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 .
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Xiao (Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903937)
Regarding Claim 1, Xiao et al. teaches a molecular crystal, comprising a sulfolane and a lithium salt represented by chemical formula 1 and a molar ratio of the sulfolane to the lithium salt of 2 to 1 [Lithium 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3-hexafluoropropane-1, 3-disulfonimide (LiHFDF), abstract].
Regarding Claim 2, Ma et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Ma et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Ma. et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of Ma et al. meeting the limitation of “having a hexagonal structure”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Ma et al. teaches wherein the molar ratio of the sulfolane to the lithium salt is 2.0 or more and less than 3.0 [Abstract]
Regarding Claim 4, Ma et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Ma et al. teaches electrochemical device, comprising: an ionic conductor, wherein the ionic conductor has a molecular crystal according to claim 1 [Conclusion, page 7 of 8].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903937) in view of Badding (US Pub No. 2024/0097114)
Regarding Claim 5, Xiao et al. teaches a molecular crystal, comprising a sulfolane and a lithium salt represented by chemical formula 1 and a molar ratio of the sulfolane to the lithium salt of 2 to 1 [Lithium 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3-hexafluoropropane-1, 3-disulfonimide (LiHFDF), abstract].
Ma et al. is silent on a method for producing a molecular crystal, the method comprising:
mixing sulfolane and a lithium salt represented by the following chemical formula (1)
to obtain a solution containing the sulfolane and the lithium salt and having a molar ratio of the
sulfolane to the lithium salt of 2.0 or more and 3.1 or less, and cooling the solution to obtain the molecular crystal.
Badding et al. teaches a lithium salt that was mixed with sulfolane with a 3:1 ratio of sulfolane to LiTFSI [Table 1, 0166-0167 and table 2, 0172-0173, see example 5 and example 9, 0172-0173], the solution was later cooled to room temperature [0171].
Since Xiao et al. teaches the use of LiHFDF and LiTFSI for a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the LiTFSI in the method of Badding et al. with the LiHFDF et al. of Ma et al. in order to provide improved electrochemical improvements for the battery [Ma: Conclusion, page 7 of 8].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights