 2018/0343580 A1) is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
With regard to Claims 11-12, Yushin et al. disclose the calcium battery electrolyte solution in paragraph 5 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the medium is a mixed solution of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran, and wherein the mixed solution has a volume ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane to tetrahydrofuran of 1:1.
Park et al. disclose a battery including an electrolyte containing a small amount of calcium salt additive (paragraph 0033). Park et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte medium also contains a non-aqueous solvent including a mixed solution of 1,2 dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran (paragraphs 0037-0050). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery electrolyte of Yushin et al. to include a mixed solution of 1,2 dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran, because Park et al. teach that these materials greatly improve the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, as well as, improve battery performance (paragraphs 0043-0044).
Park et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the mixed solution has a volume ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane to tetrahydrofuran of 1:1, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a 1:1 ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran would be an obvious optimization of the battery and the discovery of an optimum ratio of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP 2144.05, II.).
With regard to Claim 15, Yushin et al. disclose the calcium battery in paragraph 4 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the positive electrode is formed of sulfur; and the negative electrode is formed of a calcium metal.
Park et al. disclose a battery including an electrolyte containing a small amount of calcium salt additive (paragraph 0033), and wherein the positive electrode is formed of sulfur (paragraph 0068); and the negative electrode is formed of a calcium metal (paragraph 0075). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Yushin et al. to include the positive electrode being formed of sulfur and the negative electrode being formed of a calcium metal, because Park et al. teach that these materials help the battery exhibit improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0063).
With regard to Claims 16-19, Yushin et al. disclose the calcium battery electrolyte solution in paragraph 5 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the medium is a mixed solution of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran.
Park et al. disclose a battery including an electrolyte containing a small amount of calcium salt additive (paragraph 0033). Park et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte medium also contains a non-aqueous solvent including a mixed solution of 1,2 dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran (paragraphs 0037-0050). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery electrolyte of Yushin et al. to include a mixed solution of 1,2 dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran, because Park et al. teach that these materials greatly improve the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, as well as, improve battery performance (paragraphs 0043-0044).
With regard to Claim 20, Yushin et al. disclose the calcium battery in paragraph 5 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the positive electrode is formed of sulfur; and the negative electrode is formed of a calcium metal.
Park et al. disclose a battery including an electrolyte containing a small amount of calcium salt additive (paragraph 0033), and wherein the positive electrode is formed of sulfur (paragraph 0068); and the negative electrode is formed of a calcium metal (paragraph 0075). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Yushin et al. to include the positive electrode being formed of sulfur and the negative electrode being formed of a calcium metal, because Park et al. teach that these materials help the battery exhibit improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0063).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed May have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Yushin's summary is directed to a solid state electrolyte-comprising Li or Li-ion battery cell, in which a solid electrolyte or a solid electrolyte precursor is infiltrated as a liquid and then functions as part of a solid-state electrolyte system. Yushin also repeatedly discusses the limitations and advantages of solid electrolytes/solid-state batteries. Accordingly, the core disclosure of Yushin is not a liquid calcium battery electrolyte solution of the type mentioned in Applicant's specification and is not a "calcium battery electrolyte solution," recited in Applicant's claim 1. The present disclosure, by contrast, is directed to a calcium battery electrolyte solution obtained by dissolving a specific calcium salt in a solvent, with actual demonstration of Ca ion stripping/plating and a prototype calcium-sulfur battery using that electrolyte solution.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant’s "calcium battery electrolyte solution," recited in Applicant's Claim 1, is recited in the preamble. As noted in the rejection above, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. The amendment dated May 19, 2026, made no changes to the body of the claim, and the electrolyte of Yushin continues meet the claimed limitations. As such, the process by which the calcium battery electrolyte solution is obtained is not recited in the claim language and is not given patentable weight.
Next, Applicant argues, “therefore, even if Yushin broadly mentions Ca/Ca-ion and shows a generic electrolyte-impregnated separator structure, the actual teaching of Yushin is a solid-state electrolyte architecture, not "electrolyte solution" recited in Applicant's Claim 1 as understood from Applicant's specification.”
Again, it is noted by the Examiner that the "calcium battery electrolyte solution," recited in Applicant's Claim 1, is recited in the preamble and is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations.
Applicant continues to argue that, “independent Claim 6 must be examined and interpreted on its own merits. However, Applicant applies the arguments above regarding Claim 1 to the specific interpretation of the calcium battery electrolyte solution of Claim 6 and respectfully submits that independent Claim 6 is allowable over the cited references.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Yushin continues to meet the claimed limitations of independent Claim 6 being a “calcium battery electrolyte solution” since the body of the claims have not changed and “a medium for an electrolyte” and “a calcium salt” are fully capable of forming a solution. The process by which the calcium battery electrolyte solution is obtained is not recited in the claim language and is not given patentable weight.
Finally, Applicant argue that “Park does not sure the deficiencies of Yushin. For instance, Park is explicitly directed to an "ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SULFUR BATTERY AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING THEREOF.' Park appears to mention a nonaqueous solvent, a lithium salt, and a calcium salt as an additive, with the calcium salt being included in only 0.01 to 5 wt% of the electrolyte. This is far from the present disclosure, which is directed to a calcium battery electrolyte solution itself, not a lithium-sulfur electrolyte containing a minor calcium additive. The present invention also uses a specific cage-structure calcium salt and demonstrates Ca plating/stripping, which Park does not teach. Park appears to mention the mixed solvent example as DOL/DME (1,3-dioxolane / 1,2-dimethoxyethane), with broad volume ratios such as 5:95 to 95:5, more preferably 40:60 to 60:40. In Park, THF was not the cited mixed-solvent disclosure used for the main embodiment. Accordingly, the Office Action's statement "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a 1: 1 ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran would be an obvious optimization of the battery and the discovery of an optimum ratio of a known result effective variable" appears inconsistent with Park.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Park is relied upon to teach a medium being a “mixed solution of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran”. The “specific cage-structure calcium salt and demonstrates Ca plating/stripping” is not recited in the claim limitations and is not given patentable weight. And even though Park may not have recited the use of THF in the main embodiment, it is still recited for use in a mixed solution. Applicant argues that "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a 1: 1 ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and tetrahydrofuran would be an obvious optimization of the battery and the discovery of an optimum ratio of a known result effective variable", appears inconsistent with Park”. However, no explanation of inconsistency in Park is given to support this, as well as, no unexpected results or criticality is shown.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights