DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/28/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 4, and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Newly amended claim 1 now recites “a cyclized, non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound” changes the scope of the claim based off the prior interpretation (see Office Action mailed 10/01/2025) and is interpreted in light of the instant specification, which recites a “cPAN anode”, see [0024], which is a rigid, non-plastic that cannot be melted or reshaped, unlike true thermoplastics which can be repeatedly melted and reshaped without changing chemistry. Therefore, the limitation “thermoplastic” is attributed little patentable weight, and the limitation “a cyclized, non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound” is interpreted as a once thermoplastic material in a cyclized form that does not have the capacity to be stably melted and reshaped.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “1 nanometer to about fifty micrometers” is a mismatched number format and should state either “1…50” or “one…fifty” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claims require “wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises at least one of a fluorinated ether solvent, a silane solvent, and a siloxane solvent”.
However, the specification discloses silane, siloxane, and ether solvents [0027], and teaches certain mixtures [0027]. However, applicant has not identified disclosure reasonably conveying possession of embodiments comprising silane solvent, siloxane solvent, and ether solvent together. Applicant makes conclusions about what a skilled artisan would interpret the specification to mean without evidentiary support (see “Remarks”, filed 01/28/2026).
Accordingly, claims 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are also rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1,6, 8-10,13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US-20190165374-A1) in view of Lee (WO2016123396A1) (see office action filed 05/24/2022 for citations) Yang (US-20180062206-A1), and Tikhonov (US-20130337338-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Zhamu teaches an energy storage [0012] device comprising:
an anode (Fig. 1(D), anode particulate; [0059] comprising a plurality of active material particles (Fig. 1(D), 16; [0012], [0059]),
wherein one or more of the plurality of active material particles (16) are enclosed by ([0136], “encapsulate”) and in contact ([0136], “contact”) with a membrane coating (Fig. 1(D), 14; [0059], [0134-0136], “ion-conducting polymer may be… PAN…encapsulate the particulate”) permeable to lithium ions ([0060], “lithium ion…conducting”),
the membrane coating (14) comprising a thermoplastic polymer ([0135], wherein poly(acrylonitrile), or (PAN), is a thermoplastic polymer; see 112(b) rejection above);
a cathode ([0027], “cathode”);
and an electrolyte [0027] in contact with the anode [0027] and the cathode [0027],
comprising a room temperature ionic liquid solvent ([0129-0130], “RTIL as an electrolyte ingredient…solvent” and a co-solvent ([0123], “solvent may be…hydrofluoro ether…siloxane…silane…or a combination thereof”, wherein the solvent of [0123] is a co-solvent with the RTIL described in [0130];
wherein the co-solvent comprises at least one of a fluorinated ether solvent ([0123], “solvent may be… hydrofluoro ether (HFE) … methyl nonafluorobutyl ether (MFE)…or a combination thereof”, wherein hydrofluoro ether and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether are fluorinated ethers), a silane solvent ([0123], “solvent may be… alkyylsilane…or a combination thereof”, wherein alkyylsilane is a silane) and a siloxane solvent ([0123], “solvent may be… alkylsiloxane …or a combination thereof”, wherein alkylsiloxane is a siloxane),
wherein the electrolyte comprises at least one of a bisfluorosulfonylimide solvent anion ([0128], “bis(fluorosulphonyl)imide”) and a lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide salt (see claim 9; wherein the disclosure supports an electrolyte with at least one of the above);
wherein the room temperature ionic liquid solvent comprises a functionalized pyrrolidinium cation [0129], “dialkyl-pyrrolidinium”, wherein dialkyl indicates that two alkyl functional groups are attached).
and wherein the plurality of active material particles [0012] comprises a plurality of silicon particles ([0103], “anode particulate is…silicon”).
Zhamu does not specifically teach the membrane coating comprising a cyclized, non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compounds and each of the plurality of active material particles comprising a particle size of between about 1 nanometer and about fifty micrometers and that the co-solvent is viscosity reducing; and is silent to wherein the electrolyte has a lower freezing temperature than a freezing temperature of the room temperature ionic liquid solvent, and further silent to wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than 30 vol. % of the viscosity reducing co-solvent. Additionally, Zhamu fails to teach specifically combining RTIL with the viscosity reducing cosolvent in any of the examples.
However, Zhamu teaches each of the plurality of active material particles (16) comprising a particle size of between about 100 nm to 100 micrometers [0012], which overlaps with the claimed range of between about 1 nm and about fifty micrometers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Zhamu still does not teach the membrane coating comprising a cyclized, non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound and that the co-solvent is viscosity reducing; and is silent to wherein the electrolyte has a lower freezing temperature than a freezing temperature of the room temperature ionic liquid solvent, and further silent to wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than 30 vol. % of the viscosity reducing co-solvent. Additionally, Zhamu fails to teach specifically combining RTIL with the viscosity reducing cosolvent in any of the examples.
Lee teaches a membrane coating (Fig. 1, 106; [0093]) comprising a cyclized, non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound ([0096], “cPAN”, see claim interpretation above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to thermally modify the membrane of Zhaumu (PAN, see above) such it is cycled to form cPAN, as Lee teaches cPAN to enclose silicon particles [0102] contributing to the “self-contained fragmentation” effect which is associated with improved cycling performance (see [0102] and Fig. 4 of Lee).
Yang teaches wherein an electrolyte [0013] comprises five to fifty volume percent ([0011], “five to fifty volume percent”) of a viscosity reducing [0031] co-solvent [0011], which overlaps with, and thus renders obvious, the claimed range of greater than 30 vol. %. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the five to fifty volume percent volume percent of a fluorinated ether in the electrolyte, as taught by Yang, for the fluorinated ether in the electrolyte of Zhamu because Yang teaches such a volume percent [0011] is known in the art and the co-solvent improves cycle life and increases capacity by lowering the viscosity [0031]. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the solvents RTIL and HFE of Zhamu together in an electrolyte because Yang teaches HFE as a viscosity reducing co-solvent [0011].
Regarding the viscosity reducing co-solvent, the recitation of "viscosity reducing co-solvent" is considered to be a functional limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). The recitation has been fully considered; however, it carries limited patentable weight. In the instant case, Zhamu in view of Yang discloses/teaches all of the structural limitations of the co-solvent as claimed in claim 1. Specifically, Zhamu discloses hydrofluoro ether [0123] in the co-solvent, wherein Yang teaches fluorinated ethers are viscosity reducing (Yang; [0031]) and the composition of the viscosity reducing co-solvent (see combination with Yang above). Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Zhamu in view of Yang discloses/teaches all of the structural limitations of the electrolyte ([0129-0130], “RTIL as an electrolyte ingredient…solvent”; [0123], “solvent may be…hydrofluoro ether… methyl nonafluorobutyl ether…siloxane…silane…or a combination thereof”) wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than 30 vol. % of the viscosity reducing co-solvent (see above) as claimed in claim 1; regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the electrolyte of Zhamu (see above) has a lower freezing temperature than a freezing temperature of the room temperature ionic liquid solvent (see [0126], wherein the melting/freezing point of RTIL “is equal to …room temperature (25° C.)”), because the components of the co-solvent of Zhamu ([0123], “solvent may be…hydrofluoro ether… methyl nonafluorobutyl ether …alkylsiloxane…alkylsilane…or a combination thereof”) each have a melting/freezing point much lower than 25C:
HFE (melting point of -135C, see https://sds.chemtel.net/webclients/safariland/finished_goods/Pioneer%20Forensics%20-%20Novec%20HFE-7100%20Formula.pdf),
MFE (melting point of -135C, see https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB1328596.htm),
alkyl siloxane (melting point of 17C to -38C, see https://www.silicones.eu/science/siloxanes/#:~:text=Table_title:%20Properties%20of%20D4%2C%20D5%20and%20D6,%7C%20D4:%20132%20%7C%20D5:%2033.2%20%7C),
and alkyl silane (melting point of 14C to -157 C, see https://technical.gelest.com/brochures/methyl-silanes/methyl-silanes/#:~:text=Table_title:%20Methyl%20Silanes%20Table_content:%20header:%20%7C%20SKU,99+%25%20%7C%20Melting%20Point%20(%C2%B0C):%20%2D99%C2%B0%20%7C),
wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the melting/freezing temperature of a mixture of at least one of an alkylsilane, alkylsiloxane, hydrofluoro ether with a room-temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) is lower than that of the pure RTIL due to melting point depression, and because Zhamu discloses/teaches all of the structural limitations of the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1.
Alternatively, Tikhonov teaches the advantage of using low melting point co-solvents ([0060]; see [0052] with melting points as low as -135 C for HFE) for an electrolyte containing an ionic liquid [0004]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to decrease melting point of the electrolyte with the low-melting point co-solvent of Zhamu (see above) in order to improve the operating temperature of the energy storage device (Tikhonov; [0060]).
Regarding claim 6,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises a silane solvent or a siloxane solvent (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises a fluorinated ether solvent (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 8 (see elements of claim 8 as described above), wherein the fluorinated ether solvent comprises at least one of methyl nonafluorobutyl ether ([0123], “methyl nonafluorobutyl ether”, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches an electrolyte composition suitable for use in an energy storage device comprising an anode and a cathode, the electrolyte composition comprising: a room temperature ionic liquid solvent and a viscosity reducing co-solvent, wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises at least one of a fluorinated ether solvent, a silane solvent, and a siloxane solvent, wherein the electrolyte has a lower freezing temperature than a freezing temperature of the room temperature ionic liquid solvent (see elements of claim 1 as described above).
Regarding claim 13,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the electrolyte composition of claim 10 (see elements of claim 10 as described above), wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises a silane solvent or siloxane solvent (see elements of claim 6 as described above).
Regarding claim 15,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the electrolyte composition of claim 10 (see elements of claim 10 above), wherein the viscosity reducing co-solvent comprises a fluorinated ether solvent (see elements of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 16,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the electrolyte composition of claim 15 (see elements of claim 15 above), wherein the fluorinated ether solvent comprises at least one of methyl nonafluorobutyl ether (see elements of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 17,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electrolyte (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises five to fifty volume percent (Yang, [0011], “five to fifty volume percent”) of a viscosity reducing (Yang, [0033]) co-solvent (Yang; [0011]; see rejection of claim 1 above), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 50 vol. % (wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “about 50 vol. %” includes the upper end of the prior art range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 19,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the electrolyte maintains a liquid form at a temperature of at most about -60°C. However, modified Zhamu teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than 30 vol. % of the viscosity reducing co-solvent (fluorinated ether, see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the fluorinated ether of modified Zhamu ([0123], “solvent may be… hydrofluoro ether (HFE) … methyl nonafluorobutyl ether (MFE)…or a combination thereof”, wherein hydrofluoro ether and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether are fluorinated ethers) has a freezing/melting point of -135C (see rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the electrolyte of modified Zhamu, which uses the same solvents and compositions as claimed above, would maintain a liquid form at a temperature of at most about -60°C (see 112(b) rejection above) when mixing the electrolyte with the fluorinated ether of modified Zhamu. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Alternatively, Tikhonov teaches the advantage of using low melting point co-solvents ([0060]; see [0052] with melting points at most about -135 C for HFE). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to decrease melting point of the electrolyte with the low-melting point co-solvent of Zhamu (see above) such that the electrolyte maintains a liquid form at a temperature at most about -60°C in order to improve the operating temperature of the energy storage device (Tikhonov; [0060])
Regarding claim 20,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the electrolyte maintains a liquid form at a temperature at most about -80°C. However, modified Zhamu teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than 30 vol% of the viscosity reducing co-solvent (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the fluorinated ether of modified Zhamu ([0123], “solvent may be… hydrofluoro ether (HFE) … methyl nonafluorobutyl ether (MFE)…or a combination thereof”, wherein hydrofluoro ether and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether are fluorinated ethers) has a freezing/melting point of -135C (see rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the electrolyte of modified Zhamu, which uses the same solvents and compositions as claimed above, would maintains a liquid form at a temperature at most about -80°C (see 112(b) rejection above) when mixing the electrolyte with the fluorinated ether of modified Zhamu. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Alternatively, Tikhonov teaches the advantage of using low melting point co-solvents ([0060]; see [0052] with melting points as low as -135 C for HFE). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to decrease melting point of the electrolyte with the low-melting point co-solvent of Zhamu (see above) such that the electrolyte maintains a liquid form at a temperature at most about -80°C in order to improve the operating temperature of the energy storage device (Tikhonov; [0060])
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US-20190165374-A1) in view of Yang (US-20180062206-A1), Tikhonov (US-20130337338-A1), and Koh (US-20130224606-A1) (refer to enclosed documents for citations).
Regarding claim 5,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 as described above), but fails to teach wherein one or more of the atoms in the heterocyclic ring of the pyrrolidinium cation ([0129], “dialkyl-pyrrolidinium”) can be substituted. Koh teaches wherein one or more of the atoms (Koh, [0037]; hydrogen atoms on “C1 to C4“) in a heterocyclic ring (Koh, [0037], ring of “N,N-dialkyl pyrrolidinium”) of a pyrrolidinium cation (Koh, [0037], “N,N-dialkyl pyrrolidinium”) is substituted with one or more moieties selected from the group consisting of alkanes (Koh, [0037], “alkyl groups”) and wherein any of the hydrogen atoms (Koh, [0037], hydrogen atoms in alkane moiety above) in the above moieties (see above) are further substituted with halides (Koh, [0037], “C1 to C4 fluorine-containing alkyl groups”, wherein fluorine is a halide). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the pyrrolidinium cation of Zhamu such that the heterocyclic ring is functionalized with fluorine-containing alkyl groups, as Koh teaches the functional groups thereof improve oxidation resistance [0037] and result in a cation having low viscosity [0040]. Further, Zhamu teaches that any known non-aqueous solvent which has been employed as a solvent for a lithium secondary battery can be employed [0122].
Regarding claim 12,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the electrolyte composition of claim 10, (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein one or more of the atoms in the heterocyclic ring of the pyrrolidinium cation is substituted with one or more moieties selected from the group consisting of alkanes (see rejection of claim 5 above); and wherein any of the hydrogen atoms in the above moieties are further substituted with halides (see elements of claim 5 above).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US-20190165374-A1) in view of Yang (US-20180062206-A1), Tikhonov (US2013337338A1), and Choi (KR20150103978A) (see office action mailed 01/03/2024 for citations).
Regarding claim 7,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the silane solvent or the siloxane solvent comprises at least one of the solvents listed in claim 7 (see claim 7). Choi teaches a silane cosolvent ([0060] “tris (trimethylsilyl) phosphite” a type of silane compound). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the silane compound of Choi [0060] into the energy storage device of modified Zhamu because Choi teaches it prevents decomposition of the electrolyte [0061].
Regarding claim 14,
Zhamu in view of Lee, Yang, and Tikhonov teaches the electrolyte composition of claim 13 (see elements of claim 6 as described above), wherein the silane solvent or the siloxane solvent comprises at least one of tris (trimethylsilyl)phosphite ([0060], see rejection of claim 7 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has overcome the 112(b) rejections due to the amendments (see claim interpretation section above for clarification).
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from [0027] that ether, silane, and siloxane could be interchangeably mixed. This is not convincing.
This is not convincing because the originally filed specification appears to only describe the fluorinated ether solvent (A), a silane solvent (B), a siloxane solvent (C), and from [0027] of the instant specification, there is also support for mixing A + B. Assuming that [0027] also suggests silane and siloxane are interchangeable, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand possession of A + C. However, the originally filed disclosure does not suggest A + B + C as combinable; which is contrasts with the limitation “at least one of a fluorinated ether solvent, a silane solvent, and a siloxane solvent”, a scope which includes the mixture of all three, A + B + C. If one of ordinary skill in the art were to read the specification, particularly [0027], how would they understand possession of all three solvents combined? Applicant appears to be saying that combining all three solvents would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, a conclusion of obviousness is not, by itself, evidence of possession for purposes of 112(a). Therefore, claim 1 and 10 contain new matter not described in the originally filed disclosure in a manner that demonstrates possession of the invention at the time of filing.
Applicant argues that unexpected results, such as a lower viscosity, are achieved due to a functionalized pyrrolidinium cation. However, this is not persuasive, as seen in the rejection of claim 5 above, Koh suggests that adding functionalized groups in the manner claimed lower viscosities (see rejection of claim 5 above) such that adding functionalized groups in the manner claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues unexpected results are achieved from the benefits of viscosity reducing co-solvents (citing [0026] which describes benefits of specifically fluoroalkyl ether co-solvents combined with the fluoroalkyl ether solvent class and with RTIL electrolytes). This is not persuasive, as applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which are open to an electrolyte with seven different combinations of viscosity reducing co-solvent (wherein at least one of a fluorinated ether solvent (A), a silane solvent (B), a siloxane solvent (C), includes: A, B, C, A +B, A +C, B + C, and A + B + C). This scope is beyond the benefits described in [0026]. Additionally, Zhamu teaches that RTIL electrolytes posses a large number of desirable properties ([0130], “high intrinsic ionic conductivity, high thermal stability, low volatility, low (practically zero) vapor pressure, non-flammability, the ability to remain liquid at a wide range of temperatures above and below room temperature, high polarity, high viscosity, and wide electrochemical windows. These properties, except for the high viscosity, are desirable attributes when it comes to using an RTIL as an electrolyte ingredient (a salt and/or a solvent)”) as well as teaches, generally, a fluorinated ether solvent (fluorinated ether solvent ([0123], “solvent may be… hydrofluoro ether (HFE)), wherein Yang teaches HFE to reduce viscosity such that the selection of HFE and RTIL together from Zhamu are obvious in view of Yang.
Applicant further supports the co-solvents alleged unexpected results with paragraphs [0023]-[0024], which refer both specifically to fluoroalkyl ether solvents, addressed above, or generally to “various additives” and “solvent blends” along with the RTIL. The long list of specific solvents provided later in the specification and also seen in the claims, compared with these general statements cited make it unclear what formulation is responsible for such unexpected results, wherein the evidence (Fig. 3) for unexpected results is only seen with one electrolyte formulation.
Lastly, applicant supports the alleged unexpected results with evidence (Fig. 3), citing this figure as support for RTIL in combination with a functionalized pyrrolidinium cation, FSI, HFE, and viscosity reducing co-solvent. However, Fig. 3 is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant has shown results for one single electrolyte combination out of the many possible claimed solvent combinations (see Fig. 3 of instant application, “PYR13FSI/HFE 50/50 vol.%”) in a context that is not claimed (see Fig. 3 of instant application ,”uSi:Gr:AB:PAN [60:20:05:15 wt.%]”, wherein PAN is not the claimed cyclized non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound, wherein the anode also includes graphite, wherein PYR13 ( aka N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium) is a non-functionalized pyrrolidinium cation). This contrasts with the claim 1, which requires a cyclized non-plastic ladder thermoplastic polymer compound and functionalized pyrrolidinium cation such that the evidence for unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, applicant argues abnormally high cell capacity. This may prompt reconsideration; however, currently this is not persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the claims, as described above. Additionally, no form factor or relative mass/area values are provided for the capacity making comparison with other references, such as Zhamu, difficult.
Applicant argues all other claims should be allowed based off allowable independent claims. However, this rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights