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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 3, and 5–9 are pending.
Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0405285 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, 3, and 5–9 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 "a molar ratio of the salt to the solidifying agent is between 0.1:1 and 1:5." It is unclear if each mole amount of the recited ratio can be varied independently. For example, does the mole amount of the salt varies from 0.1 to 1 while the mole amount of the solidifying agent varies from 1 to 5 independent of each other, where the upper limit would be 1:1 and the lower limit would be 0.1:5 (i.e., 1:50)? Or the upper limit is 1:5 and the lower limit is 0.1:1 (i.e., 1:10)? Therefore, the numerical range of a molar ratio of the salt to the solidifying agent is unclear.
Claims 3 and 5 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3 and 5 are also 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 6 recites the limitation "the ionically conducting electrolyte of claim 1" and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is also 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.
Claims 7–9 are directly dependent from claim 6 and include all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, clams 7–9 are also 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabano et al. (EP 0252494 A1, hereinafter Gabano).
Regarding claim 1, Gabano discloses an ionically conducting electrolyte comprising:
a mixture of a liquefied gas solvent, a solidifying agent, and a salt (see composition, [0023]);
wherein the liquefied gas solvent comprises a vapor pressure above 100 kPa at 293.15K (see SO2 liquid, [0024]);
the solidifying agent is a solid, liquid, or a gas at 100 kPa and 293.15K (see dimethylsulfone, [0025]);
the salt is soluble in the ionically conducting electrolyte at 100 kPa and 293.15K, thereby maintaining the ionically conducting electrolyte in a liquid phase (see lithium chloride, [0026]); and
the salt and solidifying agent create a solid material at 100 kPa and 293.15K when the liquified gas solvent is vented from the mixture at 100 kPa and 293.15K (see composition, [0023]);
wherein the solidifying agent is selected from the group consisting of: diphenyl sulfone, bis(4-fluorophenyl) sulfone, dimethyl sulfone, ethyl methyl sulfone, butadiene sulfone, 1,3-propanesultone, 1-propene-1,3-sultone, 2-bornanone, 2,3-borananedione, 2-norbornanone, or any combination thereof (see dimethylsulfone, [0025]);
a molar ratio of the salt to the solidifying agent is between 0.1:1 and 1:5 (see lithium chloride, [0026]; see dimethylsulfone, [0025]); and
wherein the solidifying agent is coordinated to a cation of the salt in the solid material (see composition, [0023]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Gabano discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an ionically conducting electrolyte:
wherein the liquefied gas solvent is selected from a group consisting of: dimethyl ether, methyl ethyl ether, fluoromethane, difluoromethane, trifluoromethane, fluoroethane, tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane, 1,1-difluoroethane, 1,2-difluoroethane, 1,1,1-trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane, chloromethane, chloroethane, thionyl fluoride, thionyl chloride fluoride, phosphoryl fluoride, phosphoryl chloride fluoride, sulfuryl fluoride, sulfuryl chloride fluoride, 1-fluoropropane, 2-fluoropropane, 1,1-difluoropropane, 1,2-difluoropropane, 2,2-fluoropropane, 1,1,1-trifluoropropane, 1,1,2-trifluoropropane, 1,2,2-trifluoropropane, fluoroethylene, cis-1,2-fluoroethylene, 1,1-fluoroethylene, 1-fluoropropylene, 2-propylene, chlorine, chloromethane, bromine, iodine, ammonia, methyl amine, dimethyl amine, trimethyl amine, molecular oxygen, molecular nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methyl vinyl ether, difluoro ethylene, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon disulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride or any combination thereof (see SO2 liquid, [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Gabano discloses an electrochemical device comprising an ionically conducting electrolyte; a positive first electrode and a negative second electrode in contact with the ionically conducting electrolyte (see elements D, [0023]); and a housing enclosing the ionically conducting electrolyte, the first electrode and second electrode (see elements D, [0023]), the ionically conducting electrolyte comprising:
a mixture of a liquefied gas solvent, a solidifying agent, and a salt (see composition, [0023]);
wherein the liquefied gas solvent comprises a vapor pressure above 100 kPa at 293.15K (see SO2 liquid, [0024]);
the solidifying agent is a solid, liquid, or a gas at 100 kPa and 293.15K (see dimethylsulfone, [0025]);
the salt is soluble in the ionically conducting electrolyte at 100 kPa and 293.15K, thereby maintaining the ionically conducting electrolyte in a liquid phase (see lithium chloride, [0026]); and
the salt and solidifying agent create a solid material at 100 kPa and 293.15K when the liquified gas solvent is vented from the mixture at 100 kPa and 293.15K (see composition, [0023]);
wherein the solidifying agent is selected from the group consisting of: diphenyl sulfone, bis(4-fluorophenyl) sulfone, dimethyl sulfone, ethyl methyl sulfone, butadiene sulfone, 1,3-propanesultone, 1-propene-1,3-sultone, 2-bornanone, 2,3-borananedione, 2-norbornanone, or any combination thereof (see dimethylsulfone, [0025]);
a molar ratio of the salt to the solidifying agent is between 0.1:1 and 1:5 (see lithium chloride, [0026]; see dimethylsulfone, [0025]); and
wherein the solidifying agent is coordinated to a cation of the salt in the solid material (see composition, [0023]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Gabano discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device:
wherein one of the electrodes is selected from a group consisting of: graphite, carbon, activated carbon, vanadium oxide, and lithium titanate, titanium disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt phosphate, lithium nickel phosphate, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel manganese oxide, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (see porous carbon cathode, [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Gabano discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device:
wherein one of the electrodes is selected from a group consisting of: lithium metal, sodium metal, calcium metal, magnesium metal, aluminum metal, and zinc metal (see strip of lithium, [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Gabano discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device:
wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium battery (see lithium, [0023]).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0375156 A1, hereinafter Zhamu).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu discloses an ionically conducting electrolyte comprising:
a mixture of a liquefied gas solvent, a solidifying agent, and a salt (TABLE 1, [0154]);
wherein the liquefied gas solvent comprises a vapor pressure above 100 kPa at 293.15K (see fluoropropane, [0154]);
the solidifying agent is a solid, liquid, or a gas at 100 kPa and 293.15K (see 1,3-propane sultone, [0154]);
the salt is soluble in the ionically conducting electrolyte at 100 kPa and 293.15K, thereby maintaining the ionically conducting electrolyte in a liquid phase (see LiBF4, [0154]); and
the salt and solidifying agent create a solid material at 100 kPa and 293.15K when the liquified gas solvent is vented from the mixture at 100 kPa and 293.15K (TABLE 1, [0154]);
wherein the solidifying agent is selected from the group consisting of: diphenyl sulfone, bis(4-fluorophenyl) sulfone, dimethyl sulfone, ethyl methyl sulfone, butadiene sulfone, 1,3-propanesultone, 1-propene-1,3-sultone, 2-bornanone, 2,3-borananedione, 2-norbornanone, or any combination thereof (see 1,3-propane sultone, [0154]);
a molar ratio of the salt to the solidifying agent is between 0.1:1 and 1:5 (TABLE 1, [0154]); and
wherein the solidifying agent is coordinated to a cation of the salt in the solid material (TABLE 1, [0154]).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an electrochemical device:
wherein the salt is selected from a group consisting of: LiTFSI, LiFSI, LiPF6, LiBOB, LiBF4, LiDFOB, LiNO3, or any combination thereof (see LiBF4, [0154]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5–9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725