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
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 06/15/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 are amended; claims 2, 4-7, and 9-11 stand as originally or previously presented; claims 3 and 8 are canceled; and claims 13-20 are withdrawn. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 03/16/2026 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 citing to the originally cited art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
In Instant Specification [0096, 0112], LiAlH3 is used; however, it is unclear if LiAlH3 or LiAlH4 is used because LiAlH3 only exists as LiAlH3-. Therefore, for the purpose of this office action it would be assumed that all instances of LiAlH3 is LiAlH4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the coordination compound has a crystalline or semicrystalline structure”. However, Claim 1 recites “the coordination compound has an orthorhombic crystal structure." An orthorhombic crystal structure is crystalline, and thus, Claim 2’s recitation of “a crystalline or semicrystalline structure” is broader than the “orthorhombic crystal structure” of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bao et al. (WO 2020072650 A1, citations from corresponding US 20220045332 A1, hereinafter Bao), as cited in Notice of References Cited filed 03/16/2026.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode for lithium secondary battery (Bao, anode, Abstract), comprising:
an anode current collector layer (Bao, anode includes a current collector, Abstract);
an anode material layer disposed on the anode current collector layer and comprising lithium metal (Bao, the anode material further includes an anode material disposed between the current collector and the interfacial later, wherein the anode material is lithium metal, [0015-0016]); and
an interfacial layer disposed on the anode material layer and comprising a coordination compound (Bao, the interfacial layer includes an ion-conductive organic network (ION) including anionic coordination units, [0008]); wherein
the coordination compound comprises a complex ion (Bao, the anionic coordination unit is a four-coordinate complex, [0105]) and a counter ion (Bao, the ION further includes counterions dispersed in a bonded network of the anionic coordination units and the organic ligands, [0107]),
the complex ion comprises a central cation (Bao, Al center, [0075] and [102]); and
a ligand coordinated to the central cation and comprising a fluorocarbon moiety having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (Bao, soft organic ligand-containing precursors also include fluoro-hydrocarbon-based precursors, such as fluorinated alkyl-diols, [0114]), and
the counter ion comprises a lithium ion (Bao, the counterions include lithium cations (or Li+) that are mobile within the bonded network, [0107]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations:
the coordination compound has a crystalline structure (Claim 2), and more specifically an orthorhombic crystal structure (Claim 1), and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more (Claim 1).
it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited coordination compound and interfacial layer.
Applicant discloses LiAlH3 as a first reactant and 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-butanediol (FBD) as a second reactant were put into 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) as a solvent so that a reaction was caused at room temperature. Hexane was added to terminate the reaction and then the resultant was dried to remove residual solvent, which resulted in a coordination compound having an orthorhombic crystal structure, and the interfacial layer exhibits a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa to 2.5 GPa (see Instant Specification [0109-0114], Figure 6-7B).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the reactants and method are critical to the recited crystal structure and properties such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Bao discloses the reaction for soft IONs, which includes a ligand-containing precursor is dissolved in 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) or THF and a resulting solution is sonicated for several minutes. Then LiBH4 is added dropwise into the solution until no bubbles appear. The solution is placed in a glovebox overnight to obtain an intermediate state in the form of a viscous liquid. Then the intermediate state is spin-coated or drop-casted on a substrate. A resulting coating is then heat-treated at a temperature of 100 °C or below to remove the solvent and to ensure a complete reaction (Bao, [0125-0128]). Bao further discloses that LiBH4 can and LiAlH4 are possible alternatives for the crosslinker, and the soft ligand may be FBD, (Figures 1, 3A). In addition, the interfacial layer includes an ion-conductive organic network (ION) including anionic coordination units, (Bao, [0008]).
Bao teaches that by varying ligands and coordination units, IONs can be obtained with varying mechanical strength and Li ion conduction properties (Bao, [0129]).
It is submitted that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao is substantially similar to the instant coordination compound and interfacial layer such that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. crystal structure and properties, such that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e.
the coordination compound has a crystalline structure (Claim 2), and more specifically an orthorhombic crystal structure (Claim 1), and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more (Claim 1).
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the recited coordination compound and interfacial layer. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao is so similar to the instant coordination compound and interfacial layer that the prior art soft ION and interfacial layer would also exhibit:
the coordination compound has a crystalline structure (Claim 2), and more specifically an orthorhombic crystal structure (Claim 1), and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the complex ion comprises a plurality of central cations connected to each other via the ligand (Bao, to form a substantially single-ion conductive network structure of an ION, multiple coordination units comprising of soft ligands and an aluminum coordination center are bonded to each other, [0102-0106], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the central cation comprises a cation of a metal, and the metal comprises at least one of Al, Zn, Co, Ni, Cu, Fe, or any combination thereof (Bao, each anionic coordination unit includes a metal cation Mm+, where M is a post-transition metal (e.g., Al or zinc (Zn)), a transition metal (e.g., cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), or iron (Fe)), and m is an integer that is 1 or greater than 1, such as 2 or 3, [0105]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the central cation comprises Al3+ (Bao, Al center, [0075] and [102]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the interfacial layer has a lithium ion conductivity of about 9 x 10-6 S/cm or more (Bao, an ionic conductivity of the ION is at least about 10-5 S/cm, [0108]; the disclosed ionic conductivity of at least about 10-5 S/cm falls within the claimed range of about 9 x 10-6 S/cm or more).
Regarding Claim 10, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the interfacial layer exhibits a peak at a binding energy of about 531 ev to 534 eV in O1s spectrum of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis (Bao, Artificial Solid Electrolyte Interphases exhibits a peak at a binding energy of about 531 ev to 534 eV in O1s spectrum, [0058], Figure 19G).
Regarding Claim 11, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the interfacial layer exhibits a peak at a binding energy of about 685 eV to 687 eV in F1s spectrum of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis (Bao, Artificial Solid Electrolyte Interphases exhibits a peak at a binding energy of about 685 eV to 687 eV in F1s spectrum, [0058], Figure 19G).
Regarding Claim 12, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding a lithium secondary battery (Bao, lithium ion battery, [0004]) comprising:
an anode current collector layer (Bao, anode includes a current collector, Abstract);
an anode material layer disposed on the anode current collector layer and comprising lithium metal (Bao, the anode material further includes an anode material disposed between the current collector and the interfacial layer, wherein the anode material is lithium metal, [0015-0016]); and
an interfacial layer disposed on the anode material layer and comprising a coordination compound (Bao, the interfacial layer includes an ion-conductive organic network (ION) including anionic coordination units, [0008]); wherein
the coordination compound comprises a complex ion (Bao, the anionic coordination unit is a four-coordinate complex, [0105]) and a counter ion (Bao, the ION further includes counterions dispersed in a bonded network of the anionic coordination units and the organic ligands, [0107]),
the complex ion comprises a central cation (Bao, Al center, [0075] and [102]); and
a ligand coordinated to the central cation and comprising a fluorocarbon moiety having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (Bao, soft organic ligand-containing precursors also include fluoro-hydrocarbon-based precursors, such as fluorinated alkyl-diols, [0114]), and
the counter ion comprises a lithium ion (Bao, the counterions include lithium cations (or Li+) that are mobile within the bonded network, [0107]);
a cathode (Bao, cathode, [0024]); and
an electrolyte interposed between the anode and the cathode (Bao, an electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode, [0024]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations:
the coordination compound has an orthorhombic crystal structure, and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more.
it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited coordination compound and interfacial layer.
Applicant discloses LiAlH3 as a first reactant and 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-butanediol (FBD) as a second reactant were put into 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) as a solvent so that a reaction was caused at room temperature. Hexane was added to terminate the reaction and then the resultant was dried to remove residual solvent, which resulted in a coordination compound having an orthorhombic crystal structure, and the interfacial layer exhibits a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa to 2.5 GPa (as cited in Notice of References Cited filed 03/16/2026).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the reactants and method are critical to the recited crystal structure and properties such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Bao discloses the reaction for soft IONs, which includes a ligand-containing precursor is dissolved in 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) or THF and a resulting solution is sonicated for several minutes. Then LiBH4 is added dropwise into the solution until no bubbles appear. The solution is placed in a glovebox overnight to obtain an intermediate state in the form of a viscous liquid. Then the intermediate state is spin-coated or drop-casted on a substrate. A resulting coating is then heat-treated at a temperature of 100 °C or below to remove the solvent and to ensure a complete reaction (Bao, [0125-0128]). Bao further discloses that LiBH4 can and LiAlH4 are possible alternatives for the crosslinker, and the soft ligand may be FBD, (Figures 1, 3A). In addition, the interfacial layer includes an ion-conductive organic network (ION) including anionic coordination units, (Bao, [0008]).
Bao teaches that by varying ligands and coordination units, IONs can be obtained with varying mechanical strength and Li ion conduction properties (Bao, [0129]).
It is submitted that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao is substantially similar to the instant coordination compound and interfacial layer such that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. crystal structure and properties, such that the soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e.
the coordination compound has an orthorhombic crystal structure, and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more.
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the recited coordination compound and interfacial layer. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed soft ION and interfacial layer of Bao is so similar to the instant coordination compound and interfacial layer that the prior art soft ION and interfacial layer would also exhibit:
the coordination compound has an orthorhombic crystal structure, and
the interfacial layer has a Young's modulus of about 30 GPa to 40 GPa and a hardness of about 2 GPa or more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (WO 2020072650 A1, citations from corresponding US 20220045332 A1, hereinafter Bao), as cited in Notice of References Cited filed 03/16/2026, as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Bao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bao discloses the limitations regarding an anode (Bao, anode, Abstract), wherein the coordination compound comprises an amount of about 2 to 7 by weight of the counter ion (Bao, a concentration of the counter ions is at least about 1% by weight relative to a total weight of the ion-conductive organic network, Claim 7; the Examiner notes that coordination compounds make up the ion-conductive organic network. The disclosed counter ion range of at least about 1% by weight relative to a total weight of the ion-conductive organic network overlaps the claimed range of about 2 to 7 by weight of the counter ion).
Bao teaches that the resulting ION can exhibit various desirable properties, including a high lithium ion conductivity and a high lithium transference number (Bao, [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges, in order to improve lithium ion conductivity, because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bao et al. (WO 2020072650 A1, citations from corresponding US 20220045332 A1, hereinafter Bao).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120328938 A1 discloses a lithium ion battery comprising 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-butanediol as a ligand [0039].
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights