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 .
Claim Interpretation
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 14-16, 18-23, 25-28 are pending in the application. Claims 14-16, 18-23, 25-28 are withdrawn. Claims 6-13, 17, 24 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 6 nothing in Wietelmann teaches or suggests the lithium-containing substance being metallic lithium in the form of a lithium rod and/or lithium foil as recited in claim 1.
However, Wietelmann is not relied upon to teach this limitation, Moser is relied upon, as discussed below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wietelmann et al (US 20040033191 A1, cited in IDS 09/04/2024) in view of Moser (US 3660163).
Regarding claim 1, Wietelmann discloses preparation of a 29% lithium iodide solution in 1,3-dioxolane from lithium hydride and iodine ([0038] meeting limitation “a lithium iodide nonaqueous solution”). 11.9 g (1.50 mol) of LiH granules in 315 g of anhydrous 1,3-dioxolane, i.e. nonaqueous solvent, were placed in the glass reactor and heated to 40° C ([0039]). The yield of LiI calculated from these data is 95% of theory ([0042]). Water content: 50 ppm (Karl Fischer titration) ([0041]).
Wietelmann discloses Y is 50 ppm and X is 29%. Therefore, Y/X is approximately 1.72, which is within the claimed range of 7 or lower. Since there is no acid component in the solution disclosed by Wietelmann (see example 1 [0038]-[0042]), the limitation “an acid-derived component content of 4000 ppm or lower” is met.
Wietelmann discloses the lithium metal or lithium hydride can be used in a coarse to very fine form ([0024]) but does not explicitly disclose “generated by reacting metallic lithium and iodine in the nonaqueous solvent, the metallic lithium being at least one material selected from the group consisting of a lithium rod and lithium foil”.
Moser discloses a substantially anhydrous solid state battery has a lithium anode, a solid lithium iodide electrolyte and an electronically conductive cathode containing iodine (abstract). A lithium iodide electrolyte, i.e. lithium iodide, is formed in situ, i.e. in the nonaqueous solvent, by reaction of the iodine in the cathode, i.e. iodine, with the lithium anode, i.e. metallic lithium (Col. 2 lines 8-9). It will be recognized that additional lithium iodide electrolyte is formed by the electrochemical reaction of the cell (Col. 2 lines 15-17). The lithium is most conveniently in the form of a foil (Col. 2 lines 26-27 meeting limitation “the metallic lithium being at least one material selected from the group consisting of a lithium rod and lithium foil”).
Moser further discloses the lithium-iodine cells of this invention have a high output voltage (Col.1 lines 16-17).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the lithium iodide to be generated by reacting metallic lithium and iodine in the nonaqueous solvent, the metallic lithium being at least one material selected from the group consisting of a lithium rod and lithium foil in the method of Wietelmann in order to utilize the lithium iodide nonaqueous solution in a high output voltage cell as taught by Moser.
Regarding claim 2, Wietelmann in view of Moser discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Wietelmann discloses a 29% lithium iodide solution in 1,3-dioxolane ([0038]). 29% is within the claimed range of 5 to 70 % by weight.
Regarding claim 3, Wietelmann in view of Moser discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Wietelmann discloses water content: 50 ppm (Karl Fischer titration) ([0041]). 50 ppm is within the claimed range of lower than 200 ppm.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Wietelmann in view of Moser discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and including Wietelmann discloses a 29% lithium iodide solution in 1,3-dioxolane ([0038]). 1,3-dioxolane is an acetal solvent and aprotic.
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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights