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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-9 and 17-22 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 and 23-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
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 1-9 and 17-22 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.
Claim 1 includes the limitation of “An aluminum electrode for a battery comprising aluminum powder and a gel polymer as a binder” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the aluminum powder is part of the binder or if the aluminum powder is part of a separate component within the electrode, such as an active material. Claims 2-9 and 17-22 are also rejected based on their dependency on claim 1. For the sake of examination, the aluminum powder is being interpreted as a component separate from the binder within an electrode mixture/membrane, as described in the instant specification, paragraphs [0034]-[0036]. Claims 2-9, and 17-22 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrically conductive network" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 2. Claim 4 is also rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the electrically conductive network" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 2.
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, 6-9, and 17-22 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.
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]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the gel polymer includes 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 includes 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 includes 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 includes 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 includes 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 includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([0018]; [0024]; 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride) and aluminum chloride ([0024] aluminum chloride).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ein-Eli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN-107369846-B), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lin fails to teach further comprising an electrically conductive network.
Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with aluminum electrodes (Wu Abstract). Wu teaches further comprising an electrically conductive network (Wu teaches an anode material including aluminum that also includes a conductive agent such as acetylene black or carbon nanotubes; Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4).
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 added a conductive agent forming an electrically conductive network to the electrode of modified Lin as conductive additives are typical in the art (Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4) and are known in the art to improve conductivity of the electrode and battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lin fails to teach wherein the electrically conductive network includes carbon black, a carbon nanomaterial, graphene, graphite, a conductive polymer, acetylene black, ketjen black, or inert metal particles.
Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with aluminum electrodes (Wu Abstract). Wu teaches wherein the electrically conductive network includes carbon black, a carbon nanomaterial, graphene, graphite, a conductive polymer, acetylene black, ketjen black, or inert metal particles.
(Wu teaches an anode material including aluminum that also includes a conductive agent such as acetylene black or carbon nanotubes; Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4).
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 added a conductive agent forming an electrically conductive network to the electrode of modified Lin as conductive additives are typical in the art (Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4) and are known in the art to improve conductivity of the electrode and battery.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Lin also teaches wherein the carbon nanomaterial includes carbon nanotubes or fullerenes (Wu teaches an anode material including aluminum that also includes a conductive agent such as acetylene black or carbon nanotubes; Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4; the examiner notes that this claim is not limiting that the electrically conductive network must include a carbon nanomaterial, it is only further defining types of carbon nanomaterials).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lin fails to teach wherein the electrically conductive network includes acetylene black.
Wu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries with aluminum electrodes (Wu Abstract). Wu teaches wherein the electrically conductive network includes acetylene black (Wu teaches an anode material including aluminum that also includes a conductive agent such as acetylene black or carbon nanotubes; Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4).
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 added a conductive agent forming an electrically conductive network to the electrode of modified Lin as conductive additives are typical in the art (Wu Abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 2-4) and are known in the art to improve conductivity of the electrode and battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200287232-A1 teaches an aluminum ion battery with an aluminum or aluminum alloy anode (Abstract);
US-20180309125-A1 teaches electrochemical cells with layered materials for use in batteries such as rechargeable aluminum batteries, wherein the battery can include an ionic liquid with a mixture of aluminum chloride and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride as the electrolyte, wherein each electrode may include a binder and electrically conductive additive. The binder can be a copolymer of hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride and the electron conducting additive can be acetylene black or carbon nanotube ([0086]; [0098]; [0099]).
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
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722