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 .
Claim Status
Claims 4 and 18-19 have been amended; the amendments to claims 4 and 19 are minor editorial amendments, support for the amendment to claim 18 is found on page 11 lines 18-22 of the originally filed specification.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 18 overcome the rejection of record. Examiner notes that the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot. Applicant further argues the independent claim 1 is not taught by the prior art as Ji explains that a cation Q used in the examples are related to ions containing Li, Na, K, and NH4 and thus fails to disclose any examples of Sc or Al. This argument is noted, however, is not found to be persuasive as Ji discloses the use of a metal or nonmetal halide with a cation Qx+ wherein x is an integer from 1-4 and discloses in [0141] that Q can be Al or Sc and thus is not persuasive. Examiner further notes that the use of Al or Sc may be a non-preferred embodiment, however, Ji is used for all that it teaches and thus the use of Al or Sc would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan. Furthermore, it has been held that "a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments" (MPEP 2123). Applicant further notes the instant invention and benefits of the instant invention and is noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-19, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (US 2021/0336293 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Ji discloses a zinc rechargeable battery, comprising
A positive electrode (Figure 1A; zinc metal battery comprising a cathode 110, anode 120, electrolyte 130),
A zinc containing negative electrode (Figure 1A; zinc metal battery comprising a cathode 110, anode 120, electrolyte 130; [0116-0117] zinc anode),
A separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0120] separator can be between the positive and negative electrodes), and
An electrolyte (Figures 1A; electrolyte 130),
Wherein the electrolyte includes a solvent, a zinc salt, and scandium cation ([0133-0134] electrolyte comprising of water, a zinc halide, and a metal or nonmetal halide with a cation Qx+ wherein x is an integer from 1-4 and can be Scandium (Sc3+) [0137-0144]), and
The zinc salt includes an anion of SO42- and CF3SO3-([0231-0232] Table 1 and 2; ZnSO4 and Zn(CF3SO3)2 as well as other materials for the zinc halide).
Regarding claim 19, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein the scandium cation is present in the electrolyte and present on the surface of the negative electrode ([0136] provided in the electrolyte and Q can be the scandium cation and the electrolyte is in contact with the negative electrode and thus would be at least partially provided on the surface of the negative electrode and thus would anticipate the claim as written as ions are transferred throughout the battery when in use and charging).
Regarding claim 24, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein in the electrolyte, the solvent includes an aqueous solvent ([0115] water is used as the solvent).
Regarding claim 27, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material including a zinc metal, a zinc alloy or combination thereof ([0117-0118] anode comprises zinc metal).
Regarding claim 28, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein the positive electrode includes an inorganic positive electrode active material, an organic positive electrode active material, or a combination thereof ([0006] cathode containing oxides or a carbon composite; examiner notes that the positive electrode active material can be either inorganic or organic).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2021/0336293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ji discloses a zinc rechargeable battery, comprising
A positive electrode (Figure 1A; zinc metal battery comprising a cathode 110, anode 120, electrolyte 130),
A zinc containing negative electrode (Figure 1A; zinc metal battery comprising a cathode 110, anode 120, electrolyte 130; [0116-0117] zinc anode),
A separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0120] separator can be between the positive and negative electrodes), and
An electrolyte (Figures 1A; electrolyte 130),
Wherein the electrolyte includes a solvent, a zinc salt, and a low kex cation ([0133-0134] electrolyte comprising of water, a zinc halide, and a metal or nonmetal halide with a cation Qx+ wherein x is an integer from 1-4), and
A molal concentration of the low kex cation in the electrolyte is lower than a molal concentration of a zinc ion ([0137-0144] the molal concentration of the zinc to Q is within a range from 60:1 to 0.5:1 and thus Q can be lower than the concentration of the zinc ion). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ji is silent with respect to wherein the low kex cation has a solvent exchange rate constant of less than or equal to about 103 s-1, however, this is deemed to be a material property of the electrolyte system including the cation used. Ji discloses the same materials used by applicant such as Al3+ and Sc3+ ([0137-0144]) and thus would inherently process the solvent exchange rate constant as claimed.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the solvent exchange rate constant, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the cation disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As cation taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claims 1-3, Ji inherently teaches that the solvent exchange rate constant 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) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a charge number of the low kex cation is 2+ or more ([0136] x can be from 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein the low kex cation is Al3+ , Sc3+, or a combination thereof ([0136-0141] Al and Sc can be selected and have an x value of 3 or more).
Regarding claim 4, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein the low kex cation is present in the electrolyte and present on the surface of the negative electrode ([0136] provided in the electrolyte and Q can be the scandium cation and the electrolyte is in contact with the negative electrode and thus would be at least partially provided on the surface of the negative electrode and thus would anticipate the claim as written as ions are transferred throughout the battery when in use and charging).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the low kex cation in the electrolyte is about 0.1 m to 2.5 m ([0142-0145] molal concentration of one example of the Q material (LiCl) can be 0.5-20 m). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7-8, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of zinc ion in the electrolyte is about 0.1-30 m ([0144-0145] molal concentration can be 10-30 m). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the low kex cation is about 0.5 times or less of a molal concentration of zinc ion ([0144] molal concentration ratio of Zn to Q can be within the range of 60:1 to 0.5:1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the low kex cation and a molal concentration of zinc ion in the electrolyte is about 1:2 to about 1:10 ([0144] Zn:Q ranges from 60:1 to 0.5:1).
Regarding claim 12, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein a the zinc salt includes an anion of Cl- ([0004] zinc halide can be ZnCl2).
Regarding claim 13, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein in the electrolyte, the solvent includes an aqueous solvent ([0115] water is used as the solvent).
Regarding claim 16, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material including a zinc metal, a zinc alloy or combination thereof ([0117-0118] anode comprises zinc metal).
Regarding claim 17, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Ji further discloses wherein the positive electrode includes an inorganic positive electrode active material, an organic positive electrode active material, or a combination thereof ([0006] cathode containing oxides or a carbon composite; examiner notes that the positive electrode active material can be either inorganic or organic).
Regarding claim 20, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the scandium cation in the electrolyte is about 0.1 m to 5 m ([0142-0145] molal concentration of one example of the Q material (LiCl) can be 0.5-20 m). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of zinc ion in the electrolyte is about 0.1-10 m ([0144-0145] molal concentration can be 10-30 m). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 22, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the scandium cation in the electrolyte is lower than a molal concentration of a zinc ion ([0137-0144] the molal concentration of the zinc to Q is within a range from 60:1 to 0.5:1 and thus Q can be lower than the concentration of the zinc ion). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Ji further discloses wherein a molal concentration of the scandium cation and a molal concentration of zinc ion in the electrolyte is about 1:2 to about 1:10 ([0144] Zn:Q ranges from 60:1 to 0.5:1).
Claims 14-15, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2021/0336293 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2015/0086859 A1).
Regarding claims 14-15, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1, however, is silent wherein the electrolyte comprises an organic solvent and a mixture of an aqueous solvent and organic solvent.
Chang discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Chang discloses wherein the electrolyte for the secondary battery can have a solvent be an organic solvent, water or a combination thereof ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Chang such that the electrolyte of Ji can contain an organic solvent, an aqueous solvent, and a combination of an organic and aqueous solvent as taught by Chang. Chang discloses wherein both aqueous and organic solvents can be used and thus it would have been obvious to use both an aqueous and organic solvent within the electrolyte as this is known in the art as taught by Chang and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 14-15.
Regarding claims 25-26, Ji discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18, however, is silent wherein the electrolyte comprises an organic solvent and a mixture of an aqueous solvent and organic solvent.
Chang discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Chang discloses wherein the electrolyte for the secondary battery can have a solvent be an organic solvent, water or a combination thereof ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Chang such that the electrolyte of Ji can contain an organic solvent, an aqueous solvent, and a combination of an organic and aqueous solvent as taught by Chang. Chang discloses wherein both aqueous and organic solvents can be used and thus it would have been obvious to use both an aqueous and organic solvent within the electrolyte as this is known in the art as taught by Chang and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 25-26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moore et al. (US 2017/0133689 A1)-discloses a redox active colloidal particles for flow batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Moore discloses wherein the electrolyte solution comprises anions of multiple components in [0012].
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights