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
Claims 6-12 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/27/2026. Applicant’s argument that the shared technical feature of claim 1 is a special technical feature is not found persuasive as demonstrated by the rejection of the subject matter of claim 1 below.
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-5 and 13-16 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (WO 2020260444 A1, A PDF version is included in the 3rd party IDS filed 10/29/2024).
Regarding claims 1-3, and 15, Lin teaches an ionic liquid that has a cation and an anion, where the anion consists of bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and the onium anion consists of alkyl imidazolium, which is an imidazolium ion. Further, only ionic liquids with a high quality, 20-10 Hazen units, achieve the correct properties (pg. 4 line 28 – pg. 5 line 4).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the purity is 99.9% which is significantly above the 90% in the instant application (pg. 4 line 29).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the ionic liquid is part of an electrolyte (pg. 5 line 7-8) which can be input into an electrochemical cell (pg. 7 line 9) which has an anode and a cathode (pg. 6 line 24).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (WO 2020260444 A1, A PDF version is included in the 3rd party IDS filed 10/29/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the halides, F-- and Cl-, are less than 1 ppm, and Na+ and K+ is less than 10 ppm. While SO42- is not specified, an ionic liquid purity of 99.9% (pg. 4 line 29), as well as the low ppm of the other impurities, shows that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any unspecified impurities, such as SO42-, are understood to be present in extremely low or negligible amounts in order to achieve the desired device energy density.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (WO 2020260444 A1, A PDF version is included in the 3rd party IDS filed 10/29/2024) in view of Zarkesh et al. (US 10686234 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches claim 13 as described above but is silent to a battery comprising the electrochemical cell. Zarkesh teaches an ionic liquid that contains an anion such as bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Zarkesh, column 4, lines 3-4), which is also present in Lin as an equivalent to bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Lin, pg. 5 line 2). Zarkesh further teaches that the resulting ionic liquid is used in batteries (Zarkesh column 4, line 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the electrochemical cell of Lin as described in claim 13, and use it in a battery as taught by Zarkesh as doing so provides an increased device energy density (Lin, pg. 4 line 31).
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the ionic liquid being contacted with a decolorizing agent comprising activated carbon. Zarkesh teaches an ionic liquid that contains an anion such as bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Zarkesh, column 4, lines 3-4), which is also present in Lin as an equivalent to bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Lin, pg. 5 line 2). Zarkesh further teaches that the Ionic liquid is purified by treating it with activated carbon until it is clear and colorless (Zarkesh column 7, line 19-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the ionic liquid of Lin as taught in claim 1, and introduce it to activated carbon in order to further purify the ionic liquid to ensure 99.9% purity so that the resulting device has a higher energy density (Lin, pg. 4 line 31).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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 R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights