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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue (US 2017/0018822) in view of Lim et al. (US 2005/0064294).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, Nozue discloses in Fig 1, a non-aqueous electrolytic solution ([0013]) comprising: a metal organic framework ([0045]) comprising an organic molecule ([0045]), and a metal atom comprising zinc ([0045]).
Nozue does not explicitly disclose the metal organic framework has a ratio of a specific surface area to a pore volume of 0.55 – 0.71 A-1 or 0.65 – 0.71 A-1. While Nozue does not explicitly disclose changing the surface area to pore volume ratio, the change in the surface area to pore volume ratio is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Nozue (see [0047]-[0048]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying surface area and pore size will vary the gas absorption of said metal organic framework. Therefore the gas absorption of said metal organic framework is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the surface area and pore size of said metal organic framework. For that reason, the surface area and pore size, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the surface area and pore size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface area and pore size in the electrolytic solution of Nozue to obtain the desired gas absorption of said metal organic framework (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Nozue also does not explicitly disclose an azole-based organic molecule, including 4-nitroimidazole.
Lim et al. discloses a lithium battery (Abstract) including 4-nitroimidazole in an electrolyte ([0025]-[0026]), enhancing battery safety ([0025]-[0026]).
Lim et al. and Nozue are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the 4-nitroimidazole disclosed by Lim et al. into the electrolyte of Nozue to enhance overall battery safety.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Takada et al. does not explicitly disclose changing the pore volume (0.20 – 0.50 cm3/g or 0.28 – 0.35 cm3/g), the change in the pore volume is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Nozue (see [0047]-[0048]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying pore volume will vary the gas absorption of said metal organic framework. Therefore the gas absorption of said metal organic framework is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the pore volume of said metal organic framework. For that reason, the pore volume, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the pore volume cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pore volume in the electrolytic solution of Nozue to obtain the desired gas absorption of said metal organic framework (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the specific surface area is 100 – 3000 m2/g ([0047]), which overlaps that of the instant claims (1700 – 2500 m2/g and 1950 – 2300 m2/g, respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal atom is boron and/or zinc ([0045]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the non-aqueous electrolytic solution comprises an organic solvent ([0038]) and an electrolyte salt ([0038]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the organic solvent comprises a carbonate ([0038]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue (US 2017/0018822) in view of Lim et al. (US 2005/0064294) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0064773).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nozue discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the non-aqueous electrolytic solution contains the metal organic framework in an amount of 0.1 – 50% weight with respect to a total amount of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution.
Choi et al. discloses in Figs 1-14, a lithium battery ([0035]) including a non-aqueous electrolyte solution ([0121]) containing an additive comprising a metal-organic framework in an amount of 0.1 – 50% weight of the electrolyte solution ([0121]). This configuration enhances electrolyte and battery performance ([0121]-[0123]).
Choi et al. and Nozue are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery electrolyte solutions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the metal-organic framework of Nozue at the amount disclosed by Choi et al. to enhance electrolyte and battery performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cho et al. (US 2020/00259168) discloses a secondary battery (Abstract) including a metal organic framework having a specific surface area of 2000 – 3500 m2/g ([0013]).
Toia et al. (US 2010/0173192) discloses in Figs 1-6, a secondary lithium battery ([0035]) including an electrolyte additive comprising a metal organic framework comprising various metal atoms therein ([0037]).
Lee et al. (US 2012/0077092) discloses in Figs 1-7, a lithium battery ([0003]) including an electrolyte additive comprising a metal organic framework comprising metal atoms ([0013]-[0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights