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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 34-35 in the reply filed on 05/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it is not considered unduly burdensome to examine all claims together in a single application and such would promote compact prosecution”. This is not found persuasive because restriction is not based on burden, but rather restriction is based on unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I , claim(s) 1-15,34-35, drawn to an ionic liquid electrolyte comprising lithium cations, sodium cations, organic cations, and fluorinated anions.
Group II, claim(s) 16-33, drawn to an ionic liquid electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid, a lithium salt, and a sodium salt.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of ionic liquid electrolyte containing a lithium salt/ions and sodium salt/ions, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of BARDE et al. (US 20190190104 A1, "Barde") in view of Le Bideau, J et al. (CN 102405542 A, "Bideau"). Barde discloses an ionic liquid electrolyte (see [0044]; [0045]) comprising lithium cations (see [0077]), lithium salt (see [0030]), sodium cations (see [0057]), and sodium salt (see [0091]).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-15, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (US 20190190104 A1, “Barde”) in view of Bideau et al. (US 20120021279 A1, “Bideau”) and Chen et al. (Chen L, Gu Q, Zhou X, Lee S, Xia Y, Liu Z. New-concept batteries based on aqueous Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes. Sci Rep. 2013).
Claim 1: Barde discloses an ionic liquid electrolyte (see abstract “electrolyte”; see [0044] “ionic liquids”) comprising lithium cations (see abstract “cation”; see [0077] “Li+ cation”), organic cations (see [0023] “imidazolium”), and fluorinated anions (see [0045] describes “fluorinated cations, anions or both”).
The specification of the instant application provides evidence that imidazolium cation is considered an organic cation (see [0038] of the instant specification).
Bard does not explicitly disclose sodium cations.
Chen teaches “Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes” & “Li+/Na+ mixed-ion batteries offer promising applications in energy storage and Li+/Na+ separation” (see abstract), “sodium is most abundant and economical” and “sodium-based energy storage system is considered as a promising technology for large-scale energy storage” (see P1 par. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mixed-ion electrolyte, as suggested by Chen (see abstract) because Chen teaches sodium is abundant and is “considered a promising technology for large-scale energy storage” (see P1 par. 3) and “mixed-ion batteries offer promising applications in energy storage” (see abstract).
Barde discloses concentration (see [0193] “concentration”), however, Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein a concentration of the lithium cations is about 1.3 M or greater.
Bideau teaches an ionic liquid electrolyte for a battery (see abstract “battery” and “ionic liquid”; see Example 1 in [0103] describes an electrolyte with a mixture of ionic liquids). Bideau teaches concentration of the lithium cations is between 0.1 mol/L and 2 mol/L and is advantageous (see [0035]). It is well known in the art that mol/L is equivalent to M.
Bideau teaches a range of between 0.1 mol/L and 2 mol/L, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.3 M or greater. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 3, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 1. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein a concentration of the sodium cations is about 0.05 M or greater.
Bideau teaches wherein a concentration of the sodium cations is between 0.1 mol/L and 2 mol/L (see [0035]).
Bideau teaches a range of between 0.1 mol/L and 2 mol/L, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05 M or greater. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 4, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 3. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of the concentration of the lithium cations to the concentration of the sodium cations is about 12 or greater.
Bideau teaches molar ratio (see [0062] “molar ratio of ionic liquid/inorganic molecular precursor”) and teaches molar ratio is selected to obtain good mechanical properties (see [0062] “The choice of this molar ratio makes it possible to obtain a compound having good mechanical characteristics (non-friable, capable of being handled)”).
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the ratio of the concentration (molar ratio) is a variable that achieves the recognized result of obtaining good mechanical properties. That makes the ratio of the concentration a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the ratio of the concentration and come up with about 12 or greater for the purpose of obtaining a compound having good mechanical characteristics, as suggested by Bideau.
Regarding claim 5, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the organic cations include imidazolium cations (see [0023] “cations” and “imidazolium”). The specification of the instant application provides evidence that imidazolium cation is considered an organic cation (see [0038] of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 8, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the fluorinated anions include first fluorinated anions and second fluorinated anions which are different from the first fluorinated anions (see abstract “wherein at least one ionic compound contains an anion CnF2n+1COO-" and "wherein in each case n is at least 1 and at most 10"; see [0045] describes fluorinated anions; see [0030] describes “LiFSI” which reads on first fluorinated anion and “LiTFSI” which reads on second fluorinated anion; see [0167] describes a second fluorinated anion & [0193] describes TFSI- anions which reads on second fluorinated anion).
Regarding claim 9, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the first fluorinated anions are first sulfonamide anions (see [0030] describes “LiFSI” which reads on first sulfonamide anions), and the second fluorinated anions are second sulfonamide anions which are different from the first sulfonamide anions (see [0030] describes “LiTFSI” which reads on second sulfonamide anions; see [0066] describes LiFSI which reads on first sulfonamide anions; and see [0193] describes TFSI- anions which reads on second sulfonamide anion).
The specification of the instant application provides evidence that TFSI is bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is second sulfonamide anion on page 8 and in [0063] of the instant specification provides evidence that bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is FSI.
Regarding claim 10, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the first sulfonamide anions are bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anions (see [0030] “LiFSI”), and the second sulfonamide anions bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide anions (see [0030] “LiTFSI”).
The specification of the instant application provides evidence that TFSI is bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is second sulfonamide anion on page 8 and in [0063] of the instant specification provides evidence that bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is FSI.
Regarding claim 12, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses viscosity of 115 mPa s (see P13 Table 1 discloses IL IV dynamic viscosity 115 mPa s & [0085] describes values for viscosity measured at 25 °C). It is well known that viscosity changes with temperature, however, Barde discloses a range of 115 mPa s, which lies within with the claimed range of up to about 200 mPa s and the claim limitation of 22 °C is near 25 °C disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the viscosity is 115 mPa s (see P13 Table 1 discloses IL IV dynamic viscosity 115 mPa s. Barde discloses a range of 115 mPa s, which lies within with the claimed range of 130 mPa s or less.
Regarding claim 14, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses conductivity (see [0079]), however, Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte has an ionic conductivity of at least about 1.5 mS cm-1 at 25 °C.
Bideau teaches ionic conductivity between 0.1 mS cm-1 and 1 mS cm-1 at ambient temperature (see [0081] “between approximately 10-4 and 10-3 S·cm-1 at ambient temperature and between 10-2 and 10-1 at 230 °C”) and describes varying temperature (see [0026] “temperature close to ambient temperature, for example liquid at a temperature comprised between -20 and +100 °C”).
The specification (P1 in [0005]) and drawings of the instant application provide evidence that ionic conductivity increase with increasing temperature in FIG. 1c.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that ionic conductivity of the ionic liquid electrolyte disclosed by Barde and modified by Bideau would have similar properties as the claimed invention including ionic conductivity approximately 1 mS cm-1 at ambient temperature, as suggested by Bideau. It is obvious that with increasing temperature, the ionic conductivity increases, suggested by Bideau in [0081]. Therefore, it is obvious that at temperatures above ambient temperature, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte would increase from approximately 1 mS cm-1 to overlap the claimed range of 1.5 mS cm-1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 14. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein the ionic conductivity is about 2.6 mS cm-1 or greater.
Bideau teaches ionic conductivity between 0.1 mS cm-1 and 1 mS cm-1 at ambient temperature (see [0081] “between approximately 10-4 and 10-3 S·cm-1 at ambient temperature and between 10-2 and 10-1 at 230 °C”) and describes varying temperature (see [0026] “temperature close to ambient temperature, for example liquid at a temperature comprised between -20 and +100 °C”).
The specification (P1 in [0005]) and drawings of the instant application provide evidence that ionic conductivity increase with increasing temperature in FIG. 1c.
Bideau teaches a range of between 10-2 and 10-1 S·cm-1 at 230 °C (equivalent to 10 mS cm-1 and 100 mS cm-1), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.6 mS cm-1 or greater. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that ionic conductivity of the ionic liquid electrolyte disclosed by Barde and modified by Bideau would have similar properties as the claimed invention including ionic conductivity approximately 1 mS cm-1 at ambient temperature, as suggested by Bideau. It is obvious that with increasing temperature, the ionic conductivity increases as suggested by Bideau in [0081]. Therefore, it is obvious that at temperatures above ambient temperature, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte would increase from approximately 1 mS cm-1 to overlap the claimed range of 2.6 mS cm-1.
Regarding claim 34, Barde discloses the electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses a battery (see abstract “battery”) comprising an anode (see [0068] “anode”), a cathode (see [0067] “cathode”). Barde discloses the electrolyte is between the anode and the cathode (see [0075]).
Regarding claim 35, Barde discloses the battery of claim 34 and further discloses wherein the anode includes lithium metal (see [0069] describes anode active materials and lithium metal).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (US 20190190104 A1, “Barde”) in view of Bideau et al. (US 20120021279 A1, “Bideau”) and Chen et al. (Chen L, Gu Q, Zhou X, Lee S, Xia Y, Liu Z. New-concept batteries based on aqueous Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes. Sci Rep. 2013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazuki et al. (KR 20160023659 A, “Kazuki”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 2, Barde discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein the concentration of the lithium cations is about 5 M or greater.
Kazuki teaches concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is “0.8 to 6.2 mol/L” (see [0011]). It is well known in the art that mol/L is equivalent to M.
Kazuki teaches a range of 0.8 to 6.2 mol/L, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5M or greater. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (US 20190190104 A1, “Barde”) in view of Bideau et al. (US 20120021279 A1, “Bideau”) and Chen et al. (Chen L, Gu Q, Zhou X, Lee S, Xia Y, Liu Z. New-concept batteries based on aqueous Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes. Sci Rep. 2013), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lockett et al. (US 20140017558 A1, “Lockett”).
Regarding claim 6, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 5. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein the imidazolium cations are 1,3-dialkylimidazolium cations. Regarding claim 7, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 5 and claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 5. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein the 1,3-dialkylimidazolium cations are 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cations.
Lockett teaches wherein the imidazolium cations are 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium (see [0015] describes “1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium” as the “ionic liquid cation”). Lockett teaches advantage of using ionic liquid cation selected from 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium amongst a list of other ionic liquid cations in order to improve operating temperature due to “very low vapor pressure, resulting generally in a lack of evaporation at room temperature” in [0018].
Lockett teaches 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium amongst a list of other ionic liquid cations. KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium from the list of possible ionic liquid cations taught in Lockett.
The specification of the instant application provides evidence 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cations are a type of 1,3-dialkylimidazolium cations on P8 par. 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the imidazolium cations of Barde with 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium, suggested by Lockett for the purpose of improving the operating temperature of the ionic liquid electrolyte in the battery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (US 20190190104 A1, “Barde”) in view of Bideau et al. (US 20120021279 A1, “Bideau”) and Chen et al. (Chen L, Gu Q, Zhou X, Lee S, Xia Y, Liu Z. New-concept batteries based on aqueous Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes. Sci Rep. 2013), as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Zhamu et al. (WO 2017048341 A1, “Zhamu”) and Lockett et al. (US 20140017558 A1, “Lockett”).
Regarding claim 11, Barde discloses the ionic liquid electrolyte of claim 9. Barde does not explicitly disclose wherein a concentration of the first sulfonamide anions is greater than a concentration of the second sulfonamide anions.
Zhamu teaches “an anion of bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl)imide, bis (fluorosulfonyl)imide” in P33 par. 1 lines 8-9. Zhamu teaches ionic liquids have variable compositions (see P33 par. 1 lines 1-2).
Zhamu teaches ionic liquids have different classes, “aprotic, protic, and zwitterionic” and “each one is suitable for a specific application” in P33 par. 2 lines 11-12.
Lockett teaches that “the ionic liquid may be selected based upon stability over time and temperature” and “aprotic characteristics” in [0273].
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the concentration of anions is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improving thermal stability. That makes the concentration of anions a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the concentration of the anions and come up with concentration of the first sulfonamide anions is greater than a concentration of the second sulfonamide anions for the purpose of improving the thermal stability, as suggested by Lockett.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Chen et al. (Chen L, Gu Q, Zhou X, Lee S, Xia Y, Liu Z. New-concept batteries based on aqueous Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes. Sci Rep. 2013) teaches “Li+/Na+ mixed-ion electrolytes” & “Li+/Na+ mixed-ion batteries offer promising applications in energy storage and Li+/Na+ separation” (see abstract), “sodium is most abundant and economical” and “sodium-based energy storage system is considered as a promising technology for large-scale energy storage” (see P1 par. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mixed-ion electrolyte, as suggested by Chen (see abstract) because Chen teaches sodium is abundant and is “considered a promising technology for large-scale energy storage” (see P1 par. 3) and “mixed-ion batteries offer promising applications in energy storage” (see abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 11/15/2025