Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/801,763

ALUMINUM-ION BATTERY USING ALUMINUM CHLORIDE/TRIMETHYLAMINE IONIC LIQUID AS ELECTROLYTE

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 23, 2022
Examiner
WEINER, LAURA S
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Governing Council of the University of Toronto
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
972 granted / 1139 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1182
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1139 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 9-10 and 28-31 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, drawn to an electrochemical cell comprising an anode comprising metallic aluminum; a cathode comprising graphene nanoplates, further comprising a conductive carbon and a binder and an electrolyte ionic liquid consisting of AlCl3 and trimethylamine hydrochloride and does not further comprise a cosolvent in the reply filed on 10-6-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a burden to search all the possibilities for the cathode active material. This is not found persuasive because it would be a burden to search all the possibilities because the cathode active material can comprise in addition to a carbonaceous or graphite material; a metal or nonmetal sulfide, elemental sulfur, elemental selenium, a metal oxide, a conductive polymer, a MXene and combinations thereof. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 20, 22-24, 26-27, 36 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10-6-2025. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because claim 1 should cite: “comprising: an anode comprising metallic aluminum; a cathode comprising a positive electrochemically active material; and an electrolyte consisting of AlCl3, trimethylamine hydrochloride and resulting products forming an ionic liquid and comprising less than 5% by weight of other elements or impurities and wherein the molar ratio of AlCl3 to trimethylamine hydrochloride is 1.6:1 to 1.9:1”. Claim 3 is objected to because claim 3 should cite: “wherein the molar ratio …is within a range of 1.7:1 to 1.8:1.”. Claim 9 is objected to because claim 9 should cite: “a carbonaceous or a graphite material, …”. Claim 10 is objected to because of claim 10 should cite “is the carbonaceous of the graphite material which is selected from the group consisting of …”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 31 are 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. Claim 31 is rejected because a battery comprising at least one electrochemical cell as defined in claim 1 should instead depend on claim 30 because a separator is needed for a battery to be formed. 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, 3, 9-10, 28-31 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. “Low-cost AlCl3/Et3NHCl electrolyte for high-performance, aluminum-ion battery” in view of Tsubokura et al. (9,242,862). Xu et al. teaches a battery [1 and 30-31] comprising a cathode comprising graphene aerogel [teaching claims 1 and 9-10]; an aluminum foil anode [teaching claim 1], a glass fiber paper separator [teaching claim 30] and an electrolyte solution comprising triethylamine hydrochloride and 1.0-1.7 mole equivalent aluminum chloride (AlCl3) [teaching claim 1, ratio of 1.6-1.9]. Xu et al. teaches a low-cost room temperature ionic liquid electrolyte mixed triethylamine hydrochloride with AlCl3. Xu et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising triethylamine hydrochloride and 1.0-1.7 mole equivalent aluminum chloride. Since Xu et al. teaches the same electrolyte solution comprising AlCl3 and trialkyl amine hydrochloride, then inherently the electrolyte forming an ionic liquid must also be obtained. In addition, the presently claimed property of the electrolyte forming an ionic liquid would have obviously been present once the Xu et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977). Xu et al. does not specifically teach the use of carbon nanoplatelets as the cathode active material but appears to be known in the art is stated on page 2 (see the 1st paragraph) of the present description, and the use of the conductive enhancer and a binder and a battery cathode is well known in the battery art. Xu et al. discloses the claimed invention teaching a cell comprising a cathode comprising graphene aerogels; an anode comprising metallic aluminum and an electrolyte solution comprising triethylamine hydrochloride with AlCl3 but does not specifically teach that the electrolyte comprises trimethylamine hydrochloride [(CH3)3NH+Cl-] instead of triethylamine hydrochloride [(C2H5)3NH+Cl-]. Tsubokura et al. teaches in column 1, that salts are useful compounds in a wide variety of fields and are used in electrolytes. Tsubokura et al. teaches in column 11, line 63 thru column 12, line 5, examples of tertiary amine salts such as trimethylamine hydrochloride, triethylamine hydrochloride, tributylamine hydrochloride, etc. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use trimethylamine hydrochloride instead of triethylamine hydrochloride in the electrolyte of Xu et al. because Tsubokura et al. teaches that both these tertiary amine salts can be used in the electrolyte as explained above and one would expect therefore that these tertiary amine salts would function in a similar way and give similar results. Xu et al. discloses the claimed invention as explained above but does not specifically teach that the molar ratio of AlCl3 to trimethylamine hydrochloride is 1.6 to 1.9 but instead teaches 1.0-1.7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use trimethylamine hydrochloride and 1.6-1.7 mole equivalent aluminum chloride [AlCl3], since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use trimethylamine hydrochloride 1.7 mole equivalent aluminum chloride [AlCl3], since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu et al. (US 10,340,552) teaches claim 1, a metal ion battery (aluminum-ion battery) comprising a cathode active material (in claim 1) and an electrolyte composition comprising a metal halide comprising aluminum chloride (AlCl3, in claim 1); an organic compound comprising trimethylamine and a halogen-containing salt comprising trimethylamine hydrochloride (in claim 1 and teaching claim 31). Hsu et al. teaches in abstract, col. 1, lines 22-25; col 5, lines 17-27 and Example 1; a battery comprising an anode comprising an aluminum foil 9 (teaching claim 1); a glass separator (teaching claim 30); a graphite cathode (teaching claims 9-10) and an electrolyte comprising 2.05 mole of aluminum chloride, 1 mole of N-methylurea and 0.3 mole of trimethylamine hydrochloride [ (CH3)3NH+Cl-] was added to form a eutectic mixture. The negative electrode may be metallic aluminum, and the positive electrode active material may be layered carbon material (graphite, such as natural graphite, electrographite, pyrolytic graphite, flake graphite or expanded graphite, carbon nanotube, graphene). 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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F. 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /LAURA S. WEINER/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1723 /Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 06, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603275
ELECTROCHEMICAL CELLS COMPRISING COATED CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND SILYL ESTER PHOSPHONATE AS ELECTROLYTE ADDITIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603272
ALKALINE DRY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597640
ORGANIC ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597602
LITHIUM AND MANGANESE RICH POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597609
POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, SECONDARY BATTERY AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1139 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month