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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on May 3, 2024 has been considered.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-12 and 17-19, drawn to a method of predicting properties of electrolytes, classified in G16C20/30
Group II, claim(s) 13-16, drawn to a system for predicting properties of electrolytes, classified in G06F30/20.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a processor and memory, the technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Ide (US 2020/0203761) and Kim et al. (US 2020/0282860). Ide discloses a processor/memory (machine learning) for predicting ion conductivity of a solid electrolyte (paragraph 0058, lines 1-2). Kim et al. discloses a processor/memory (processor/memory of intelligent sensor) for predicting an electrolyte temperature (paragraph 0003, lines 4-6).
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Cody Madison on July 29, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: User Interface 10 (Fig. 2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 and 17-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17, “predicting properties of electrolytes” (preamble) does not have support in the claim body. Examiner interprets the preamble to recite -- predicting ionic conductivity of said liquid electrolyte mixture --.
Examiner’s note: “predicting ionic conductivity of said liquid electrolyte mixture” is not based on “performing molecular dynamic simulations of said liquid electrolyte mixture”, “obtaining simulated molecular dynamic trajectories from said molecular dynamic simulations”, “performing molecular structure analysis of said simulated molecular dynamic trajectories”.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea of “validating at least one molecular force field” (metal process), “preparing a liquid electrolyte mixture corresponding to said at least one molecular force field” (determination, mental process); “performing molecular dynamic simulations of said liquid electrolyte mixture” (mathematical concept), “obtaining simulated molecular dynamic trajectories from said molecular dynamic simulations” (mathematical concept), “performing molecular structure analysis of said simulated molecular dynamic trajectories” (mental process), “predicting ionic conductivity of said liquid electrolyte mixture” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/medium) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 8 are directed to conventional activities.
Claims 2-6, 9-12, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 17 and their respective dependent claims 2-12, 18, and 19 are patent ineligible u7nder 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (“Molecular simulations of electrolyte structure and dynamics in lithium-sulfur battery solvents”).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Park et al. discloses a method of predicting properties of electrolytes (predictions of electrolyte structure, Abstract, lines 11-12), comprising:
validating at least one molecular force field (determining applicable force fields, page 72, left column, lines 9-10; verifying the quality of the implemented force field, page 76, left column, lines 22-23);
preparing a liquid electrolyte mixture corresponding to said at least one molecular force field (page 72, left column, lines 2-3; Force field, section 2.2);
performing molecular dynamic simulations of said liquid electrolyte mixture (page 76, left column, lines 14-23);
obtaining simulated molecular dynamic trajectories from said molecular dynamic simulations (X results obtained MD simulations, Fig. 3; MD simulations reproduce experimental values, page 76, left column, lines 21-22);
performing molecular structure analysis of said simulated molecular dynamic trajectories (MD simulations reproduce experimental values verifying the quality of force field, page 76, left column, lines 21-23); and
predicting ionic conductivity of said liquid electrolyte mixture (calculation of ionic conductivities, section 2.4.4, conductivity in electrolyte solution, section 4.4; left column, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 17, Park et al. further discloses a computer program product for predicting properties of electrolytes, comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium including program instruction that, executed by at least one processor (computer simulation and analysis, page 71, section 2).
Regarding claim 9, Park et al. discloses performing conductance formalism of data obtained from said molecular structure analysis (MD conductivities, page 76, left column, lines 36-37); and predicting conductance of said liquid electrolyte mixture (page 73, section 2.4.4, equation 8).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. in view of Guo et al. (CN 111018710).
Park et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Park et al. discloses mixing at least two solvents to form a mixture (page 71, left column, lines 5-10); equilibrating said mixture to form equilibrated solvents (page 71, right column, lines 23-26).
Park et al. does not disclose adding metal cations and anions to said equilibrated solvents.
Guo et al. discloses adding metal cations and anions to said equilibrated solvents (Preferred Condition, lines 2-5) for providing a catalyst for preparing a chemical substance (Novelty, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Park et al. with adding metal cations and anions to said equilibrated solvents as disclosed by Guo et al. for the purpose of providing a catalyst for preparing a chemical substance.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al. further discloses performing additional equilibration (occurrence of many different equilibrium conformers (page 72, left column, lines 14-15).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. in view of Ravikumar et al. (US 2020/0321080).
Regarding claims 10-12, Park et al. does not disclose said molecular dynamic simulations of said liquid electrolyte mixture are performed for at least 10 nano seconds for a strong electrolyte, at least 20 nano seconds for a weak electrolyte, at least 50 nanoseconds, respectively.
Ravikumar et al. discloses various simulation algorithms enable one to conduct virtual experiments to evaluate various properties by simulating the system of interest at various length and time scales (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Park et al. with performing simulations of said liquid electrolyte mixture for at least 10 nano seconds for a strong electrolyte, at least 20 nano seconds for a weak electrolyte, at least 50 nanoseconds, respectively, since Ravikkumar et al. suggested that the simulations may be performed at various length and time scales. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Prior Art Note
Claims 2-6, 18, and 19 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method of predicting properties of electrolytes comprising predicting ion pairing thermodynamic quantities of said liquid electrolyte mixture (claims 2, 18) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carredano (US 2019/0042704) discloses a method of predicting properties of electrolytes (Abstract, lines 1-5) comprising performing molecular analysis (Abstract, lines 7-9), predicting ionic conductivity of said liquid electrolyte mixture (Abstract, lines 1-5).
Ravikumar et al. (US 2020/0321080) discloses predicting properties of an electrolyte mixture (Abstract, lines 9-12). Ravikumar et al. further discloses separation between various pairs of ions in the electrolyte is compared with a pre-defined or dynamically obtained cut-off distance to identify salt structure interactions ranging from solvent separated ion-pairs to aggregates that may lead to long chains (paragraph 0125, lines 11-15). Ravikumar et al. does not disclose predicting ion pairing thermodynamic quantities of said liquid electrolyte mixture.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights