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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-15, 19-22, and 25 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 22-25 are, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, all claims are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/26/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 7/3/2023, 7/4/2023, 11/18/2024, and 4/1/2026 were received and are being considered by the examiner, except where lined-through. The IDS dated 11/18/2024 had foreign patent documents 1-4 lined through due to the illegible translations that accompanied them. This was most likely to them being submitted in greyscale which does not render in the office’s system. If the applicant would like these documents to be considered please resubmit legible translations along with the respective documents.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 7/3/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words and contains claim language. Please resubmit a more concise abstract in plain language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 20. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 24 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the organic solvent" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as “an organic solvent”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the salt" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the halogen species" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 11 which unlike claim 1 does not have X as a general halogen. Claim 11 must have iodine and possibly fluorine as a halogen. It is unclear which species of halogen is being substituted in the claim?
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.
Claims 16-18 are 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 11 which claim 16 depends states "the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising an organic solvent and a salt..." claim 16 fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter. 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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7,10-12,14-15,19-22 and 25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest art that was found by the office was US 20240339654 A1, GOODENOUGH et al. and US 20190067747 A1. NAKAYAMA et al. which was included in the IDS dated 7/3/2023.
Regarding claim 1. GOODENOUGH [title] discloses Solid State Electrolytes For High-Rate All-Solid-State Metal Batteries comprising:
[0015] a metal anode;
[0016] a cathode;
[0015] an electrolyte in contact with the anode and the cathode; and
[0015] a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer on a surface of the metal anode,
NAKAYAMA [title] also discloses an Aqueous Electrolyte Solution And Aqueous Lithium-Ion Secondary Battery comprising:
[0014] a metal anode;
[0055] a cathode;
[0020] an electrolyte in contact with the anode and the cathode; and
[0034] a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer on a surface of the metal anode,
Neither GOODENOUGH nor NAKAYAMA disclose wherein the SEI layer has a composition according to Formula (1),
(1) MαBβCγNδFεXζOη,
wherein,
M is a metal, B is boron, C is carbon, N is nitrogen, F is fluorine, X is a non-fluorine halogen, and O is oxygen,
α is a number in the range of 0.2-0.4,
β is a number in the range of 0.001-0.1,
γ is a number in the range of 0.15-0.25,
δ is a number in the range of 0.0-0.02,
ε is a number in the range of 0.0-0.1,
ζ is a number in the range of 0.005-0.02,
η is a number in the range of 0.40-0.60, and
α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, and η are selected such that the sum of α+β+γ+δ+ε+ζ+η =1.
The examiner could not find any art where an equivalent of formula 1 was used and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used formula 1 where M is a metal, B is boron, C is carbon, N is nitrogen, F is fluorine, X is a non-fluorine halogen, and O is oxygen in the claimed ranges.
Claims 8-9, 13, and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights