-DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election of Group I: claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 21 January 2026 is acknowledged. It is noted that in Applicant’s response to restriction requirement, the filling date is stated incorrectly as “May 12, 2026” and should instead read “May 12, 2023.”
3. 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)). Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application, claims 19-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-18 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
5. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published
application US 2024/0234813 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities.
7. The phrase “the ring being unsubstituted, or substituted by a substituent; X2 is –N(R5)(R6), –N(R5)=, –P(R5)(R6), or –P(R5)=; The substituent with which the ring is substituted, R5, and R6 are each independently…” is objected to for improper capitalization and punctuation/grammar which hinders the readability of the claim. The following amendment is respectfully suggested in order to correct the issues.
8. “the ring being unsubstituted, or substituted by a substituent[[;]], wherein X2 is –N(R5)(R6), –N(R5)=, –P(R5)(R6), or –P(R5)=[[;]], and wherein [[The]]the substituent with which the ring is substituted, R5, and R6 are each independently…”
9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0044186 A1; “Kim”), and further in view of Šantić et al. (RSC Adv., 2020, 10: 17070-17078; “Šantić”).
14. Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a positive electrode [0112] for a lithium battery, inter alia an all solid battery (a solid lithium battery) [0112, 0114], including a positive active material layer [element 21, 0124] comprising a positive active material [0150-0151] and an ionic liquid (IL) catholyte (a catholyte) [0125] which is, inter alia a gel electrolyte for a positive electrode electrolyte [0122]. The IL catholyte comprises an ionic liquid (ionic liquid), inter alia N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide) [0128-0132, 0143], which can be combined with a low-molecular weight polymer [0143], and a lithium salt (lithium salt), inter alia LiN(SO2F)2 in a concentration of 1 M [0166, 0194].
15. Kim is silent regarding the IL catholyte comprising a compound represented by claimed Formula 1 (see Applicant’s claim 1).
16. Šantić is directed to (S,S)-bis(amino alcohol)oxamides as low-molecular weight gelators (LMWGs) for use with ionic liquids (ILs) in advanced electrochemical material applications [Abstract and Introduction]. Šantić teaches the gelator is, inter alia (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide [Table 1, Gelator 2], and the ionic liquids contain different cations (imidazolium/pyrrolidinium) and anions (tetrafluoroborate/bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide), inter alia 1-butyl-1-methyl-pyrrolidinium bis(trifluoro-methylsulfonyl)imide (1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluoromethanesulfonyl)imide) [Abstract, Table 1]. Further, Šantić teaches use of (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide in an amount of 3 wt% [page 17074], which allows for unrestricted ionic transport thereby resulting in high ionic conductivity. Šantić teaches, generally, that oxamide-based gelators are very efficient gelators for various ionic liquids including applications regarding advanced electrochemical materials and that their gelation ability is the result of strong and directional intermolecular hydrogen bonding provided by oxamide units and the lack of a plane of symmetry due to the presence of two chiral centers of identical configuration, which is known to favor aggregation and prevent crystallization thereby promoting high ionic conductivity. Additionally, amino alcohol substituent groups have a strong influence on the gelation process and behavior [pages 17070 and 17072]. The (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide gelator of Šantić reads on the claimed Formula 1, and the carbon atoms in (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide of Šantić meets the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 carbon atom ranges.
17. Kim and Šantić each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a catholyte composition for a solid lithium battery. In view of the combined disclosures and teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IL catholyte of Kim by adding a compound represented by claimed Formula 1 in an amount of 3 wt%, of which is inter alia the oxamide-based low-molecular weight Gelator 2 as taught by Šantić, in order to have increased the gelation efficiency of the ionic liquid, and/or because Gelator 2 would have been readily recognized as a suitable low-molecular weight polymer for the intended use as a gelation agent for ionic liquids in electrochemical applications [Šantić, Conclusions section] (see MPEP 2144.07).
18. In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the IL catholyte of Kim (hereinafter “Kim/Šantić”) would have comprised N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide as the ionic liquid, LiN(SO2F)2 as the lithium salt in a concentration of 1 M, and (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide in an amount of 3 wt%.
19. The aforesaid lithium salt concentration meets the limitations of the claimed lithium salt concentration range, about 0.5-1.5 moles per liter.
20. The positive electrode of Kim/Šantić above reads on the positive electrode defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
21. Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the catholyte defined by claim 2.
22. The IL catholyte of Kim/Šantić, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed catholyte in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising: (i) 1.0 M of LiN(SO2F)2 as the lithium salt [0057, 0178], (ii) an ionic liquid which is suitably, inter alia 1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [0074], and (iii) ((S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxalyl amide) as a gelling agent [Formula 3 on page 5, 0178]. Furthermore, (iv) Applicant’s specification discloses that when a catholyte includes a compound represented by a compound of Formulas 1 to 10, or a combination thereof, the catholyte may have a gel state at a temperature below 80 °C, and a liquid state at a temperature of 80 °C or greater [0053].
23. Given that the IL catholyte of Kim/Šantić is substantially identical or identical to the
claimed and disclosed current collector in terms of the foregoing elements (i)-(iv), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the catholyte of Kim/Šantić would have necessarily been a liquid at a temperature of 80 °C or greater as claimed, due to the presence of each of the components (i)-(iii), wherein Applicant’s specification implicitly indicates with element (iv) that components (i)-(iii) are the only requisites for the catholyte to be a liquid at 80 °C, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
24. Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 3. That is, the gelator of Kim/Šantić set forth above is (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide [Šantić, Table 1, Gelator 2], of which reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 2, and the carbon atoms in (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide meets the limitations of the claimed Formula 2 carbon atom ranges.
25. Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 4. That is, the gelator of Kim/Šantić set forth above is (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide [Šantić, Table 1, Gelator 2], of which reads on the claimed compound represented by Formula 3 (see MPEP 2131.02(II)).
26. Regarding claim 5, Kim/Šantić teaches the positive electrode of claim 1 set forth in the grounds of rejection above. That is, the gelator of Kim/Šantić set forth above, (S,S)-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide [Šantić, Table 1, Gelator 2], is in an amount of 3 wt% [Šantić, page 17074], which meets the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 weight percent range.
27. Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 6. That is, the lithium salt of Kim/Šantić is, inter alia LiN(SO2F)2 [Kim, 0166, 0194] (see MPEP 2131.02(II)).
28. Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 7. That is, the concentration of the lithium salt of Kim/Šantić is 1.0 M [Kim, 0194]. The aforesaid lithium salt concentration meets the limitations of the claimed lithium salt concentration range, about 0.3-1.2 moles per liter.
29. Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 8. That is, the ionic liquid of the IL catholyte of Kim/Šantić is, inter alia N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [Kim, 0128-0132, 0143], of which reads on the claimed compound represented by Formula 16 and includes an anion. See MPEP 2131.02(II) and MPEP 2144.07.
30. Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 9. That is, the ionic liquid of the IL catholyte of Kim/Šantić is, inter alia N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide [Kim, 0128-0132, 0143], of which reads on the claimed compound represented by Formula 18 and includes an anion. See MPEP 2131.02(II) and MPEP 2144.05.
31. Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 8 above, the anion of the ionic liquid is (FSO2)2N-, of which reads on the corresponding claimed anion species of the positive electrode defined by claim 10.
32. Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 11. That is, the ionic liquid of the IL catholyte of Kim/Šantić is, inter alia N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide) [Kim, 0128-0132, 0143]. See MPEP 2131.02(II) and MPEP 2144.07.
33. Regarding claim 12, Kim/Šantić teaches the positive electrode set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kim discloses the IL catholyte free of an oligomer, a polymer, or a combination thereof, having a molecular weight of 1,000 Daltons or greater [0128-0132, 0142-0143], furthermore, the positive electrode of Kim/Šantić does not include an oligomer, polymer, or combination thereof, wherein the gelator (S,S-bis(phenylalaninol)oxamide of Kim/Šantić is not a polymer or an oligomer, and exhibits a molecular weight of less than 1,000 Da, thereby reading on “wherein the catholyte is free of an oligomer, a polymer, or a combination thereof, having a molecular weight of 1,000 Daltons or greater.”
34. Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference. In view thereof, Kim further discloses that the solid lithium battery – in addition to the positive electrode of Kim/Šantić as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 – includes a negative electrode that is, inter alia a lithium metal negative electrode (a negative electrode) [element 10 of FIG. 1, element 20 of FIG. 8, 0053, 0112-0113,] and a solid electrolyte (electrolyte layer) [element 12] between the positive and negative electrode [0052-0053, FIG. 1].
35. Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 13 above, Kim discloses that the solid electrolyte [element 12, 0052-0053, FIG. 1] may be a liquid-impermeable dense layer [0095] (wherein the electrolyte layer is liquid impermeable).
36. Regarding claim 15, in view of the rejection of claim 13 above, Kim discloses that the solid electrolyte [element 12, 0052-0053, FIG. 1] may be a crystalline lithium-lanthanum-zirconium oxide (“LLZO”)-based film, which is, inter alia Li7La3Zr2O12 (oxide-based solid electrolyte) [0070, 0077], with a thickness of the solid electrolyte between about 30-60 μm [0097] (a thickness of the electrolyte layer is 100 micrometers or less).
37. Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 13 above, Kim discloses a thickness of the negative electrode [combined elements 20 and 23 of FIG. 8, 0124] is smaller than a thickness of the positive electrode [combined elements 21 and 24 of FIG. 8, 0124].
38. Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 13 above, Kim discloses an interlayer (interlayer) between the lithium metal negative electrode and the solid electrolyte [element 22b, 0117, 0124-0125, FIG. 8] wherein the thickness of the interlayer is smaller than the thickness of the solid electrolyte, as well as, is smaller than the thickness of the positive electrode [0124, FIG. 8] (see MPEP 2131.02(II)).
39. Regarding claim 18, in view of the rejection of claim 17 above, Kim discloses the interlayer [element 22b, 0117, 0124-0125, FIG. 8] may comprise, inter alia aluminum oxide (a metal-based material) [0118] (see MPEP 2131.02(II)), and a poly(ethylene oxide) film (a binder) [0119-0120].
Pertinent Prior Art
40. The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
41.
I. Gupta et al., Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2019, 166 (3): A5187-A5192, DOI: 10.1149/2.0331903jes; teaches an ionic liquid comprising trihexyltetradeylphosphonium [paragraph before experimental section].
II. Makarević et al., Chem. Eur. J. 2003, 9: 5567 – 5580, DOI: 10.1002/chem.200304573; teaches bis(amino alcohol)oxalamide gelators with temperature influence [H NMR investigations section, FIG. 2].
III. Colak et al., Turk. J. Chem., 2017, 41 (5): 658-671, DOI:10.3906/kim-1701-76; teaches bis(aminoalcohol)oxalamide organogelators and the evaluation of gelation efficiency in various organic fluids and organogelators exhibiting a liquid state at temperatures 80 °C and above [gelators 1-7 scheme, FIG. 8].
IV. Roev et al., US 2022/0336817 A1; teaches a solid lithium battery composition including an interlayer [0042-0046].
V. Kim et al., US 2022/0416235 A1; teaches an all-solid secondary battery composition [abstract, 0009-0010].
VI. Hwang et al., US 2023/0163272 A1; teaches an anode interlayer for an all-solid secondary battery [abstract, 0009-0011].
VII. Chang et al., US 2022/0158226 A1; teaches an all-solid secondary battery composition including a conformal coating layer as an interlayer [abstract, 0009-0010].
VIII. Kim et al. US 2023/0009297 A1; teaches an all-solid secondary battery composition [abstract, 0022].
IX. Xing, US 2019/0027724 A1; teaches a composition of a solid-state battery [abstract, 0019].
Conclusion
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
43. 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.
44. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
45. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782