DETAILED ACTION
The response filed April 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been canceled by Applicant. Claims 2, 4, and 5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiasa (US 2022/0045369 A1) in view of Suyama (US 2019/0386346 A1).
Regarding claim 2, 4, and 5, Hiasa discloses a secondary battery (title) with electrolytic solutions including aqueous solvent ([0059]) and metal ions, including potassium ion ([0017]). Hiasa teaches the positive electrode material may be LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2, inter alia ([0053]).
Hiasa teaches an aqueous potassium ion secondary battery with an aqueous electrolyte, as discussed above. Hiasa also teaches the pH of the positive electrode electrolytic solution is preferably from 3 to 8 ([0069]), which does overlap the claimed range.
Hiasa does not teach the electrolyte solution contains potassium pyrophosphate at a concentration of 2.0 mol/kg or greater or 5.0 mol/kg or greater.
However, Suyama discloses an aqueous potassium-ion battery (title) and teaches dissolving potassium pyrophosphate at a concentration of no less than 2 mol and no more than 7 mol per kg of water ([0034]), which reads on the claimed ranges. Suyama also teaches a preferable range for the pH of the aqueous electrolyte solution is 7-12, which overlaps the claimed range.
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). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the aqueous electrolyte solution with the dissolved potassium pyrophosphate, as taught by Suyama, in the battery of Hiasa so that electrolysis of the aqueous electrolyte solution is suppressed (Suyama, [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are either not found persuasive or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the positive electrode active material of Hiasa referenced in [0052]-[0053] is described for use in lithium-ion batteries. Applicant argues that Hiasa separately lists, in [0056], materials that may be used as positive electrode active materials for potassium-ion batteries.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hiasa teaches the metal ion to be inserted and extracted in the secondary battery is not limited to a particular kind, and Hiasa teaches examples of the alkali metal ion include a lithium ion, a sodium ion, and a potassium ion ([0017]).
Hiasa contemplates any of the alkali metal ions as charge carriers, and therefore, the scope of Hiasa would suggest any of the positive electrode active materials, including combinations.
Hiasa teaches two or more kinds of metal ions may be used including an alkali metal ion other than the alkali metal ion to be inserted into and extracted from each of the negative electrode and the positive electrode ([0073]).
Therefore, the examiner considers Hiasa to suggest a lithium positive electrode active material for potassium ions as well, based on the teachings of Hiasa in [0073]).
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 DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights