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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are currently under examination. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claim 1 is amended.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. (US 4,076, 794) with respect to claims 1-6 and 9-20 is withdrawn. Among them, claim 17 has been cancelled.
New ground of rejections are set forth below.
New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recite the limitation of “at a temperature of less than 150 0C”. It does not further limit its independent claim 1, wherein the reaction temperature not greater than 50 0C.
Applicant may cancel the claim 11, amend the claim 11 to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriated corrections are required.
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 1-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. (US 4,076, 794), and in view of Gregory et al. (ACS Materials Lett., 3, 2021, 652-657, published on April 20, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. teach a method of reacting Al halide such as AlCl3 or alternative AlI3 (the instant claimed aluminum reactant) with lithium iodide (the instant claimed reactant M) in a molar ratio of 1:1 in aromatic solvent such as toluene at about 60 0C to produce lithium tetrahaloaluminate such as LiAlCl3I or alternative LiAlI4 which corresponds to the instant a compound of formula (I), wherein M+ as being Li+, X as being Cl or I, q=1, after filtration and crystallization, the slurry is filtered and filtrate is evaporated to recover additional product (col. 2, line 50-col.4,line 25, Example II, and claims 1-11).
The filtration and evaporation for removing solvent are known to performance under reduced pressure, as they allow to remove solvent at lower temperatures, which is especially important for heat-sensitive compounds such as LiAlI4.
Although Smith et al. do not specifically disclose the reaction temperature ≤50 0C as per applicant claim 1, Gregory et al. teach a method for synthesis lithium tetrahaloaluminate such as LiAlI4 at room temperature (pages 652-653).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to synthesize lithium tetrahaloaluminate such as LiAlI4 at room temp taught by Gregory et al. in the process taught by Smith et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, motivated by the fact that the low reaction temperature is critical for synthesizing the low melting point iodide due to the thermal stability of LiAlI4 (pages 653-655).
Since both of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. teach methods of making lithium tetrahaloaluminate including LiAlI4, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed above, the combined references of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. teach Li+ and q is 1 as the instant claims.
Regarding claims 4-5, as discussed above, the combined references of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. teach X as being dodo and LiAlI4 as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the combined references of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. teach reacting AlCl3 with Li-I (X=Cl or I, q=1) as the instant claims.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12-16, as discussed above, Smith et al. teach reacting AlI3 with Li-I (X= I, q=1) in a molar ratio of 1:1 at room temperature in toluene and produce LiAlI4 as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, the combined references of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. teach the reaction temperature at room temperature as the instant claim.
Regarding claims 19-20, as discussed above, Smith et al. teach the reaction temperature at about 60 0C, and Gregory et al. teach the reaction temperature at room temperature.
The temperature at which a chemical reaction is performed is considered to be a result effective variable because, it is well known in the art that reaction temperature controls reaction kinetics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to be able to adjust the temperature to arrive at an optimal temperature or range of the instant claimed temperatures, given the general conditions taught by Smith et al and Gregory et al.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed, Smith et al. teach a method of reacting AlI3 (the instant claimed aluminum reactant) with lithium iodide (the instant claimed reactant M) to produce LiAlI4 as the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Smith et al. and Gregory et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Laneman et al. (US 2021/0331930).
Regarding claims 7-8, as discussed above, Smith et al. teach reacting the reactants AlCl3 or alternative AlI3 and Li-I to produce LiAlCl3I or LiAlI4 (Example II, and col. 3, line 43).
Although neither Smith et al. nor Gregory et al. specifically discloses reacting Al0, I2 to form AlI3 in situ, which further reacts with Li-I to produce LiAlCl3I or LiAlI4 as per applicant claims 7-8, Laneman et al. teach a method of form AlI3 in situ via a reaction of Al0 and I2 in benzene ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use AlI3 generated in situ from reacting Al0 and I2 taught by Laneman et al. in the process taught by the combined references of Gregory et al. and Smith et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 7-8 as an alternative source of AlI3, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights