DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-15, 18, 21, and 23-27 are currently pending. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are cancelled. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejection. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1, 4, 7, 9-15, 18, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under the following new 103 rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-15, 18, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (US 2017/0077557) in view of He et al (US 2014/0363746), and further in view of Peled et al (US 2017/0309903) and Lee et al (US 2015/0072233).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 9-15, 18, 21, and 23-27, Zheng et al discloses a flexible-packed battery (energy storage device) and a method of improving the performance of a flexible-packed battery (energy storage device) comprising: providing a flexible-packed battery comprising: a negative electrode (electrode / anode); a positive electrode (cathode) comprising nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary, wherein the positive electrode comprises a binder; a room temperature ionic liquid comprising a solvent and a lithium salt, wherein the solvent is N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium (cation) – bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (anion) and the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 and LiTFSI; heating the battery to 45°C; charging the battery; and discharging the battery; wherein the positive electrode is uncoated (i.e. free of protective coatings); wherein the negative electrode is uncoated (i.e. free of protective coatings); wherein the negative electrode is a silicon-alloy material (silicon anode) ([0053],[0093],[0106]-[0108]).
However, Zheng et al does not expressly teach a concentration of the lithium salt in the room temperature ionic liquid electrolyte, the lithium salt is greater than 1.2M (claims 1, 15, and 27); wherein the lithium salt concentration is greater than 1.8M (claim 10); wherein the lithium salt concentration is greater than 2.4M (claim 11); wherein the lithium salt concentration is greater than 3.0M (claim 12); wherein the lithium salt concentration is in the range of from 2.4M to 4.0M (claim 13); wherein the lithium salt concentration is in the range of from about 2.4M to about 3.0M (claims 14 and 26).
He et al discloses a room temperature ionic liquid comprising a lithium salt such as LiTFSI having a concentration of 3-11 M ([0095],[0097],[0162],[0166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Zheng room temperature ionic liquid to include a concentration of the lithium salt in the room temperature ionic liquid electrolyte that is 3.0M to 11.0M in order to provide higher energy density and more stable cycling behavior and longer cycle life ([0167]).
However, Zheng et al as modified by He et al does not expressly teach an anode comprising 0.71-0.95 mg/cm2 of silicon (claims 1, 15, 26, and 27).
Peled et al discloses an anode comprising a Si loading of 0.97 mg/cm2 ([0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Zheng/He negative electrode to include a Si loading of 0.97 mg/cm2 in order to improve average Faradaic efficiency of the anode and to decrease the irreversible capacity of the cells, thereby improve the cycle-life stability and the stability of current efficiency ([0266]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Zheng/He/Peled anode to include 0.71-0.95 mg/cm2 of silicon because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed Si loading of the anode.
However, Zheng et al as modified by He et al and Peled et al does not expressly teach an anode comprising a binder comprising poly(acrylonitrile) (claims 1, 15, 26, and 27).
Lee et al discloses a negative electrode including a binder such as polyacrylonitrile ([0029]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Lee et al indicates that polyacrylonitrile is a suitable material for use as a negative electrode binder. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use polyacrylonitrile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-15, 18, 21, and 23-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/25/2025
Prosecution Insights