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 Interpretation
In claims 1, 11, and 13, enhanced cycling stability, overcharge protection, and preventing overcharge-induced degradation are defined within the context of providing a self-sacrificial additive into the electrolyte.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “the self-sacrificial additive” should read as “wherein the self-sacrificial additive” for positive recitation and grammatical flow. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the one or more electrodes should comprise MnVO or manganese dioxide, or wherein the selection format is selected from a group consisting of MnVO and manganese dioxide. The Specification outlines these materials as different choices for electrodes. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
The term “optimal” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the term optimal is used for claim scope meaning stable/normal battery cycling.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (PGPub 2018/0316064).
Considering Claim 1, Wei discloses an aqueous battery system (aqueous electrolyte battery [0055]) that comprises an electrolyte (aqueous electrolyte [0055]), an anode that comprises zinc [0038], a cathode that comprises manganese dioxide [0038, 0040]), and an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]. Because the effects of the organic additive modifies the morphology of zinc deposition and suppresses self-discharge of the zinc anode [0058] to ensure that the cycle life of the zinc-anode battery can reach more than 2000 cycles without deep cleaning zinc deposits [0032] when the additive concentration is controlled [0065], and because the aqueous battery describes the same anode, cathode, electrolyte, and additive composition as that of the claimed invention for achieving the claimed effects [see 0051, 0053, 0059, 0108, 0110, 0114], it appears that Wei inherently discloses a self-sacrificial additive to provide an enhanced cycling stability even at harsh conditions of 200% state-of-charge providing overcharge protection for a duration ranging from 500-700 hours.
Considering Claim 2, Wei discloses one or more electrodes (an anode that comprises zinc [0038], a cathode that comprises manganese dioxide [0038, 0040]), wherein the self-sacrificial additive is impregnated in or coated on the electrodes (additives can be added into the electrolyte, the electrodes, or combination of both ways [0064]), the self-sacrificial additive undergoes oxidation before electrolyte decomposition, thereby offering protection against overcharging (because the effects of the organic additive modifies the morphology of zinc deposition and suppresses self-discharge of the zinc anode [0058] to ensure that the cycle life of the zinc-anode battery can reach more than 2000 cycles without deep cleaning zinc deposits [0032] when the additive concentration is controlled [0065], and because the aqueous battery describes the same anode, cathode, electrolyte, and additive composition as that of the claimed invention for achieving the claimed effects [see 0051, 0053, 0059, 0108, 0110, 0114], it appears that Wei inherently discloses additive oxidation before electrolyte composition to protect against overcharging).
Considering Claim 3, Wei discloses that the one or more electrodes comprise manganese dioxide (MnO2) (manganese dioxide MnO2 [0038, 0040]).
Considering Claim 10, Wei discloses adding an additive to an aqueous battery system (aqueous electrolyte battery [0055], an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]). The system comprises an electrolyte (aqueous electrolyte [0055]), an anode that comprises zinc [0038], a cathode that comprises manganese dioxide [0038, 0040]), and an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]. Because the effects of the organic additive modifies the morphology of zinc deposition and suppresses self-discharge of the zinc anode [0058] to ensure that the cycle life of the zinc-anode battery can reach more than 2000 cycles without deep cleaning zinc deposits [0032] when the additive concentration is controlled [0065], and because the aqueous battery describes the same anode, cathode, electrolyte, and additive composition as that of the claimed invention for achieving the claimed effects [see 0051, 0053, 0059, 0108, 0110, 0114], it appears that Wei inherently discloses a method wherein the additive is self-sacrificial and reacts during charging to prevent overcharging.
Considering Claim 11, Wei discloses that the self-sacrificial additive is added to an electrolyte in a concentration range effective for overcharge protection (additives added at concentration between 0.1 mg/L to about 10 g/L [0065] for purposes of ensuring a synergic corrosion inhibiting effect [0063]).
Considering Claim 13, Wei discloses that the self-sacrificial additive comprises a bromide-based additive (an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 15, Wei discloses that the self-sacrificial additive comprises bromide-based additive (various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]) in a concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M (additives added at concentration between 0.1 mg/L to about 10 g/L [0065] for purposes of ensuring a synergic corrosion inhibiting effect [0063], so routinely experimenting with and coming up with a concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 16, Wei discloses that the bromide-additive is selected from organic bromides or bromide salts (an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 17, Wei discloses that the organic bromides comprise alkyl bromide (an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 18, Wei discloses that the bromide salts comprise bromide of alkali metals (sodium dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide [0058]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (PGPub 2018/0316064).
Considering Claim 5, Wei discloses that the self-sacrificial additive comprises bromide-based additive (various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]) in a concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M (additives added at concentration between 0.1 mg/L to about 10 g/L [0065] for purposes of ensuring a synergic corrosion inhibiting effect [0063], so routinely experimenting with and coming up with a concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 6, Wei discloses that the bromide-additive is selected from organic bromides or bromide salts (an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 7, Wei discloses that the organic bromides comprise alkyl bromide (an organic additive [0032, 0058] that includes various ammonium bromide salts such as tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 8, Wei discloses that the bromide salts comprise bromide of alkali metals (sodium dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide [0058]).
Considering Claim 9, Wei discloses a complexing agent including tetrabutylammonium (combinations of bromide compound additives including tetrabutyl-ammonium bromide [0058]).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (PGPub 2018/0316064) and further in view of Wang et al. (PGPub 2019/0140270).
Considering Claims 4 and 12, Wei discloses an aqueous battery system (aqueous electrolyte battery [0055]). The additives can be added into the electrolyte, the electrodes, or combination of both ways [0064]. However, Wei is silent to an aqueous gel polymer electrolyte more specifically.
Wang discloses an analogous zinc ion battery comprising an aqueous electrolyte that comprises a polymer gel electrolyte [Abstract]. The battery contains a zinc electrode and an MnO2 electrode [0008]. The polymer gel electrolyte is compatible with a flexible battery application [0023] for flexible and wearable electronics [0020].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aqueous battery system of Wei with the aqueous gel polymer electrolyte of Wang for compatibility with a flexible battery application [0023] for flexible and wearable electronics [0020].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (PGPub 2018/0316064) and further in view of Okuno et al. (PGPub 2023/0402663).
Considering Claim 14, Wei is silent to monitoring parameters to control the charge-discharge process and ensure optimal overcharge protection.
Okuno discloses a power supply apparatus [Abstract] with an analogous zinc anode and manganese dioxide cathode [0033]. The apparatus suppresses overcharging according to voltage [0037] and a communication apparatus [0056], and it performs necessary charge discharge controls [0027] without a traditional control circuit [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wei with the overcharge control protection of Okuno in order to suppress overcharging without a traditional control circuit [0037].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights