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 the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 12/12/2022 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending. Claim 9 is cancelled. claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-8 and 10 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
The term “about” is interpreted in view of applicant’s specification as filed at the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0020986 A1 (“Shen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Shen discloses an electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid and an electrolyte salt dispersed in the ionic liquid (Abstract). The ionic liquid comprises a cation and an anion ([0017]). Examples of the cation include (N,N-diethyl-N-methyl-N(2-methoxyethyl)ammonium and 1-methyl-1-(2-methoxyethyl)pyrrolidinium (i.e. N-methoxyethyl-N-methylpyrrolidinium) ([0019]). These cations have a functional group containing an oxygen element.
It is deemed that the bonding length of the cation and a lithium ion of the ionic liquid is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed cation. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
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).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 2, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. The instant claim is interpreted in view of applicant’s specification at pg. 11, lines 19-20. The examples of the cations discussed above are substituted tetraalkylammonium and substituted dialkyl-pyrrolidinium.
Regarding claim 3, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. The functional groups in the examples of the cations discussed above are alkoxy groups (i.e. ether groups).
Regarding claim 5, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Shen discloses examples of the anion include bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (N(SO2F)2−); BF4−; N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide (N(SO2CF3)2−), trifluoromethanesulfonate (CF3SO3−); trifluoroacetate (CF3CO2−); and hexafluorophosphate (PF6−) ([0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Shen discloses examples of the lithium salt include lithium perchlorate (LiCIO4), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithiumborofluoride (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), lithium trifluoro-metasulfonate (LiCF3SO3), lithium bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide (LiN(CF3SO2)2; LiTFSI), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), Li-fluoroalkyl-phosphates (LiPF3(CF2CF3)3), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB, LiFOB), LiC(CF3SO2)3, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, or a combination thereof ([0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Shen discloses the lithium salt is present at a concentration of at least 3 M ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Shen discloses the lithium salt is present at a concentration of at least 4 M and no more than 5 M ([0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Shen discloses the electrolyte of claim 1. Shen further discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0052]) comprising a cathode ([0055]), an anode comprising lithium metal ([0054]), and a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode ([0093]), wherein the battery is impregnated with the electrolyte ([0007], [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primary argument is that Shen does not disclose “wherein the cation and a lithium ion of the ionic liquid have a bonding length of about 1.7 Å or more and less than about 3.4 Å.” It is the position of the Office that Shen inherently discloses this feature. Applicant argues that the bonding length between a cation and a lithium ion is not solely an inherent characteristic of the molecular structure of the cation. Rather, it varies depending on multiple factors, including “1) whether the cation of the ionic liquid contains a functional group incorporating an oxygen atom (see the bonding length differences illustrated in the Examples and Comparative Example 3); 2) the concentration of the lithium salt; 3) the type of anion and the nature of the interaction between the anion and the cation; and 4) aggregation phenomena that occur as a function of lithium salt concentration.”
Factor 1) tends to support the Office’s position. According to the specification, the composition of the cation (i.e. the ether group) affects the bonding length. See pg. 17, lines 1-13. Though it is noted that Comparative Example 3 has a bonding length that falls within the claimed range (about 3.4 Å). Factors 2) to 4) are unsupported by evidence. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The specification contains no discussion of the concentration of lithium salt affecting the bonding length. Rather, the specification discusses the concentration of lithium salt affecting the viscosity of the electrolyte (pg. 2, lines 11-12), dissolution current of lithium (pg. 15, line 11 – pg. 16, line 1), and bonding strength between cations and anions (pg. 17, line 14 – pg. 18, line 2). The specification contains no discussion of the type of anion and the nature of the interaction between the anion and the cation affecting the bonding length. Rather, the anion an interaction may affect the strength of the Li-cation bond (pg. 17, line 19 – pg. 2). The specification contains no discussion of aggregation phenomena that occur as a function of lithium salt concentration affecting the bonding length. The only mention of aggregation is in pg. 18, lines 10-13 in the context of the structure of the ionic liquid overcoming an increase in viscosity caused by a change in lithium salt concentration.
Moreover, even if these features were shown to affect the bond length, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the independent claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 does not recite structure for the cation other than a functional group containing an oxygen element, concentration of the lithium salt, or structure of the anion.
However, even if these features were recited in claim 1, they are anticipated by Shen. Shen discloses examples of the cation including (N,N-diethyl-N-methyl-N(2-methoxyethyl)ammonium and 1-methyl-1-(2-methoxyethyl)pyrrolidinium (i.e. N-methoxyethyl-N-methylpyrrolidinium) ([0019]) (see instant claims 2 and 4); a concentration of the lithium salt of at least 3 M or at least 4 M and no more than 5 M ([0031]) (see instant claims 7-8); and examples of the anion include bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (N(SO2F)2−); BF4−; N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide (N(SO2CF3)2−), trifluoromethanesulfonate (CF3SO3−); trifluoroacetate (CF3CO2−); and hexafluorophosphate (PF6−) ([0020]) (see instant claim 5).
Therefore, the rejection over Shen is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,297,289 B2 discloses a liquid electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
66
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is an alkyl of 1 to 5 carbons; Y is a monovalent anion; R' is methyl or ethyl (claims 11, 2).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-5:45PM Eastern.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727