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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1 and 3 cancelled
Claims 2, 4, and 5 amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the arguments regarding claims 2, 4, and 5 are not considered persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn as the claims are cancelled. Regarding claim 2, examiner finds that all of the limitations are still met by Mizuno in view of Suyama, or alternatively in view of Suyama in view or Mizuno, or Suyama in view of Yamazaki (US 20230216083 A1). Applicant argues that Suyama fails to teach specifically tungsten oxide among the listed anode materials. This argument is not considered persuasive, as Mizuno teaches the use of Tungsten Oxide as an anode active material, and Suyama is only being used in the original rejection as motivation to use an aqueous electrolyte which includes potassium pyrophosphate, thus Suyama failing to teach tungsten oxide is not relevant. Examiner maintains the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select tungsten oxide from the anode active materials taught by Mizuno, and would also have sufficient motivation to modify the electrolyte to include potassium pyrophosphate based on the teachings of Suyama. Alternatively, examiner believes the reverse can also be accomplished, where Suyama teaches all of the elements of claim 2 except the tungsten oxide active material, and Mizuno would provide motivation for the use/substitution of the anode active material of Suyama with tungsten oxide. Upon further search and consideration, examiner would also like to cite Yamazaki (US 20230216083 A1), which teaches a potassium ion battery (“The secondary battery of one embodiment of the present invention may include as a carrier ion one or more selected from alkali metal ions such as a sodium ion and a potassium ion” Yamazaki [0083]) which uses tungsten oxide as the anode active material (“As the negative electrode active material, an oxide such as SnO, SnO.sub.2, titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2), lithium titanium oxide (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12), lithium-graphite intercalation compound (Li.sub.xC.sub.6), niobium pentoxide (Nb.sub.2O.sub.5), tungsten oxide (WO.sub.2),” Yamazaki [0126]). Since the arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejections upheld, Yamazaki is not used in the rejection, but is cited to provide further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of substituting an anode active material for a potassium-ion battery with Tungsten Oxide.
Since the arguments are not considered persuasive, the rejections remain in place and unchanged other than to account for the claim amendments incorporating the subject matter of cancelled claims into other claims. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 20130323541 A1) in view of Suyama (US 20190386346 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno teaches all of the following elements:
An aqueous potassium ion secondary battery comprising tungsten oxide as a negative electrode active material. (“The air battery in this embodiment uses oxygen as its positive electrode active material but is not otherwise particularly limited, and it may be a primary battery or a secondary battery. The air battery can be specifically exemplified by … potassium-air batteries,” Mizuno [0024]. Additionally, Mizuno states that “A nonaqueous electrolyte or an aqueous electrolyte can be used as the electrolyte solution.” [0039])
wherein the aqueous potassium ion secondary battery comprising an aqueous electrolyte, (“The aqueous electrolyte contains a supporting electrolyte salt and water.” Mizuno [0045])
Mizuno is silent on the following elements of claim 2:
wherein pH of the aqueous electrolyte is 4.0 to 12.0, and the aqueous electrolyte contains a solvent comprising water and potassium pyrophosphate dissolved in the solvent.
However, Suyama teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in Mizuno:
wherein pH of the aqueous electrolyte is 4.0 to 12.0, (“In the aqueous electrolyte solution of the present disclosure, pH is preferably no more than 13.” Suyama [0012])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------13 or less for the pH of the aqueous electrolyte encompasses the claimed range of 4-12. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and the aqueous electrolyte contains a solvent comprising water and potassium pyrophosphate dissolved in the solvent. (“In the aqueous electrolyte solution of this disclosure, potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved so as to have a concentration no less than 2 mol/kg.” Suyama [0018])
Mizuno and Suyama are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of potassium ion batteries containing aqueous solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/substitute the aqueous electrolyte of Mizuno with that of Suyama, which contains potassium pyrophosphate in addition to water, in order to suppress contact between the anode and the aqueous electrolyte and suppress electrolysis of the electrolyte solution (“it is believed that a pyrophosphate ion is easy to move to the anode side together with a potassium ion in the aqueous electrolyte solution when the battery is charged, for example. It is believed that thereby, the pyrophosphate ion is decomposed on a portion of a high work function on a surface of an anode, and a coating is formed on the surface of the anode. It is believed that as a result, direct contact between the aqueous electrolyte solution and the portion of a high work function on the surface of the anode is suppressed, and electrolysis of the aqueous electrolyte solution is suppressed.” Suyama [0018]). Additionally, this would only require a simple substitution of one aqueous electrolyte solution for a potassium-ion battery for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
By using the electrolyte solution containing water and potassium pyrophosphate of Suyama in the potassium-ion battery of Mizuno, the additional limitations of claims 4 and 5 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno is silent on the following elements:
The aqueous potassium ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved in the solvent at a level of 2.0mol or higher per 1.0 kg of the solvent.
However, Suyama teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Mizuno:
The aqueous potassium ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved in the solvent at a level of 2.0mol or higher per 1.0 kg of the solvent. (“In the aqueous electrolyte solution of this disclosure, potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved so as to have a concentration no less than 2 mol/kg.” Suyama [0018]. This anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno is silent on the following elements:
The aqueous potassium ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved in the solvent at a level of 5.0mol or higher per 1.0kg of the solvent.
However, Suyama teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Mizuno:
The aqueous potassium ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the potassium pyrophosphate is dissolved in the solvent at a level of 5.0mol or higher per 1.0kg of the solvent. (“This concentration may be no less than 3 mol, and may be no less than 5 mol. The upper limit of this concentration is not specifically limited. In view of suppressing high viscosity, the concentration is preferably no more than 7 mol per kilogram of water.” Suyama [0034])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ------2mol or higher and 7mol or lower of concentration potassium pyrophosphate per 1.0kg of solvent overlaps the claimed range of 5 mol or higher per 1.0kg of solvent for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights