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 Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 17-22, and 28-39 are currently pending;
Claims 2, 10-16, and 23-27 are canceled;
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 20-22 are currently amended;
Claims 28-39 are new.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 03/19/2026
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9 and 17-22 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections are withdrawn and replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 17-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lin in view of Ein-Eli and Zou.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-33 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claims 32-33 and 38-39, the claim language includes the limitations of the aluminum electrode comprising both poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene and acetylene black. Claim 1, upon which claims 32-33 and 38-39 depend, introduces the limitations of “an electrically conductive network” and “a gel polymer” in line 2. It is unclear in the claim language of claims 32-33 and 38-39 whether the poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene is the gel polymer as introduced in claim 1 or a separate component. Likewise, it is unclear in the claim language of claims 32-33 and 38-39 whether the acetylene black is the electrically conductive network as introduced in claim 1 or a separate component. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene of claims 32-33 and 38-39 as the gel polymer introduced in claim 1 based on support from the instant claims 6-9 and instant specification paragraphs [0010], [0043], and [0048]. The examiner is also interpreting the acetylene black of claims 32-33 and 38-39 as the electrically conductive network introduced in claim 1 based on support from instant claims 3 and 5 and instant specification paragraphs [0037], [0043], [0050] and [0056].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 17-22, and 28-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US-20200212476-A1), hereinafter Lin, in view of Ein-Eli et al. (US-20170179464-A1), hereinafter Ein-Eli, and Zou et al. (CN 113299882 A), hereinafter Zou.
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an aluminum electrode for a battery comprising aluminum powder ([0012];[0015]) and a polymer as a binder ([0015] adhesive such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)).
Lin fails to teach that the binder is a gel polymer.
Ein-Eli is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0004]). Ein-Eli teaches that known binders for batteries can include polyvinylidene fluoride as well as gel polymers such as polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP) ([0278]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin and replaced the polyvinylidene fluoride binder of Lin with the gel polymer PVdF-HFP binder of Ein-Eli as they are art recognized equivalents both known for use as a binder in battery electrodes (Ein-Eli [0278]). Further, gel polymer binders such as PVdF-HFP are advantageous to other binders such as PVdF in having binding and liquid retention properties that are effective in preventing electrolyte leakage (Ein-Eli [0278]).
Lin also fails to teach an electrically conductive network, wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 2.7 wt% to about 7.3 wt% of the electrically conductive network.
Zou is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aluminum electrodes (Abstract, pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6). Lee teaches an electrically conductive network, wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 2.7 wt% to about 7.3 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Abstract, pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lin such that the aluminum electrode comprises about 2.7 wt% to about 7.3 wt% of an electrically conductive network as conductive additives are typical in the art and are known in the art to improve conductivity of the electrode while not causing a secondary reaction or chemical change (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the electrically conductive network includes comprises carbon black, a carbon nanomaterial, graphene, graphite, a conductive polymer, acetylene black, ketjen black, or inert metal particles (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube, graphite, conductive polymers, ketjen black, and metal powder).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the carbon nanomaterial includes comprises carbon nanotubes or fullerenes (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the electrically conductive network includes comprises acetylene black (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the gel polymer comprises a fluorinated polyolefin, polyacrylonitrile (PAN), poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF), or poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the fluorinated polyolefin comprises a polyvinylidene fluoride, a polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyhexafluoropolypropylene, or a combination thereof (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP); the examiner notes that this claim does not necessitate that the gel polymer includes a fluorinated polyolefin, it is only defining the fluorinated polyolefin that is optionally included in claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the fluorinated polyolefin is a copolymer of a polyvinylidene fluoride, a polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyhexafluoropolypropylene, or a combination thereof (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP); the examiner notes that this claim does not necessitate that the gel polymer includes a fluorinated polyolefin such as a copolymer, it is only defining the fluorinated polyolefin that is optionally included in claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the gel polymer comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lin also teaches a dual-ion battery comprising: an aluminum electrode of claim 1 ([0012];[0015]); and an electrolyte ([0005];[0010]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Lin also teaches further comprising a carbon electrode ([0010]; [0017] positive electrode); and a separator between the aluminum electrode and the carbon electrode ([0010] separator).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Lin also teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid electrolyte ([0018] ionic liquid).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Lin also teaches wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte comprises a chloride salt ([0018]; [0024]; 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Lin also teaches wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte comprises an imidazolium chloride ([0018]; [0024]; 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Lin also teaches wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([0018]; [0024]; 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride) and aluminum chloride ([0024] aluminum chloride).
Regarding claim 28, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode is a membrane electrode (the instant specification defines a membrane as including an aluminum electrode of aluminum powder, gel polymer, and an electrically conductive network in paragraphs [0034] and [0036]; modified Lin teaches aluminum powder (Lin [0012];[0015]), gel polymer (Ein-Eli [0278]), and an electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4), and is therefore considered a membrane electrode in context of the application).
Regarding claim 29, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches comprising about 2.7 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 30, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches comprising about 3.6 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 31, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches comprising about 7.3 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 32, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches comprising poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co- hexafluoropropylene (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP)) and acetylene black (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black).
Regarding claim 33, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches comprising about 27.3 wt% poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP); Lin [0015] weight ratio of metal powder to the adhesive is 0.5:99.5 to 99.5:0.5) and about 7.3 wt% acetylene black (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 34, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode is a membrane electrode (the instant specification defines a membrane as including an aluminum electrode of aluminum powder, gel polymer, and an electrically conductive network in paragraphs [0034] and [0036]; modified Lin teaches aluminum powder (Lin [0012];[0015]), gel polymer (Ein-Eli [0278]), and an electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4), and is therefore considered a membrane electrode in context of the application).
Regarding claim 35, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 2.7 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 36, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 3.6 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 37, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 7.3 wt% of the electrically conductive network (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 38, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode comprises poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP)) and acetylene black (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black).
Regarding claim 39, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the aluminum electrode comprises about 27.3 wt% poly(vinylidene fluoride)-co-hexafluoropropylene (Ein-Eli [0278] polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVdF-HFP); Lin [0015] weight ratio of metal powder to the adhesive is 0.5:99.5 to 99.5:0.5) and about 7.3 wt% acetylene black (Zou pg. 4, paragraph 4 acetylene black, carbon nanotube; Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-6; pg. 4, paragraphs 2-4; the content of aluminum powder in the anode material is 60% to 98%, wherein the anode material comprises aluminum powder, conductive agent, and adhesive; therefore, the conductive agent and adhesive must be present in an amount of 2% to 40%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights