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
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 23 February 2026. The objection to the disclosure and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been modified in view of the amendments to the specification and claim 20. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
As discussed in the previous actions, the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter is 17 September 2021.
Specification
The amendment filed 23 February 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The insertion of “a liquefied material that is” between “solvent is” and “a gas” in the last sentence of paragraph [0266].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the originally filed disclosure of a solid state electrolyte comprising a polymer matrix doped with an ionic liquid and two solvents of a first solvent and a second solvent, wherein the second solvent has a melting point lower than the first solvent, the first solvent has a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2 and either the first solvent or second solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. Applicants’ state paragraph [0237] supports this amendment, but this paragraph teaches an pressurized electrolyte that includes a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg (liquified gas) as a solvent and at least one of the taught salts, which includes an ionic liquid. There is no teaching in this paragraph, nor anywhere else in the originally filed disclosure, that this pressurized electrolyte further comprising a polymer matrix and a second solvent, which can also be a liquified gas, having a melting point lower than the liquified material; nor that the liquified gas has a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last sentence of paragraph [0266] teaches at least one solvent of the two solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. This teaching relates to the two solvents in the solid state electrolyte wherein both solvents have a melting point and the second solvent has a melting point lower than the first solvent. It is unclear how at least one of the two solvents in the solid state electrolyte can be a liquified gas since liquified gases do not have a melting point and thus cannot meet the requirement that the second solvent has a melting point lower than the first solvent. In addition, it is unclear how, when the first solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg can have a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2. The material having this dielectric constant would be a gas; not the liquified gas. Finally, it is unclear how the disclosed solid state electrolyte can contain the liquified gas since there is no indication in paragraph [0266] that the taught electrolytes are pressurized so as to maintain the gas in a liquified state. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 is 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.
Applicants has amended claim 20 to now teach that at least one solvent of the two solvents taught in claim 1 comprises a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. This new compositional limitation is nowhere taught in the originally filed disclosure. There is no teaching or suggestion in the originally filed disclosure of a solid state electrolyte comprising a polymer matrix doped with an ionic liquid and two solvents of a first solvent and a second solvent, wherein the second solvent has a melting point lower than the first solvent, the first solvent has a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2 and either the first solvent or second solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. Applicants’ state paragraph [0237] supports this amendment, but this paragraph teaches an pressurized electrolyte that includes a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg (liquified gas) as a solvent and at least one of the taught salts, which includes an ionic liquid. There is no teaching in this paragraph, nor anywhere else in the originally filed disclosure, that this pressurized electrolyte further comprising a polymer matrix and a second solvent, which can also be a liquified gas, having a melting point lower than the liquified material; nor that the liquified gas has a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2.
It is further noted that the amendment to the last sentence of paragraph [0266] so that it teaches that at least one solvent of the two solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. This teaching that at least one solvent is (emphasis added) a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg does not support the claimed limitation that at least one solvent comprises the liquified gas. The use of “is” closes and limits the solvent composition to the liquified gas only; while the use of “comprise” in the claim open the solvent composition to the claimed liquidized gas and any other compound that would not prevent the liquified gas containing material from acting as a solvent. Amended claim 20 no includes new matter.
Claim 20 is 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.
This claim now teaches that at least one solvent of the two solvents of claim 1 is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg. It is unclear how at least one of the two solvents in the solid state electrolyte can be a liquified gas since liquified gases do not have a melting point and thus cannot meet the requirement that the second solvent has a melting point lower than the first solvent. In addition, it is unclear how, when the first solvent is a liquefied material that is a gas at 0oC and 760 mm Hg can have a dielectric constant at 25oC greater than about 2. The material having this dielectric constant would be a gas; not the liquified gas. Finally, it is unclear how the claimed solid state electrolyte can contain the liquified gas since there is no indication that the claimed electrolyte is pressurized so as to maintain the gas in a liquified state. For these reasons, claim 20 is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed for the reason given in the previous action.
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 C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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 Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
3/26/26