ELECTROLYTE

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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024, 04/08/202, and 10/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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. 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 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada et al. (US 20100063249 A1), and further in view of Asahi (WO 2019221156 A1, citation from enclosed machine translation, corresponding U. S. publication US 20210384524 A1). Regarding claim 1, Kawada teaches an electrolyte comprising a melamine compound ([0025-0026, 0053-0055, 0135]; proton-conducting solid electrolyte comprising a melamine compound salt) and/or a melamine resin having the melamine compound in a main chain of a repeating unit, wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte for a fuel cell or a metal-air battery ([0001, 0038, 0135]; electrolyte for a fuel cell or a battery). Kawada, however, does not teach the electrolyte using an electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst. However, Asahi teaches electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst wherein a catalyst layer can be formed on the electrolyte membrane (page 9, lines 28-32) and the electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst is used as an air electrode catalyst of a fuel cell (in particular, a polymer electrolyte fuel cell) or a metal-air battery (page 2, lines 52-54; page 8, lines 26-29). Asahi further teaches the use of melamine compound in the catalyst (page 1, lines 50-60, page 3, lines 24-33) for improving high oxygen reduction activity (page 1, lines 40-48). Further, Kawada, and Asahi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to fuel cells and batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Kawada’s electrolyte next to the electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst taught by Asahi, because Asahi teaches such an electrode configuration in a fuel cell and battery (page 2, lines 52-54; page 8, lines 26-29). Such a modification would have constituted the simple addition of known electrode configuration taught by Asahi to the fuel cell or battery of Kawada, with the components expected to successfully perform their known functions and predictably form the claimed electrolyte for a fuel cell or a metal-air battery using an electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst (see MPEP 2143(I)A). PNG media_image1.png 213 299 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kawada further teaches a limitation wherein the melamine compound is represented by a general formula (1): in the formula, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are the same or different and each represents a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group ([0027-0031, 0040-0044]). Regarding claim 3, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kawada further teaches a limitation wherein the electrolyte is an electrolytic solution ([0053-0054]; liquid/solution proton-exchange material). Regarding claim 5, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kawada further teaches a limitation wherein the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte film ([0036, 0038, 0055]; proton-conducting solid electrolyte). Regarding claim 6, Kawada teaches an oxidation inhibitor comprising a melamine compound and/or a polymer comprising the melamine compound as a monomer. Specifically, Kawada teaches an electrolyte comprising a melamine compound wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte for a fuel cell or a battery ([0001, 0038, 0135, 0025-0026, 0053-0055, 0135]; proton-conducting solid electrolyte comprising a melamine compound salt) which corresponds to the claimed oxidation inhibitor in light of paragraph [0010] of the instant specification. Based on paragraph [0010] of specification, by blending a melamine compound with the electrolyte, the electrolyte functions as an oxidation inhibitor for an electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst. Thus, in light of the instant specification, an electrolyte comprising the melamine compound, as taught by Kawada, act as the claimed oxidation inhibitor. Kawada, however, does not teach the oxidation inhibitor of an electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst. However, Asahi teaches an electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst wherein a catalyst layer can be formed on the electrolyte membrane (page 9, lines 28-32). Asahi further teaches the use of melamine compound in the catalyst (page 1, lines 50-60, page 3, lines 24-33) for improving high oxygen reduction activity (page 1, lines 40-48). In addition, Asahi teaches that the electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst and an electrolyte material can be integrated with an electrolyte membrane, including forming a catalyst layer on the electrolyte membrane (page 9, lines 28-32). Further, Kawada, and Asahi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to fuel cells and batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Kawada’s melamine-containing electrolyte/oxidation inhibitor with the electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst taught by Asahi because Kawada teaches a melamine-containing electrolyte for use in fuel cells or batteries, while Asahi teaches an oxygen reduction catalyst integrated with an electrolyte material and electrolyte membrane in fuel cells and metal-air batteries. Such a modification would have constituted the simple addition of known electrode configuration taught by Asahi to the fuel cell of Kawada, with the components expected to successfully perform their known functions and predictably form the claimed oxidation inhibitor of an electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). PNG media_image1.png 213 299 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all limitations of claim 6, as stated above. Kawada further teaches a limitation wherein the melamine compound is represented by a general formula (1): in the formula, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are the same or different and each represents a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy group, a halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group ([0027-0031, 0040-0044]). Regarding claim 8, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 6, as stated above. Kawada further teaches a limitation wherein the oxidation inhibitor is the melamine compound ([0026]) and/or a solution comprising the melamine compound ([0054]). Regarding claim 10, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 6, as stated above. Asahi further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst comprises platinum nanoparticles (page 3, lines 24-34; page 8, lines 31-35). Specifically, Asahi teaches electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst comprises nanoparticles containing platinum and a melamine compound (page 3, lines 24-34; page 8, lines 31-35). Asahi further teaches that the platinum-containing particles used as the electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst include platinum nanoparticles, platinum alloy nanoparticles, and core-shell type nanoparticles containing platinum (page 3, lines 35-37). Asahi further acknowledges in the prior art section that the platinum is suitable as an electrode catalyst for electrolyte fuel cells because the electrode catalyst is required to withstand strongly acidic conditions (page 1, lines 16-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the platinum nanoparticles taught by Asahi into the modified Kawada’s electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst because Asahi teaches that platinum nanoparticles are a known catalyst for fuel cell electrodes (page 3, lines 35-37) and the platinum is suitable for use as an electrode catalyst under acidic conditions of an electrolyte fuel cell (page 1, lines 16-19). Regarding claim 11, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 6, as stated above. Asahi further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst is a cathode catalyst for a fuel cell (page 13, lines 14-15; electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst used in an air electrode (cathode electrode) of a fuel cell). Regarding claim 12, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 1, as stated above. In view of rejection of claim 1, Kawada further teaches a fuel cell comprising the electrolyte according to claim 1 ([0001, 0135]). Regarding claim 13, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claim 1, as stated above. Asahi further teaches a metal-air battery comprising the electrolytic solution according to claim 1 (page 2, lines 52-54; page 8, lines 26-29). Specifically, Asahi teaches electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst wherein a catalyst layer can be formed on the electrolyte membrane (page 9, lines 28-32) and the electrochemical oxygen reduction catalyst is used as an air electrode catalyst of a fuel cell (in particular, a polymer electrolyte fuel cell) or a metal-air battery (page 2, lines 52-54; page 8, lines 26-29). Asahi further teaches the use of melamine compound in the catalyst (page 1, lines 50-60, page 3, lines 24-33) for improving high oxygen reduction activity (page 1, lines 40-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrolyte of modified Kawada into the metal-air battery of Asahi because Kawada teaches that the electrolyte containing melamine provides improved proton conductivity in batteries ([0025] of Kawada), while Asahi teaches the metal-air batteries and the desirability of using melamine compound for improving oxygen reduction activity in such batteries (page 1, lines 40-48, and 59-60; page 8, lines 26-29 of Asahi). Using Kawada’s electrolyte in the metal-air battery of Asahi would have been no more than the predictable use of a known electrolyte in a known metal-air battery configuration to achieve its expected electrolyte function. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Claims 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada, as modified by Asahi, as applied to claims 3, and 8 above, and further in view of Fukunaga (JP 2002208432 A citation from enclosed machine translation). Regarding claim 4, and claim 9, Kawada, as modified by Asahi, teaches all imitations of claims 3, and 8 as stated above. Modified Kawada does not teach a limitation wherein the concentration of the melamine compound and/or the polymer comprising the melamine compound as a monomer is 0.1 to 100 mol/L. However, Fukunaga teaches adding melamine to an electrolytic solution and further teaches that the amount of melamine in the electrolytic solution affects the performance of the electrochemical cell ([0014-0015, 0037-0038, 0056]). In particular, Fukunaga teaches that when the amount of melamine is too small, its desired effect is not sufficiently exhibited, whereas when the amount is too large, battery capacity is reduced ([0015]). Fukunaga therefore teaches adjusting the amount of melamine in the electrolytic solution to obtain the desired electrochemical performance ([0038, 0056]), thereby identifying the concentration of melamine in an electrolytic solution as a result-effective variable. Further, modified Kawada, and Fukunaga are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to electrolyte in batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of melamine in the melamine-containing electrolytic solution of modified Kawada through routine optimization to obtain a concentration providing the desired electrochemical performance. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Accordingly, selection of a melamine concentration within the claimed range of 0.1 to 100 μmol/L would have been obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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. /LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728