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 .
Claims 1- 20 are pending in the application.
Specification
The following title is suggested: RECHARGEABLE BIPOLAR to be consistent with the claims.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, please correct “aluminium” to “aluminum” in lines 1 and 2 to be consistent with the claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: correct “aluminium” to “aluminum” in the specification to be consistent with the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “ the second current collector said battery being characterised “, it should be “ the second current collector of the battery being characterized”.
Claim 8 recites “expanded graphite” twice. Applicant should delete repeated word.
Claim 8 recites “graphene oxide, or expanded graphite or graphene doped with hydrogen…potassium”, it should be corrected to “graphene oxide, expanded graphite, or graphene doped with hydrogen…potassium”.
Claim 19 recites “ a method of using of a battery”, it should be corrected to “ a method of using the battery”.
Claim 20 recites “ a method of using a battery”, it should be corrected to “ a method of using the battery”.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 recites, three graphite sheets ,
1. “a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the first electrode”,
2. “a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the second electrode”, and
3. “the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet”,
it provides no distinctive nomenclature distinguishing each of them which renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “ transports the ions”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No ions are recited earlier in the claim, it is unclear which ionic species is being released or whether the ion release is required at both the electrodes.
Claim 2 recites, “the thickness of the graphite sheet” , it is unclear which graphite sheet is recited here whether it’s the one “a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the first electrode”, “a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the second electrode”, or “the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 9 and 10 recites “ in the form of paint on the graphite sheet”, it is unclear which graphite sheet is recited here whether it’s the “ graphite sheet arranged in contact with the first electrode”, “ graphite sheet arranged in contact with the second electrode”, or “the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “ the weight ratio… less than 15%”, the claim describes the ratio as a percentage without specifying whether 15 % means additive binder weight divided by carbonaceous -material weight or carbonaceous -material weight divided by additive binder weight or carbonaceous -material weight divided by combined weight of the additive binder weight and carbonaceous -material weight or additive binder weight combined weight of the additive binder weight and carbonaceous -material weight rendering the claim as vague and indefinite.
Claim 19 recites a “method of using”, it is unclear how the battery is used as a shape rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 20 recites, the use of battery for electric or hybrid vehicles, and claim 19 on which it is dependent recites use of “a battery … for stationary applications”, an electric or hybrid vehicles are not stationary rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 3-8, 11, and 13-18 are similarly rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 - 3, 8-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN108807837A, for prior art discussion see attached machine translation) in view of Whitacre (US PG Pub. 20140037996 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses aluminum ion battery (para. 0011) comprising:- a plurality of electrochemical cells stacked in series (para. 0011), each of which in turn comprises:- a first electrode, comprising an aluminum sheet (para. 0014) a second electrode, comprising a carbonaceous material (graphene, para. 0012); a separation membrane (para. 0026) ; and an electrolyte (organic salt-AlCl3, para. 0026, 0040), in which the plurality of electrochemical cells is submerged by sealing the perimeter of two adjacent plates with insulating sealant to prevent liquid leakage between different cells (para. 0041);
The limitations – “undergoes an oxidation reaction during battery discharging, and a reduction reaction during battery charging”, “undergoes a reduction reaction during battery discharging and an oxidation reaction during battery charging”, “arranged as a mechanical spacer between the first and the second electrode but allowing ionic exchange between said electrodes and which transports the ions released in the first electrode and in the second electrode during the charge and discharge cycles of the battery” are functional limitations defining the claimed components by the results they are capable of producing during battery operation. The functional language does not require any structure different from the aluminum electrode, carbonaceous electrode and electrolyte recited in the claim. These limitations are satisfied by the electrodes and electrolyte in Shen that are reasonably capable of performing the recited functions when placed in a battery housing.
Shen fails to discloses a first current collector, comprising a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the first electrode of a cell arranged at a first end of the series of electrochemical cells; - a second current collector, comprising a graphite sheet arranged in contact with the second electrode of a cell arranged at a second end of the series of electrochemical cells and, and the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet arranged between said consecutive cells and a housing that houses the plurality of electrochemical cells and the electrolyte.
Whitacre discloses a stack of electrochemical cells (ref. 100P, figure 1) electrochemical storage devices without metal parts in contact with the aqueous electrolyte (para. 0001) in the housing with an anode (ref. 104, figure 1), cathode (ref. 106, figure 1), separator (ref. 108, figure 1) and an electrolyte (para. 0004, para. 0046). Whitacre further discloses a graphite sheet (ref. 110a) arranged in contact with the first electrode (anode, figure 1, para. 0030, 0056, 0085) of a cell arranged at a first end of the series of electrochemical cells and a second current collector, comprising a graphite sheet (ref. 110c) arranged in contact with the second electrode of a cell arranged at a second end of the series of electrochemical cells (figure 1, para. 0030, 0056, 0085) and the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet arranged between said consecutive cells (figure 1, para. 0013, 0056) and a housing that houses the plurality of electrochemical cells (ref. 116, figure 4, para. 0009) and the electrolyte. Whitacre discloses such a bipolar cell stack only uses half as many current collectors as the conventional stack of electrochemical cells (figure 11, para. 0049). Whitacre discloses housing made of an electrochemically inert and electrically insulating polymer so that the electrochemical device is resistant to corrosion (para. 0044). Whitacre discloses such a battery has excellent stability exhibits no loss in capacity or has any internal corrosion and fewer current collectors, shows great promise for long-term use in a variety of energy storage applications (para. 0003, 0086- 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bipolar aluminum ion- battery of Shen by arranging the first current collector comprising of graphite sheet in contact with the first electrode, second current collector comprising of graphite sheet in contact with the second electrode and the consecutive cells are connected by a graphite sheet and housing the cell stack as taught by Whitacre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add graphite current collector and a housing that houses a plurality of electrochemical cells to develop a higher-energy systems with excellent stability and no internal corrosion.
Regarding claim 2, Whitacre discloses the graphite sheet is 500 microns = 0.5 mm thick (para. 0085) which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 and 10 mm thick. MPEP 2144. 05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, Shen disclose a first electrode is High-purity aluminum sheet (para. 0014).
Regarding claim 8, Shen discloses the second electrode comprises of a carbonaceous material, graphene micro sheets (para. 0012).
Regarding claim 9, Shen discloses the second electrode has graphene micro sheets combined with a binder (para. 0012) and pressed onto the current collector plate (aluminum plate, para. 0015). As discussed above with respect to claim 1 Whitacre discloses a current collector of graphite sheet. The claim limitation “deposited in the form of paint” is not given any patentable weight as it is a product by process (MPEP 2113) The implied product is a rechargeable bipolar aluminum ion battery of claim 1 which the combination of Shen and Whitacre would disclose all the claim limitations .
Regarding claim 10, Shen discloses the second electrode has graphene micro sheets combined with a binder (para. 0012) and pressed onto the current collector plate (an aluminum plate, para. 0015). Shen further discloses repeating this step throughout the stack ( para. 0017), so it would apply to the second electrode of the cell arranged at the second end of the series of electrochemical cell. As discussed above with respect to claim 1 Whitacre discloses a current collector of graphite sheet. The claim limitation “deposited in the form of paint” is not given any patentable weight as it is a product by process (MPEP 2113). The implied product is a rechargeable bipolar aluminum ion battery of claim 1 which the combination of Shen and Whitacre would disclose all the claim limitation .
Regarding claim 11, Shen discloses a binder comprises of PVDF and PTFE (para. 0012, 0027)
Regarding claim 12, Shen discloses a weight ratio of binder additive to the carbonaceous material is equal to 0.01-0.25 : 1 (para. 0012) which encloses the disclosed range of equal to or less than 15% = 0.15. (MPEP.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 13, Shen discloses the electrolyte comprises a solution of an aluminum halogenide in an ionic liquid (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 14, Shen discloses the aluminum halogenide comprises of aluminum chloride (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 19, Whitacre discloses the stack placed in cylindrical shell or outer housing (para. 0056) meeting the claim limitation for cylindrical battery.
It would have been obvious to configure the battery in cylindrical form to use a battery configuration having a cylindrical shape to form a battery having a suitable configuration for improved mechanical stability.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN108807837A, for prior art discussion see attached machine translation) in view of Whitacre (US PG Pub. 20140037996 A1) as applied to claims 1 - 3, 8-14, and 19 above, and further in view of Soler (US PG Pub. 2017/0005343 A1).
Shen and Whitacre are relied up on as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, 5, and 6 Shen fails to disclose an aluminum alloy comprising of Mg, Zn, Sn or Ga and the percentage weight of Mg, Zn, Sn or Ga is less than 5 %.
Soler discloses an electrochemical cell comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode which comprises of an aluminum alloy (abstract, para. 0022), separator and an electrolyte (para.0018). Soler discloses the alloying element, preferably selected from either magnesium, zinc, tin or gallium, among others, each of these in proportions preferably less than 5% in weight (para. 0022). Soler further discloses the specific purpose of using the alloy the first being to increase the oxidation potential of the cell, for which, for example, the Mg and Ga will be used; and a second purpose which is to inhibit the release of hydrogen due to the self-corrosion of the aluminum, for which, for example, Zn and Sn will be used. As a result, the reaction in the anode will be the oxidation of the Aluminum (para. 0022)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bipolar aluminum ion- battery of Shen as taught by Soler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use aluminum alloy as taught by Soler in order to increase the oxidation potential of the cell and inhibit the release of hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Soler discloses aluminum anode with a coating (upper protective layer) of graphene or other carbonaceous material (para. 0030, 0023). Soler further discloses a high porosity graphene surface, carbon nanotubes or other carbonaceous compounds with porous structures would promote the reactivity of the aluminum surface via a surface cleaning mechanism of the compounds produced during the discharge of the battery. (para. 0023)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a coating on first electrode of Shen as taught by Soler to promote the reactivity of the aluminum surface via a surface cleaning mechanism of the compounds produced during the discharge of the battery.
Regarding claim 20, Shen and Whitacre fails to disclose an energy accumulator for electric or hybrid vehicles.
Whitacre discloses there is a strong desire to replace the Pb-acid chemistry as used by the automotive industry for environmental safety (para. 0002) and the current focus on developing higher-energy systems for transportation applications (para. 0003).
Soler discloses an energy accumulator for electric vehicles (para. 0004). Soler further discloses the need to develop batteries with improved specific energy capacities which would allow less frequent maintenance of the devices and improvement in terms of weight and volume requirements (para. 0003). Soler further discloses aluminium as a very accessible metal presents a high gravimetric energy density (close to 3 Ah/g) comparable to that of lithium (3.86 Ah/g)m, and with volumetric energy density (8.04 Ah/cm3) four times higher than that of lithium (para. 0015).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the modified battery of Shen for electric or hybrid vehicles for improved specific energy capacities and environmental safety as taught by Soler and Whitacre.
Claims 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN108807837A, for prior art discussion see attached machine translation) in view of Whitacre (US PG Pub. 20140037996 A1) as applied to claims 1 - 3, 8-14, and 19 above, and further in view of Jiao (CN104241596 A, for prior art discussion see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Shen fails to discloses the ionic liquid comprises of urea, acetamide, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bromide or 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium iodide and weight ratio between aluminum halogenide and the ionic liquid is between 1:1 and 3:1.
Jiao discloses a rechargeable aluminum ion battery comprising of high purity aluminum anode, graphite structure carbon material as cathode and an ionic liquid electrolyte (para. 0010, 0018, 0029). Jiao discloses the electrolyte further comprises of AlCl3/ 1-1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (para. 0029). Jiao further discloses the molar ratio of aluminum chloride and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazole chloride is 1:1 to 1.6:1 (para. 0010).
Molecular weight of AlCl3 = 133.34 g/mol
Molecular weight 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazole chloride = 146.62 g/mol
Therefore, the weight ratio is
(1 x 133.34 : 1 x 146.62) : (1.6 x 133.34 : 1 x 146.62)
= 0.91 : 1 to 1.5 : 1 which overlaps with the claimed range MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Jiao further discloses when the ionic liquid is used as electrolyte of the rechargeable aluminum ion battery, the aluminum ion conductivity is high, the thermal stability is good, the electrochemical window is wide, the chemical stability is high, the ionic liquid does not basically react with anode and cathode materials, diaphragms and the like in a battery system, and the ionic liquid is kept in a liquid state within a wide temperature range (para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bipolar aluminum ion- battery with an electrolyte comprising of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride of Shen as taught by Jiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the electrolyte as taught by Jiao in order to obtain rechargeable aluminum ion battery where the aluminum ion conductivity is high, the thermal and chemical stability is good, the electrochemical window is wide, and the ionic liquid is kept in a liquid state within a wide temperature range.
Regarding claim 17, Shen fails to disclose the separations membrane comprises porous sheet of ceramic materials, glass microfibers, polypropylene, or possible combination thereof.
Jiao discloses the separator (diaphragm) material is a polyethylene microporous diaphragm material (para. 0012). Jiao discloses using separator material which have ion permeability and do not react with the anode and the cathode (para. 0012).
Jiao further discloses the rechargeable aluminum ion battery has high-capacity charging and discharging and long cycle life (para. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bipolar aluminum ion- battery of Shen as taught by Jiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use polyethylene microporous material as separator as taught by Jiao in order to obtain ion permeability and do not react with the anode and the cathode.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN108807837A, for prior art discussion see attached machine translation) in view of Whitacre (US PG Pub. 20140037996 A1) as applied to claim1 - 3, 8-14, and 19 above, and further in view of Sung (US PG Pub. 20140377636 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Shen fails to disclose the housing comprises PTFE, PVC, PET or any possible combination thereof.
Sung discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery (abstract) which comprises of an anode, cathode, a separator and an electrolyte (para. 0074). Sung further discloses the housing comprises of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (para. 0002). Sung further discloses the housing for a secondary battery is remarkably improved in moldability, electrical insulating properties and electrolyte resistance and when it is exposed to physical or chemical impact or stress, cracking of the adhesive layer in the pouch can be suppressed, and also the chemical reaction between the aluminum layer and the electrolyte can be prevented from occurring, thereby reducing the risk of explosion due to high temperature or the swelling in the battery by the gas generated therein. (para. 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bipolar aluminum ion- battery of Shen as taught by Sung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the housing as taught by Jiao in order to obtain a housing for the battery which has remarkably improved in moldability, electrical insulating properties and electrolyte resistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Lin et al. (Wearable bipolar rechargeable aluminum battery, ACS Materials Lett. 2020, 2, 808-813) discloses a similar bipolar aluminum ion battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
07/14/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights