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, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, i.e., the groups of inventions do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 3 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 3 recites the limitation " the large surface area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0097273A1 (Masechmeyer) in view of “High-Modulus Hexagonal Boron Nitride Nanoplatelet Gel Electrolytes for Solid-State Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Batteries”, Hyun, et al., ACS Nano 2019, 13, 9664−9672 (Hyun), which are listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 11 and 13-15, Masechmeyer teaches an assembly comprises a first gelated ionic liquid film in contact with a first electrically conductive surface such as an anode, wherein the first gelated ionic liquid film comprises a first ionic liquid encapsulated within a gel matrix; and a second gelated ionic liquid film in contact with a second electrically conductive surface such as an cathode, wherein the second gelated ionic liquid film comprises a second ionic liquid encapsulated within a gel matrix; wherein the first and second gelated ionic liquid films are in contact with each other ([0036] and [0039]).
Masechmeyer teaches that the encapsulated first and/or second ionic liquid, may comprise anions such as bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide and bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and cations such as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium ([0040] and [0061]), which renders the claimed combination of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide obvious, which meets the claimed high potential and low potential ionic liquid, respectively.
Masechmeyer teaches the first and/or second gel matrix may be formed from a gelating agent such as carbon nanotubes, silica nanosphere, etc. ([0041]).
Masechmeyer does not teach the matrix comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) nanoplatelets/nanosheets, neither the ratio of ionic liquid and the nanoplatelet/nanosheet.
Hyun teaches exfoliated hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) nanoplatelets as a solid matrix material adsorb large quantities of ionic liquids to form a gel electrolyte with significant enhancement of mechanical modulus of gel electrolytes while maintaining high ionic conductivity (p9665, left column, second paragraph), wherein the ionic liquids are imidazolium based exemplifies as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide (abstract and p9665, right column), the hBN nanoplatelets are produced from bulk hBN microparticles by a liquid-phase exfoliation method ( p9665, left column, second paragraph (Figure 1), and wherein the ratio of the ionic liquid and the nanoplatelet is 3:2 by weight (p9670, Methods).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the exfoliated hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) nanoplatelets of Hyun as the gel matrix material of Masechmeyer to encapsulate the first and second ionic liquid, respectively. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Hyun that to do so would predictably form a gel electrolyte with enhanced mechanical modulus and high ionic conductivity (p9665, left column, second paragraph).
Regarding claims 3-7, Masechmeyer teaches that the first and second gelated ionic liquid films at least partially in contact may be immiscible with each other, and the gel may have an electrochemical stability that is greater than the electrochemical window ([0137]).
As to the stability, viscosity, ionic conductivity and electrochemical window of claims 3-7, since Masechmeyer and Hyun teach the same ionogel electrolytes of the same ionic liquid and nanoplatelet, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable basis to expect that the claimed electrochemical window, stability, ionic conductivity and viscosity would naturally arise and be achieved by the electrolyte gel of Masechmeyer and Hyun. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 9 , Masechmeyer teaches the gel matrix encapsulating an ionic liquid may further comprise any suitable electrolyte salt, e.g., sodium chloride ([0131]), which meets a sodium salt.
Regarding claim 10 , Masechmeyer teaches the alternative embodiment of a sodium salt thus meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12 , Masechmeyer teaches the gel matrix encapsulating an ionic liquid may further comprise cations such as Li+ ([0041] and [0132]), which renders the presence of LiTFSI salt obvious since the counter anion includes bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide ([0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766