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 Status
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks submitted 4/22/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitation of claim 4.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syama (US 2019/0386346 A1).
As to claims 1- 3, Suyama discloses an aqueous potassium ion battery (title) comprising a positive electrode (100- cathode), an aqueous electrolyte solution [0001] and a negative electrode (500- anode), wherein both of the positive electrode and the negative electrode has/have a current collector containing Al ([0063] anode can be aluminum, [0051] cathode can be aluminum applies to claim 3),
the current collector is in contact with the aqueous electrolyte solution (50-electrolyte, in figure 1-[0046]), the aqueous electrolyte solution contains water and potassium pyrophosphate dissolved in the water ([0007,11] and figures 2a-2d which discloses the concentration of K4P2O7 at 4, 5, 6, 7 mol per kilogram of water (see figure 2 or table 1). Suyama does not explicitly disclose the aqueous electrolyte solution has no freezing point at -60°C or higher (claim 1) or; wherein the aqueous electrolyte solution does not involve salt precipitation when cooling from 0°C to -60°C (claim 2).
However, the freezing point is inherent to the concentration of salt in the water and since the concentration of potassium pyrophosphate in water is the same as applicants (see figure 2) the freezing point would be the same. Furthermore, the courts have held “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). (see MPEP 2112).
While Suyama does not give an example of Aluminum as the current collector, Suyama does give a finite list of the current collector material and one of ordinary skill is able to select from said finite listing.
“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Thus, because Suyama teach each, i.e. aluminum in paragraph [0063]-anode, [0051]-cathode), as one of a finite set of options, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them with a reasonable expectation that Suyama will work as intended, i.e. to provide an aluminum current collector. "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; see MPEP 2143 l.
As to claim 5, Suyama discloses the aqueous potassium ion battery according to claim 1, wherein the aqueous electrolyte solution has a viscosity of 40 mPa∙s or more and 350 mPa∙s or less at 20°C (figure 2c at concentration of 5 mol/kg the viscosity is about 90 MPa s).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syama (US 2019/0386346 A1) in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 2009/0139787 A1).
As to claim 6, Syama discloses the aqueous potassium ion battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose the electrodes having a bipolar structure, wherein a positive electrode active material layer is formed on one side of the current collector and a negative electrode active material layer is formed on the other side of the current collector.
Ohsawa et al. discloses a secondary battery which can be of potassium ion type [0064] and teaches that a bipolar type battery is superior in capacity and output characteristics [0063] compared to a usual type. The bipolar type has a structure of positive electrode active material layer is formed on one surface of the current collector, and a negative electrode active material layer is formed on the other surface [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the application as effectively filed to use a bipolar type battery instead of a conventional one as it may lead to better capacity and output characteristics.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102a1 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 Syama. Applicants’ argument that Aluminum is part of a list and no example of aluminum as a current collector is persuasive, however one of ordinary skill could select from a finite list.
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the unexpected results.
Applicant argues that there is an unexpected result with the use of Aluminum with the aqueous electrolyte solution does not freeze.
This is not found persuasive because there are no examples of other metals materials of the current collector to show unexpected results only occur with the aluminum.
Furthermore since the electrolyte of Suyama discloses the same concentration of K2P2O7, the system is expected to react the same way, therefore it is not unexpected. The freezing point is inherent to the concentration of salt in the water and since the concentration of potassium pyrophosphate in water is the same as applicants (see figure 2) the freezing point would be the same. Furthermore, the courts have held “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). (see MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0077512 Charkey et al. discloses an electrolyte for use in a rechargeable battery with a zinc negative electrode comprising: an aqueous solution; and potassium pyrophosphate and potassium hydroxide dissolved in said aqueous solution having a low freezing point of under -30C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights