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 of Group I, Species A, claims 1-6, 8 and 9 in the reply filed on 20 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 102172038 B1, newly cited, a copy and machine translation of which are attached).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. teach an ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery, wherein the organic framework comprises a compound capable of forming a cation through protonation in the framework, a counteranion (anion) for a secondary battery is bonded to the cation, and the organic framework has crystallinity (covalently bonded skeleton structure - see figure 1 below, paragraphs [005-040] of attached translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
1957
2079
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Lee et al. teach the ionic organic framework for an all- solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic framework is formed from mixing and reacting an aromatic compound having functional groups (paragraphs [042-045]), while the prior art does not specify condensation between an aromatic compound having at least three functional groups that can participate in condensation and another aromatic compound having two or more functional groups that can participate in condensation. However, under MPEP §2113, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, as the product of the prior art has the structure required by the claim, the product by process limitations do not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
In regard to claim 3, Lee et al. teach the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery of claim 2, wherein the aromatic compound is an anion-modified aromatic compound, 1,4-phenylenediamine-2-sulfonic acid (1,4-phenylenediamine-2-sulfonic acid) and 1,4-phenylenediamine-2-sulfonyl It may include at least one selected from the group consisting of (trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (1,4-phenylenediamine-2-sulfonyl(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide) (paragraph [015]) therefore while the compounds being triazine and the another aromatic compound is at least one of pyridine or imidazole are not explicitly disclosed, the prior art is formed from similar compounds, and the method of forming the claimed product does not distinguish the claims from the prior art (MPEP §2113).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Lee et al. teach an all-solid secondary battery including an electrolyte comprising the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery of claim 1 (paragraph [005]).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Ryo (JP 2019-029304 A, newly cited, a copy and machine translation of which are attached).
In regard to claim 1, Ryo teach an ionic organic framework, wherein the organic framework comprises a compound of such as the Chemical Formula below which can be synthesized by forming a triazine ring by condensation reaction of 2,6-dicyanopyridine and repeating the reaction (see page 3 of provided machine translation), which has a structure similar to the instant claimed formula 1 and is therefore reasonably presumed to be a compound capable of forming a cation through protonation in the framework, a counteranion (anion) for a secondary battery is bonded to the cation, and the organic framework has crystallinity (covalently bonded skeleton structure - see figure 1 below, paragraphs [005-040] of attached translation).
While Ryo does not specify the material for an all-solid secondary battery, Ryo teach (page 1 of translation) that the material is useful for electrodes of electrochemical devices such a fuel cell and are important as materials for efficiently converting chemical energy into electrical energy. Intended use claims (such as for an all-solid secondary battery) describe what an invention is for, not its structure. Under MPEP §2114, if a prior art apparatus teaches all structural limitations, a recitation of intended use does not differentiate the claim from the prior art unless the structure is different.
PNG
media_image2.png
277
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2 and 3, Ryo teach an ionic organic framework, wherein the organic framework comprises a compound of such as the Chemical Formula below which can be synthesized by forming a triazine ring by condensation reaction of 2,6-dicyanopyridine (a pyridine) and repeating the reaction (see page 3 of provided machine translation). In any event, MPEP §2113, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, as the product of the prior art has the structure required by the claim, the product by process limitations do not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 4, Lee et al. teach the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery has a structure of Formula 1 above wherein X is a counterion of a lithium battery (paragraph [013]). While the prior art structure is not identical to Chemical Formula (1) or (2) of the instant claims, the prior art teaches a similar chemical structure and functionality. MPEP §2144.09 addresses when a prima facie case of obviousness can be made based on the close structural similarity of chemical compounds, such as homologs, analogues, or isomers. In the instant case, the prior art structure explicitly disclosed is close enough to the claimed structure that a prima facie case of obviousness exists based on the various compounds the prior art may form based on the disclosure as a whole.
In regard to claim 5, Lee et al. teach the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic framework is for an electrolyte of an all-solid secondary battery (paragraph [005]).
In regard to claim 6, Lee et al. teach the ionic organic framework for an all- solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic framework is formed from mixing and reacting an aromatic imide compound having multiple functional groups (paragraphs [042-045]), while the prior art does not specify the organic framework of Formula (1) is obtained by reacting cyanuric chloride with 2,6-diaminopyridine and has a structure wherein the triazine of the cyanuric chloride is connected to the pyridine of the 2,6-diaminopyridine by an amine group. However, under MPEP §2113, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, as the product of the prior art has the structure required by the claim, the product by process limitations do not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 4, Ryo teaches the ionic organic framework for an all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the ionic organic framework has a structure of Figure 4 reproduced above, the prior art teaches a similar chemical structure and functionality. MPEP §2144.09 addresses when a prima facie case of obviousness can be made based on the close structural similarity of chemical compounds, such as homologs, analogues, or isomers. In the instant case, the prior art structure explicitly disclosed is close enough to the claimed structure that a prima facie case of obviousness exists based on the various compounds the prior art may form based on the disclosure as a whole.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, Ryo teaches an ionic organic framework, wherein the organic framework comprises a compound of such as the Chemical Formula below which can be synthesized by forming a triazine ring by condensation reaction of 2,6-dicyanopyridine (a pyridine) and repeating the reaction (see page 3 of provided machine translation). In any event, MPEP §2113, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, as the product of the prior art has the structure required by the claim, the product by process limitations do not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 2015/0266885, newly cited, teaches a similar Porous Crystalline Frameworks (PCFs) also known as Covalent Organic Frameworks (COFs).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights