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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 11/14/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 12, 16, and 20 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 3, 8–11, and 17–19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 4–7 remain(s) withdrawn; and claim(s) 13–15 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections; 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102, and 103 rejections; and provisional, nonstatutory double-patenting rejection over co-pending 18/358493, set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/18/25 has/have been withdrawn. Moreover, as Applicant’s amendment and arguments—specifically that the instant pore diameter would not be inherent to Chen based on the specification’s special definition and data—are persuasive and did not necessitate the new grounds of prior-art rejections below, this action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–3, 8–12, and 16–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO 2020113539 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20240213533 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 20160064773 A1, from 08/18/25 PTO-892) (Choi).
Regarding claims 1–3, 8–12, 16, and 19, Chen discloses an electrochemical device (lithium battery, e.g., Abstract and Ex. 1, ¶ 0040) comprising a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (e.g., Abstract and Ex. 1, ¶ 0039), wherein the non-aqueous electrolytic solution contains a metal-organic framework containing an azole-based organic molecule having a hydrophobic group, and a metal atom (MOF comprising ZIF-8, i.e., zinc bound to 2-methylimidazole, Ex. 1, ¶ 0039).
Chen further discloses that such MOFs are advantageous for, e.g., adsorption due to their controllable pore size (e.g., ¶ 0003, 0005) but fails to explicitly articulate a pore diameter of 2–5 Å.
Choi, in teaching a composite electrolyte including an IL disposed in pores of a MOF (Abstract), where the MOF may include an imidazole-based compound (¶ 0050, 0052), teaches a spherical pore diameter of preferably 0.1~10 nm (¶ 0083), i.e., 1~100 Å.
Chen and Choi are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely MOF-including electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Chen's porous MOF must necessarily be incorporated with some pore diameter, and, as demonstrated by Choi, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ, e.g., a 1~100 Å spherical pore diameter and reasonably expect to produce a suitable MOF with appropriate pore size.
Importantly, even if Choi fails to explicitly teach this pore diameter as “a diameter of the largest sphere in which each atom in a crystal can be included when the atom is assumed to be a rigid sphere with a van der Waals radius" (as in instant spec.’s special definition in ¶ 0071), the skilled artisan would reasonably recognize that the pores must possess some minimum size/diameter for the MOF to exist—as a MOF is a 3-D structure with a metal coordinated to organic ligands, where the spaces between the ligands create the pores (as seen in Chen’s ¶ 0003)—as well as impart the high specific surface area that Chen desires (e.g., ¶ 0062). Conversely, the artisan would also presumably realize that making the pores too large would necessarily weaken the MOF’s mechanical characteristics (as implied in Choi’s ¶ 0090). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the pore diameter, including within Choi’s apparent overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claims 2 and 3) the azole-based organic molecule is an imidazole, and the metal atom is zinc (per above);
(claims 8–11) the azole-based organic molecule has the hydrophobic group, which is an alkyl group (methyl in Chen’s 2-methylimidazole above), and the metal atom is zinc (per above);
(claim 12) the azole-based organic molecule is a molecule represented by the recited formula (1), where R1 is an alkyl group, and R2 and R3 are each hydrogen (Chen’s 2-methylimidazole above);
(claim 16) the pore diameter of 2–3 Å appears overlapped and rendered obvious and/or achievable via routine experimentation (by balancing specific surface area and mechanical properties, per claim 1);
(claim 19) the electrochemical device is a lithium ion secondary battery (Chen’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chen discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous electrolytic solution contains the metal-organic framework in an amount of 3 wt% with respect to a total amount of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Chen’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0039), which falls within 0.1–50 wt%.
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous electrolytic solution further comprises an organic solvent and an electrolyte salt (propylene carbonate/ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate/methyl acetate and LiPF4/LiBOB, respectively, Chen’s ¶ 0039).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chen discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium ion secondary battery (Chen, e.g., ¶ 0040), the lithium ion secondary battery further contains a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Chen, e.g., ¶ 0016 and 0040), and each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode has a layer capable of occluding and releasing a lithium ion (necessarily via each electrode’s active material layer for lithium battery to function, as seen in Chen’s ¶ 0002 and implied at least in NMC523 positive electrode material in ¶ 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the new grounds of rejection over Chen in view of Choi established above render the arguments against the previous evidentiary reference, Utpalla, moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/2/2026