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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “battery” is incorrectly spelled as “batter”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1), further in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0174824 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Iida teaches an aluminum battery to include a separator interposed between a negative electrode and a positive electrode (Paragraph [0105]). Iida teaches a separator impregnated with an aqueous electrolyte (Paragraph [0073]).
Iida does not teach the intercalation mechanism of the positive electrode or the chelating mechanism of the negative electrode. Zhou teaches ion intercalation-deintercalation mechanisms in the positive electrode (Paragraph [0072]) and the use of cationic chelating agents in a negative electrode (Paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine intercalation mechanisms of a positive electrode and chelating mechanisms of a negative electrode as taught by Zhou with the aluminum battery as taught by Iida in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing the capacity of the aqueous secondary battery and stabilizing cycle performance by stabilizing ion concentration changes in the electrolyte as taught by Zhou (Paragraphs [0072], [0079]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 2, Iida teaches aluminum ions to migrate between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Paragraph [0105]).
Regarding Claim 10, Iida does not teach a separator thickness of 200 µm to 500 µm. Zhou teaches a separator thickness of 70 µm to 200 µm (Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separator having the thickness as taught by Zhou with the aluminum battery as taught by Iida in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving the adsorption performance towards harmful molecules as taught by Zhou (Paragraph [0008]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0174824 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Archer et al. (US 2021/0257612 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Iida does not teach the aqueous electrolyte to comprise water and an aluminum salt wherein a weight proportion of the aluminum salt in the aqueous electrolyte is 30 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight proportion of the water and aluminum salt. Archer teaches an electrolyte may be an aqueous aluminum salt composition (Paragraph [0060]) and preparation of such with concentration of 1M, 2M, 3M, ad 5M wherein a 1M Al2(SO4)3 aqueous electrolyte is prepared by adding 10 millimoles of Al2(SO4)3∙18H2O into 10 mL of water (Paragraph [0105]).
Using the 5M solution with 50 millimoles of Al2(SO4)3∙18H2O as a basis for calculation, multiplying 0.05 mol of the hydrated Al2(SO4)3∙18H2O with the 666.42 g/mol molar mass of Al2(SO4)3∙18H2O gives 33.321 g of hydrate. Adding 10 mL or 10 g of water sums the total solution mass to 43.321 g. Multiplying 0.05 mol of Al2(SO4)3∙18H2O with the 342.15 g/mol molar mass of Al2(SO4)3 gives 17.107 g of the anhydrous solute. Dividing 17.107 g of anhydrous solute by 43.321 g of total solution gives 39.49% by mass of the anhydrous solute, which is within the claimed range. “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP §2131.03.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aqueous aluminum salt compositions in concentrations as taught by Archer with the aluminum battery as taught by Iida in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as high ionic conductivity as taught by Archer (Paragraph [0098]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0174824 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Coleman et al. (US 2023/0216058 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Iida does not teach that the positive electrode comprises a first metal substrate and a first coating wherein the first coating is disposed on the first metal substrate and comprises a metal oxide, or the weight proportion of the metal oxide in the first coating to be greater than or equal to 80 wt% and less than 100 wt%. Zhou teaches a positive electrode with manganese dioxide which is laminated with a stainless-steel foil (Paragraph [0050]). Coleman further teaches an aluminum ion battery (Paragraph [0010]) which may utilize a composite electrode material such as NMC comprising 90 wt% to 99.9 wt% of the particulate active material (Paragraphs [0015], [0018]) and cast onto aluminum foil (Paragraph [0070]).
“If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP §2131.03. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the positive electrode as taught by Zhou and the active material proportions as taught by Coleman with the aluminum battery as taught by Iida in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing the capacity of the aqueous secondary battery as taught by Zhou (Paragraph [0072]) and achieving a crack-free electrode as taught by Coleman (Paragraph [0021]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0174824 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Sasaki (US 2014/0205904 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Iida does not teach that the negative electrode comprises a second metal substrate and a second coating wherein the second coating is disposed on the second metal substrate and comprises a conjugated organic molecule, or that the conjugated organic molecule comprises a compound with an acid anhydride structure, a derivative with the acid anhydride structure, a composite of the compound with the acid anhydride structure and a carbon material, or a composite of the derivative compound with the acid anhydride structure and a carbon material.
Sasaki teaches a negative electrode active material which contains a metal (Paragraphs [0150]-[0153]) and is provided on the surface of a current collector (Paragraph [0203]) in which the current collector is made of a metal material (Paragraph [0204]). Sasaki teaches a binder for use in a negative electrode of a secondary battery (Paragraphs [0036]-[0037]) which contains an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer unit (Paragraph [0050]) and examples of such an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer include monocarboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, and anhydrides thereof (Paragraph [0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0174824 A1) as in Claim 1 above and in view of Sasaki (US 2014/0205904 A1) as in Claim 7 above, further in view of Nishioka et al. (JP 2010/146870 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Iida does not teach the weight proportion of the conjugated organic molecule in the second coating to be greater than or equal to 80 wt % and less than 100 wt %. Nishika teaches a binder for a secondary battery electrode (Paragraph [0003]), specifically a negative electrode (Paragraph [0029]), having 0.1 to 10% by weight of an ethylene-based unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer which are analogous to the compounds taught in Sasaki above, and 49 to 88.88% by weight of monomers copolymerizable therewith (Paragraph [0004]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized the capability of an ethylene-based unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer to copolymerize with itself by homopolymerization and thus the weight proportions may be combined.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the weight proportion of the monomer for a negative electrode binder as taught by Nishioka and the negative electrode as taught by Sasaki with the aluminum battery as taught by Iida in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as enabling the production of high-performance secondary battery electrodes due to such binders exhibiting excellent blocking resistance, powder fall resistance, and binding strength after the secondary battery electrode composition has been applied and dried as taught by Nishioka (Paragraph [0005]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights