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. Note Regarding Paragraph Numbers The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2024/0170727 A1. 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. Claims 1–10 are 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 1 recites the limitation “soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid in a nitrogen atmosphere to remove the oxide layer, such that the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal”. However, it is not clear from this limitation whether the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal prior to the soaking step which is affected in some way by the soaking step, or if it is the soaking step which results in a part of aluminum metal being exposed. For the purposes of this Office Action, the second interpretation is used based on support from e.g. [0027] of the Instant Specification. Claims 2–10 are rejected as they depend upon Claim 1 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above. Further, Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte is greater than or equal to 10%” . However, it is unclear what the meaning of contact area is when it is expressed as a percentage. For instance, does a contact area of 10% mean that 10% of the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte, or that exposed aluminum metal accounts for 10% of the contact area of the aluminum electrode sheet with the electrolyte? [0031] of the Instant Specification appears to suggest that the second interpretation above is closest . Thus for the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation of Claim 4 has been interpreted as “wherein the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte accounts for greater than or equal to 10% of the entire contact area of the aluminum electrode sheet with the electrolyte”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 depends on Claim 4 and recites a similar limitation. Claim 5 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as above and has been interpreted in the same way for the purposes of this Office Action. 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 5 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. Specifically, Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte is less than or equal to 100%”. Because it does not appear that the contact area in Claim 5 could ever be higher than 100%, Claim 5 does not appear to further limit Claim 4 , upon which it depends. 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 § 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. 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. Claim s 1 , 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2019/0006701 A1) in view of Freydina et al. (US 2015/0322582 A1) as evidenced by Wang et al. (Wang, H.; Gu, S.; Bai, Y.; Chen, S.; Wu, F.; Wu, C. High-Voltage and Noncorrosive Ionic Liquid Electrolyte Used in Rechargeable Aluminum Battery, ACS Applied Mater ials and Interfaces , vol. 8, p. 27444–27448, published 3 October 2016). Regarding Claim 1 , Dai discloses a manufacturing method (see method of manufacturing a metal-ion battery, [0022]) of an aluminum battery (see metal-ion battery 100, [0022], [0060], FIG. 1, which is an aluminum-ion battery, [0062]), comprising : providing an aluminum electrode sheet (see aluminum, [0022], [0062]) having an oxide layer (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that a typical aluminum sheet has a surface oxide layer, as evidenced by [0074]) ; using the aluminum electrode sheet as a negative electrode (see anode 104, [0022], [0060], FIG. 1) of the aluminum battery (100); and providing electrolyte (see electrolyte 108, [0022], [0061], FIG. 1) . Dai does not disclose the following steps: soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid in a nitrogen atmosphere to remove the oxide layer, such that the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal , removing the aluminum electrode sheet from the first ionic liquid before the step of using the aluminum electrode sheet as a negative electrode of the aluminum battery, or wherein the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte after the electrolyte has been provided. Freydina teaches a metal substrate activation process ([0049], FIG. 5 steps 502 and 504), comprising: providing an aluminum electrode sheet (see metal substrate 102, [0023], FIG. 1A , which can be aluminum, [0023] ) having an oxide layer (see metal oxide layer 104, [0023], FIG. 1A); soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in an ionic liquid to remove the oxide layer ([0026], FIG. 5 step 502) , such that the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal ([0026]); and removing the aluminum electrode sheet from the first ionic liquid ([0026], FIG. 5 step 504). Note that Freydina is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of aluminum surface modification. It is furthermore well - known in the field of aluminum -based batteries that partial removal of the oxide film to expose active aluminum metal (the active material at the anode) is necessary to achieve efficient electrochemical reaction at the anode, as evidenced by Wang (p. 27446–27447 ¶ “It is worth…”). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Dai such that it further comprises the steps of: soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid to remove the oxide layer, such that the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal and removing the aluminum electrode sheet from the first ionic liquid before the step of using the aluminum electrode sheet as a negative electrode of the aluminum battery, as taught by Freydina, for the purpose of ensuring that efficient electrochemical reaction can occur at the anode. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such a modification to the manufacturing method of Dai will necessarily result in the exposed part of aluminum metal being in direct contact with the electrolyte after the electrolyte is provided. Modified Dai does not explicitly disclose that the step of soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid occurs in a nitrogen atmosphere. However, Freydina teaches ([0024], [0027]) that re-oxidation can quickly occur upon exposure of the treated aluminum electrode sheet to air. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the most straightforward manner of avoiding air exposure in the laboratory during steps of a process is to perform the steps under inert atmosphere, for instance under nitrogen atmosphere. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of modified Dai such that the step of soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid to remove the oxide layer is performed in a nitrogen atmosphere, for the purpose of avoiding exposure to air which would result in re-oxidation of the treated aluminum sheet. Regarding Claim 6 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Claim 1 . Modified Dai further discloses wherein the first ionic liquid comprises aluminum halide (see AlCl 3 , Freydina [0033]) and imidazolium chloride (see 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium (EMIM) chloride, Freydina [0033]). Regarding Claim 9 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Claim 1 . Dai further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a second ionic liquid (see ionic liquid, [0063]). Regarding Claim 10 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Claim 9 . Dai further discloses wherein the second ionic liquid comprises aluminum halide ( see aluminum halide, [0026], [0063]) and imidazolium chloride (see organic compound, [0026], [0063], which can be e.g. 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride, [0027] ). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2019/0006701 A1) in view of Freydina et al. (US 2015/0322582 A1) as evidenced by Wang et al. (Wang, H.; Gu, S.; Bai, Y.; Chen, S.; Wu, F.; Wu, C. High-Voltage and Noncorrosive Ionic Liquid Electrolyte Used in Rechargeable Aluminum Battery, ACS Applied Mater ials and Interfaces , vol. 8, p. 27444–27448, published 3 October 2016) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Wu et al. (Wu, F.; Zhu, N.; Bai, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wu, C. An interface-reconstruction effect for rechargeable aluminum battery in ionic liquid electrolyte to enhance cycling performances, Green Energy and Environment , vol. 3, p. 71–77, published 6 December 2017) , Beard (US 2007/0243649 A1) , and Fahimi et al. (US 2011/0060538 A1). Regarding Claim 2 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery according to Claim 1 . While modified Dai does not explicitly disclose wherein soak time is positively correlated with discharge capacity of the aluminum battery , this will inherently happen in the manufacturing method of modified Dai, because the soak time of an aluminum electrode sheet in an ionic liquid increases the amount of exposed active aluminum metal present in the aluminum electrode sheet, as evidenced by Wu (p. 72–73 ¶ “The facile aluminum…” ; note that Wu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of aluminum-based batteries), and because it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that the surface area of active material in an electrode available for electrolyte contact is positively correlated with the capacity of the battery, as evidenced by Beard ([0024]) and Fahimi ([0037]). Claim s 3 –5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2019/0006701 A1) in view of Freydina et al. (US 2015/0322582 A1) as evidenced by Wang et al. (Wang, H.; Gu, S.; Bai, Y.; Chen, S.; Wu, F.; Wu, C. High-Voltage and Noncorrosive Ionic Liquid Electrolyte Used in Rechargeable Aluminum Battery, ACS Applied Mater ials and Interfaces , vol. 8, p. 27444–27448, published 3 October 2016) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Beard (US 2007/0243649 A1) and Fahimi et al. (US 2011/0060538 A1). Regarding Claim 3 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery according to Claim 1 . While modified Dai does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte is positively correlated with battery capacity of the aluminum battery , this will inherently happen in the manufacturing method of modified Dai, because it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that the surface area of active material in an electrode available for electrolyte contact is positively correlated with the capacity of the battery, as evidenced by Beard ([0024]) and Fahimi ([0037]). Regarding Claims 4 and 5 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Claim 3 , but does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte accounts for greater than or equal to 10% ( Claim 4 ) and less than or equal to 100% ( Claim 5 ) of the entire contact area of the aluminum electrode sheet with the electrolyte . However, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that the surface area of active material in an electrode available for electrolyte contact is positively correlated with the capacity of the battery, as evidenced by Beard ([0024]) and Fahimi ([0037]). A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the amount of contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the capacity of the battery, as evidenced by Beard and Fahimi, thus making the amount of contact area a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of modified Dai such that the contact area where the exposed part of aluminum metal is in direct contact with the electrolyte accounts for greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 100% of the entire contact area of the aluminum electrode sheet with the electrolyte via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable capacity of the battery. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2019/0006701 A1) in view of Freydina et al. (US 2015/0322582 A1) as evidenced by Wang et al. (Wang, H.; Gu, S.; Bai, Y.; Chen, S.; Wu, F.; Wu, C. High-Voltage and Noncorrosive Ionic Liquid Electrolyte Used in Rechargeable Aluminum Battery, ACS Applied Mater ials and Interfaces , vol. 8, p. 27444–27448, published 3 October 2016) as applied to Claim 1 above , in further view of Welch et al. (Welch, C.; Mohammed, A.K.; Hosmane, N.S.; Zhang, L.; Cho, K.T. Effect of Aluminum Oxide on the Performance of Ionic Liquid-Based Aluminum–Air Battery, Energies , vol. 13, article 2014, published 17 April 2020). Regarding Claims 7 and 8 , modified Dai discloses the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of Claim 6 , but does not explicitly disclose wherein a usage amount of the aluminum halide is greater than or equal to a usage amount of imidazolium chloride ( Claim 7 ) nor wherein a molar ratio of the aluminum halide to the imidazolium chloride is between 1 and 2 ( Claim 8 ). Welch teaches a manufacturing method of an aluminum battery anode comprising: providing an aluminum electrode sheet having an oxide layer (see aluminum samples, p. 3 ¶ “An ionic liquid…”); soaking the aluminum electrode sheet in a first ionic liquid to remove the oxide layer, such that the aluminum electrode sheet has an exposed part of aluminum metal (p. 3 ¶ “An ionic liquid…”, p. 11 ¶ “The effect of…” and “Effect of those…”); and removing the aluminum electrode sheet from the first ionic liquid and using the aluminum electrode sheet as a negative electrode of the aluminum battery (p. 3 ¶ “An ionic liquid…” discloses that the treated aluminum electrode sheets were utilized in cell tests). Welch teaches (p. 11 ¶ “The effect of…” and “Effect of those…” and FIG. 2 and 3) that a molar ratio of the aluminum halide to the imidazolium chloride of 1.5 provides severe breakdown of the oxide film and increased area of active aluminum metal , but avoids deleterious corrosive effects caused by Cl − ion observed at higher ratios. Welch is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of aluminum-based batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of an aluminum battery of modified Dai such that a molar ratio of the aluminum halide to the imidazolium chloride is 1.5, for the purpose of providing severe breakdown of the oxide film and increased area of active aluminum metal while avoiding deleterious corrosive effects caused by Cl − ion observed at higher ratios. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JULIA MARIE FEHR , Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0860 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /J.M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725