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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant disagrees that Groups I and II are distinct given that both groups require a room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) which is in contrast to the examiner’s proposed materially different method that uses an ethylene carbonate. Further, applicant argues that in light of the overlap in claimed subject matter between Groups I and II, the search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive given that claim 1 encompasses any electrolyte and is not limited to a RTIL. Further, it is the examiner’s position that there would be serious burden when examining both groups for the reasons set forth in paragraph 4 of the office action mailed 4/23/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being
drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely
traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the dopants". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 20200194786 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1:
Wang et al. teaches in Figure 1 above, an ionic liquid electrolyte including lithium ions and a system, i.e. battery, for electrical energy production from chemical reagents in a compartmentalized cell includes: at least two electrodes, comprising at least one anode 110 and at least one cathode 120; at least one separator 130, that separates the anodes and the cathodes; and an ionic liquid electrolyte system 140 ([0041]). Given that the overall battery is thermally stable, and the anode and cathode are made from the same materials as presently claimed (see paragraphs 11-16 below), it is clear that the anode and cathode are necessarily thermally stable ([0030]).
Regarding claim 2:
Wang et al. teaches examples of metal-oxide cathodes include NMC and NCA ([0053]).
Regarding claim 3:
Wang et al. teaches metal oxide doping of the cathode to improve ionic mobility and conductivity ([0053]).
Regarding claim 5:
Wang et al. teaches the anode which comprises intercalated material, which comprise graphite or silicon ([0048]).
Regarding claim 6:
Wang et al. teaches the polyolefin separator is composed of polypropylene ([0055]).
Regarding claim 7:
Wang et al. teaches the electrolyte system preferably includes a lithium solute, i.e. lithium salt ([0064]) and ionic liquid solvents ([0058]).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Wang et al. teaches examples of preferred ionic liquids include: propyl-methyl-pyrrolidinium-FSI/TFSI; butyl-methyl-pyrrolidinium-FSI/TFSI; octyl-methyl-pyrrolidinium-FSI/TFSI and any combination thereof, i.e. RTIL ([0058])..
Regarding claim 10 and 12:
Wang et al. teaches a co-solvent, i.e. additive or diluent, may be a cyclic ether, such as tetrahydrofuran (THF) ([0066]). Given that Wang et al. teaches tetrahydrofuran identical to that presently claimed and RTIL identical that presently claimed, it is clear that the tetrahydrofuran would necessarily have viscosity lower than the RTIL.
Regarding claim 13:
Wang et al. teaches the electrolyte system may contain lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) or lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) ([0064]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20200194786 A1) in view of Laramie et al. (US 2023/0112241)
Wang et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte battery as set forth above.
However, Wang et al. does not teach the dopants are chosen from Mg or Ti.
Laramie et al. discloses lithium ion battery ([0022]) comprising cathode made from LiNixMnyCozO2 (NMC), LiNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA) or LiFePO4 (LFP) ([0045], [0046]) and electrolyte made from room temperature ionic liquid ([0085]). The cathode is doped with aluminum or zirconium to alter the electrical properties ([0050]).
In light of the motivation for using aluminum or zirconium as dopants in a cathode disclosed by Laramie et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum or zirconium as dopants in the cathode of the ionic liquid electrolyte battery of Wang et al. in order to produce cathode with desired electrical properties.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20200194786 A1) in view of Saruwatari et al. (US 20060204855 A1).
Wang et al. teaches an ionic liquid electrolyte battery as set forth above.
However, Wang et al. does not teach the additive and/or the diluent is chosen from a carbonate and an inorganic salt.
Saruwatari et al. discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery where the electrolyte comprises ionic liquid and lithium ions (Abstract). Saruwatari et al. teaches the electrolyte also includes an organic solvent, i.e. additive or diluent, which includes propylene carbonate ([0045]).
Further, Saruwatari et al. teaches the electrical conductivity of the nonaqueous electrolyte is expected to be increased by the addition of the organic solvent ([0044]), and if the addition amount of the organic solvent exceeds 50% by weight of the total amount of the nonaqueous electrolyte, it is difficult to obtain the effect of improving the safety of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery produced by the use of the ionic liquid ([0046]).
In light of the motivation for using an organic solvent including propylene carbonate disclosed by Saruwatari et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an organic solvent including propylene carbonate in the ionic liquid electrolyte battery of Wang et al. in order to increase the electrical conductivity and improve the safety of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights