Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/183,197

ALKALI METAL ION CONDUCTOR AND SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
851 granted / 1253 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Specification The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted. 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. Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerner (“Ionic liquid based lithium battery electrolytes: fundamental benefits of utilising both TFSI and FSI anions?” Phys Chem, Chem Phys. 2015, 17, 19569-19581) in view of Ando (US 2010/0035150). Regarding claim 1, Kerner discloses an alkali metal ion conductor (such as an electrolyte, see abstract), comprising an alkali metal salt, wherein the alkali metal salt comprises a imidazolium cation (EMI or 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium, see page 19570 under heading 2.1), an alkali metal ion (such as lithium in LiTFSI, as mentioned in paragraph 2.1 on page 19570 and see Table 2 which illustrates several examples Li as a cation in a salt), a first sulfonylamide anion (such as TFSI, as listed in the final example of Table 2 which lists LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8) and a second sulfonylamide anion different from the first sulfonylamide anion (the second sulfonylamide anion is FSI, as in the final example of Table which lists LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8. Kerner teaches two cations in the salt, including Li+ and EMI+ and goes on to teach that well known cations include members of the pyrrolidinium famly which include quaternary ammonium compounds). However, Kerner does not explicitly teach a quaternary ammonium cation in the salt. Ando also discloses compositions for an electrolyte (see abstract). Ando, like Kerner, teaches the generation of an ionic liquid to be utilized in an electrolyte and teaches that there are many well known cation/anion combinations to achieve such an ionic liquid (see paragraph 69). Well known cations include EMI along with diethyl-methyl-2-methoxyethyl-ammonium (DEME, see paragraph 69). As such, seeing Kerner contemplates the use of quaternary ammonium cations in the ionic liquid and seeing that Ando discloses several well known cations (including EMI and quaternary ammonium cations) and are known to be used in ionic liquids for batteries, modifying the EMI of Kerner to include the quaternary ammonium cation of Ando would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known ionic liquid cation for another to yield entirely predictable results. Regarding claim 2, Kerner further discloses: the first sulfonylamide anion is a bistrifluoromethanesulfonylamide anion (such as TFSI in LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which is disclosed as the final example in Table 2 on page 19573) and the second sulfonylamide anion is at least one of a fluorosulfonylamide anion and a fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) amide anion (such as FSI in LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which is disclosed as the final example in Table 2 on page 19573). Regarding claim 3, Kerner further discloses the molar ratio of the first sulfonylamide anion to the second sulfonylamide anion (the first sulfonylamide anion/the second sulfonylamide anion) is 1 or more (see LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which discloses a ratio of 4 as TFSI is 0.8 and FSI is 0.2) Regarding claim 5, Kerner, as modified above, further discloses the quaternary ammonium cation has a methyl group (such as the cation diethyl-methyl-2-methoxyethyl-ammonium (DEME, see paragraph 69 of Ando). Regarding claim 6, Kerner further discloses the alkali metal ion is a lithium ion (as it taught in the composition LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 of Kerner, where Li is a cation). Regarding claim 7, Kerner teaches throughout the document that this electrolyte is to be utilized in an electrolyte of a battery which includes an anode and a cathode on either side of the the electrolyte (see section 3.2 which discloses a battery that has a separator filled with the disclosed electrolyte and includes electrodes). 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. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerner (“Ionic liquid based lithium battery electrolytes: fundamental benefits of utilising both TFSI and FSI anions?” Phys Chem, Chem Phys. 2015, 17, 19569-19581) in view of Ando (US 2010/0035150) in view of Park (WO 2015030407 A1 with references made to the machine translation). Regarding claim 4, Kerner discloses the alkali metal ion conductor comprises the alkali metal salt (as described above in the rejection of claim 1), the first sulfonylamide anion is a bistrifluoromethanesulfonylamide anion (such as TFSI in LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which is disclosed as the final example in Table 2 on page 19573), the second sulfonylamide anion is at least one of a fluorosulfonylamide anion and a fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) amide anion (such as FSI in LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which is disclosed as the final example in Table 2 on page 19573), and the molar ratio of the first sulfonylamide anion to the second sulfonylamide anion (the first sulfonylamide anion/the second sulfonylamide anion) is 4 or more (see LiFSI0.2EMITFSI0.8 which discloses a ratio of 4 as TFSI is 0.8 and FSI is 0.2). Kerner teaches a battery that is assembled with the discloses salt/ionic liquid, but does not go into detail regarding the type of electrolyte that is utilized in the battery. More specifically, Kerner does not teach the inclusion of a sulfide solid electrolyte. Park also discloses a battery (see Abstract). Park teaches utilizing a solid sulfide electrolyte that is impregnated with an ionic liquid containing an anion TFSA (lines 96-105). Park teaches utilizing a solid electrolyte with the ionic liquid/salt as doing so improves the interfacial conductivity between the solid electrolyte and the electrodes (lines 80-71 and 109-114) in addition to the benefits of using a solid electrolyte which do not carry the risk of flammability like liquid electrolytes (lines 55-58). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the sulfide electrolyte of Park to the battery of Kerner in order to improve the interfacial conductivity between the solid electrolyte and the electrodes in addition to minimizing the flammability risk of the battery. Relevant Prior Art US 2013/0202973 – discloses the use of multiple ionic liquids with multiple anions in the liquid but stops short of disclosing multiple cations in addition to more than one type of sulfonylamide anion. AU2010346157 B2 – Discloses multiple anions in a non-aqueous electrolyte and teaches that one of the anions is a sulfonylamide, but does not teach that there is another sulfonylamide anion that is different than the first. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm. 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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. /MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603294
LITHIUM-ION SUPPLY ELECTRODE FOR REAL-TIME MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595177
CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597638
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE, ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY USING THE SAME AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586808
Apparatus and Method for Manufacturing Unit Cells
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583743
METHOD FOR CARBON FORMATION FREE OPERATION OF REFORMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+9.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month