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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, and 12–14 are pending.
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 12, and 13 are being treated on their merits.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0361330 A1.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 14 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A directed to a quaternary ammonium/phosphonium bromide (e.g., claim 3); and
Species B directed to a quaternary ammonium/phosphonium chloride (e.g., claim 14).
The species are independent or distinct because the halide of Species A (i.e., bromide) is mutually exclusive from the halide of Species B (i.e., chloride). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply the species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 17 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 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 6 recites, in the preamble, "[a] battery according to claim 1." Claim 1 is directed to an electrolyte and does not recite the limitation "a battery." It is unclear what limitations of claim 1 are included in dependent claim 6.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites, in the preamble, "[a] battery according to claim 1." Claim 1 is directed to an electrolyte and does not recite the limitation "a battery." Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu et al. (US 2015/0357500 A1, hereinafter Komatsu).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu discloses an electrolyte (27) comprising:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
an electroactive inorganic salt (see LiI, [0077]),
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see LiI, [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Komatsu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrolyte:
wherein Alq is butyl (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Komatsu discloses a battery comprising an electrolyte (27) and at least one electrode (FIG. 3, [0074]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
an electroactive inorganic salt (see LiI, [0077]),
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see LiI, [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Komatsu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a battery or an electrolyte:
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is in at least 5% by weight relative to the weight of the electrolyte (see LiI, [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Komatsu discloses a method comprising carrying out electrochemical reactions with an electrolyte (27, [0074]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
an electroactive inorganic salt (see LiI, [0077]),
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see LiI, [0077]).
Regarding claim 10, Komatsu discloses a method comprising encapsulating substances using an electrolyte and at least one electrode (FIG. 3, [0074]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 2 m (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetrabutylammonium iodide, [0077]);
an electroactive inorganic salt (see LiI, [0077]),
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see LiI, [0077]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson et al. (US 2019/0131662 A1, hereinafter Adamson).
Regarding claim 1, Adamson discloses an electrolyte comprising:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0077]).
an electroactive inorganic salt (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Although Adamson does not explicitly disclose a range of equal to or more than 2 m, Adamson does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 3, Adamson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrolyte:
wherein X is bromine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Adamson discloses a battery (100) comprising an electrolyte and at least one electrode (FIG. 1, [0191]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0077]).
an electroactive inorganic salt (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Although Adamson does not explicitly disclose a range of equal to or more than 2 m, Adamson does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 6, Adamson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a battery or an electrolyte:
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is in at least 5% by weight relative to the weight of the electrolyte (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Adamson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a battery:
wherein the battery is a button storage cell (100, [0232]).
Regarding claim 9, Adamson discloses a method comprising carrying out electrochemical reactions with an electrolyte (FIG. 1, [0191]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0077]).
an electroactive inorganic salt (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Although Adamson does not explicitly disclose a range of equal to or more than 2 m, Adamson does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 10, Adamson discloses a method comprising encapsulating substances using an electrolyte and at least one electrode (FIG. 1, [0191]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0077]).
an electroactive inorganic salt (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Although Adamson does not explicitly disclose a range of equal to or more than 2 m, Adamson does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 12, Adamson discloses a method comprising inhibiting electrode deterioration with an electrolyte (FIG. 1, [0191]), wherein the electrolyte comprises:
a composition of a quaternary ammonium halide of formula X-(Alq4N)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m or a quaternary phosphonium halide of formula X-(Alq4P)+ at a concentration equal to or more than 0.2 m to 2.8 m (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]);
wherein X is selected from bromine and iodine (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0048]), and
Alq is a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl (see tetraethylammonium bromide, [0077]).
an electroactive inorganic salt (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
wherein the electroactive inorganic salt is selected from a salt of zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium and aluminium (see ZnBr2, [0048]).
Although Adamson does not explicitly disclose a range of equal to or more than 2 m, Adamson does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 13, Adamson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a method:
wherein electrode deterioration is due to oxidation or corrosion (see oxidation, [0159]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights