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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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 1- 6 and 9- 20 are rejected 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 ). Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. teach a method of reacting Al halide such as AlCl 3 or alternative Al I 3 (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 60 0 C to produce lithium tetrahaloaluminate such as LiAlCl 3 I or alternative LiAlI 4 which corresponds to the instant a compound of formula (I), wherein M + as being Li + , X as being Cl or I , q=1 (col. 2 , line 50 -col.4,line 25 , Example II, and claims 1-11 ) . Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed above, Smith et al. teach Li + and q is 1 as the instant claims. Regarding claims 4-5 , as discussed above, Smith et al. teach X as being dodo and LiAlI 4 as the instant claims. Regarding claim 6 , as discussed above, Smith et al. teach reacting AlCl 3 with LiI (X=Cl or I, q=1) as the instant claims. Regarding claim s 9- 1 6 , as discussed above, Smith et al. teach reacting Al I 3 with LiI (X= I, q=1) in a molar ratio of 1:1 at a temperature from 60 0 C up to the reflux in toluene (boing point 111 0 C) and expect to produce Li AlI 4 as the instant claims. Regarding claims 17-18, although Smith et al. do not specifically disclose the reaction temperature <40 0 C or <50 0 C as per applica nt claims 17-18 , 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. Regarding claims 19-20, as discussed, Smith et al. teach AlI 3 and LiI in a solution (col. 4, line 39) or slurry (Example I) at a temperature of 60 0 C as the instant claims. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. as applied to claim s 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 reactant s AlCl 3 or alternative AlI 3 and LiI to produce LiAlCl 3 I or LiAlI 4 ( Example II, and col. 3, line 43). Although Smith et al. do not specifically disclose reacting Al 0 , I 2 to form AlI 3 in situ, which further reacts with LiI to produce LiAlCl 3 I or LiAlI 4 as per applicant claims 7-8 , Laneman et al. teach a method of form AlI 3 in situ via a reaction of Al 0 and I 2 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 AlI 3 generated in situ from reacting Al 0 and I 2 taught by Laneman et al. in the process taught by Smith et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim s 7-8 as an alternative source of AlI 3 , and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YUN QIAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5834 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally A Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT YUN . QIAN Examiner Art Unit 1732 /YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738