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 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, 3-6, 9-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naarmann et al. (EP 0111237 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation; hereinafter “Naarmann”).
In regard to claims 1, 4 and 6, Naarmann discloses an aqueous electrolyte for a battery comprising a water-based solvent (“aqueous electrolyte systems;” see the paragraph spanning pages 7 and 8 of the machine translation) having dissolved therein a mixture of sodium-based salt, such as sodium perchlorate as recited in claims 4 and 6, and a trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt. See the third and fourth complete paragraphs of page 7 of the machine translation.
In regard to claim 3, Naarmann discloses wherein water can be used in the electrolyte. see the paragraph spanning pages 7 and 8 of the machine translation. As Naarmann does not disclose any specifics regarding the water, it is reasonably viewed that the disclosure of “water” necessarily encompasses the use of “rainwater” or other sources or quality of water.
In regard to claims 5 and 9, Naarmann discloses that “the solubility of the conductive salts in the electrolyte should be as large as possible” and that the “concentration of the conductive salt in the electrolyte solution is expediently in the range from about 0.01 to about 2.0 mol per liter of electrolyte solvent.” See page 7 of the machine translation. Naarmann does not explicitly disclose the concentration in mol/kg, but it is noted that one liter of water weighs one kg. Therefore, it is held that the range of concentration of Naarmann substantially overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 to about 20 mol/kg of sodium-based salt and 0.1 to 5 mol/kg of trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt.
In regard to claims 10-15, Naarmann discloses the use of organic polar solvents such as dimethyl sulfoxide, acetonitrile and alcohols as additives in the electrolyte. See the paragraph spanning pages 7 and 8 of the machine translation. The Examiner takes Official Notice that dimethyl sulfoxide is well-known in the art to have a dielectric constant of higher than 10 (47.3) as recited in claim 11 and a dipole moment higher than 1.5 D (3.96 D) as recited in claim 12. Additionally, dimethyl sulfoxide is necessarily a polar aprotic solvent as recited in claim 13 as it has been held that if a composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Furthermore, it is held that the disclosure of alcohols reads the use of polar protic solvents in claim 15 as alcohols are necessarily polar protic solvents due to the definition of their structure.
In regard to claim 20, Naarmann discloses a battery comprising an anode and cathode and an electrolyte as described in claim 1 above. See the abstract of the machine translation.
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 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann as applied to claims 1, 6, 10 and 20 above.
In regard to claims 2 and 19, Naarmann is silent in regard to the pH of the water-based solvent. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of pH of the water-based solvent without creating any new or unexpected results as it is noted that the criticality of the pH has not been shown in the instant application. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 3, Naarmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the water-based solvent explicitly comprises rainwater. However, it is held that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have sourced water for production of a water-based liquid from rain or a water source which is fed by rainwater without creating any new or unexpected results. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
In regard to claims 5, 7, 9 and 17, Naarmann discloses that “the solubility of the conductive salts in the electrolyte should be as large as possible” and that the “concentration of the conductive salt in the electrolyte solution is expediently in the range from about 0.01 to about 2.0 mol per liter of electrolyte solvent.” See page 7 of the machine translation. Naarmann does not explicitly disclose the concentration in mol/kg (it is noted that one liter of water weighs one kg) of sodium-based salt, perchlorate, or trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt nor the volume ratio of dissolved mixture of sodium-based salt and trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt in the water-based solvent to the organic polar solvent. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have discovered the optimum or workable range of sodium-based salt, perchlorate, and trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt and the volume ratio of dissolved mixture of sodium-based salt and trifluoromethanesulfonate-based salt in the water-based solvent to the organic polar solvent through routine experimentation without creating any new or unexpected results in order to maximize the operational parameters of the electrolyte in the battery. It is further noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of any of the above variables. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claims 11-12, Naarmann is silent in regard to the dielectric constant and dipole moment of the organic polar solvent. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of the dielectric constant and dipole moment of the organic polar solvent of the water-based solvent without creating any new or unexpected results as it is noted that the criticality of either variable has not been shown in the instant application. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claims 15-16, Naarmann does not explicitly disclose a polar protic solvent nor ethanol. However, Naarmann does disclose that the water solvent can be mixed with “organic solvents, for example alcohols” in line 3 of page 8 of the machine translation. As ethanol is well-understood the be the most common alcohol, it is held that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected ethanol to mix with the water-based solvent of the system without creating any new or unexpected results. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
In regard to claims 21-22, Naarmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery is in a coin cell configuration or in a pouch cell configuration. However, Naarmann does disclose that the secondary batteries “can be designed in any suitable, arbitrary form.” See the last line of page 2 of the machine translation. The Examiner therefore takes Official Notice that coin cell and pouch cell battery configurations are extremely well-known in the art and it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the battery of Naarmann in either a coin or pouch cell configuration without creating any new or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights