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. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted September 6, 2023; August 12, 2025; and, December 18, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. 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).
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 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 (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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 11-12 and 15-20 are rejected 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).
With regard to Claims 11-12, Yushin et al. disclose the calcium battery electrolyte in paragraph 7 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 7 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 in paragraph 7 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 7 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).
Conclusion
12. 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