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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2015/0349380) in view of Yoshimura (US 2010/0316908).
Regarding claims 15 and 44, Manthiram discloses a lithium sulfur battery ([0076]-[0094]) comprising:
(a) an electrolyte composition ([0084]-[0086])
(b) an anode comprising lithium metal ([0077]); and
(c) a sulfur-containing cathode ([0079]).
The electrolyte composition comprises an active salt, such as lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide ([0086]), a liquid electrolyte solvent that includes one or more organic solvents and LINO3 ([0015], [0105] & [0107]). Suitable organic solvents include, without limitation, acyclic ethers such as trimethoxymethane, (which is also known as trimethyl orthoformate) and dimethoxyethane (DME, [0085]) and cyclic ethers such as dioxolanes. Manthiram further discloses the solvent combination of 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3- dioxolane (DOL; [0082], [0107], [0114], [0130], and [0144]). Manthiram teaches lithium sulfur batteries (example 1) that have electrolyte solvents comprising DME and DOL in a 50/50 vol. % mixture [107].
Manthiram does not directly disclose a battery having an electrolyte solvent that comprises 25 vol. % to 75 vol. % of triethylorthoformate and 75 vol. % to 25 vol. % of 1,2-dimethoxyethane based on the total volume of the solvent portion.
Yoshimura teaches lithium batteries having an electrolyte including an ionically conductive salt ([0049]) dissolved in nonaqueous electrolyte solvents including triethyl orthoformate (TEO and triethoxymethane), 1,2- dimethoxyethane, (DME), and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL). The nonaqueous solvent may be used singly or in a mixture ([0053]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify the orthoformate of Manthiram with triethyl orthoformate as taught by Yoshimura, in order to create nonaqueous electrolyte with nonaqueous solvent of low-viscosity solvent ([0055]- [0056)). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electrolyte solvent that comprises 25 vol. % to 75 vol. % of triethylorthoformate and 75 vol. % to 25 vol. % of 1,2-dimethoxyethane because Manthiram teaches that suitable organic electrolyte solvents include, without limitation, one or more acyclic ethers such as trimethoxymethane, (also known as trimethyl orthoformate) and dimethoxyethane (DME, [0085]) as organic solvents. (Triethylorthoformate, or triethoxymethane, is an acyclic ether.)
While Manthiram teaches that the liquid electrolyte includes one or more organic solvents ({0085]), Manthiram does not specify an electrolyte solvent that comprises 25 vol. % to 75 vol. % of triethylorthoformate and 75 vol. % to 25 vol. % of 1,2-dimethoxyethane based on the total volume of the solvent portion.
However, Manthiram discloses that multiple solvent compositions can be used and teaches a variety of mixtures (everything from 100-0 to 0-100). Manthiram specifically teaches lithium sulfur batteries (example 1) that have electrolyte solvents comprising DME and DOL in a 50/50 vol. % mixture [107]. Therefore, considering the broad range claimed in the present case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results to provide the co-solvents in the amount claimed including 50:50 vol. %.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2015/0349380) and Yoshimura (US 2010/0316908) and applied, and further in view of Nimon (US 6,225,002).
Regarding claim 45, Manthiram in view of Yoshimura discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 15, but does not teach that the electrolyte composition comprises an organophosphorus flame-retardant compound.
Nimon teaches an electrolyte including a main solvent of an electrolyte solvent mixture that includes a co-solvent (col. 3 Lines 15-25). Nimon further teaches suitable organophosphorus co-solvents such as hexamethyl-phosphoramide (HMPA), tributylphosphate, and trimethylphosphate assist in solvation of lithium ions (Col. 7 Lines 14-22; organophosphorus compound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte composition of Manthiram, to include an organophosphorus compound of Nimon, in order to assist in the solvation of lithium ions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to be commensurate in scope with the unexpected result example, which contains the very specific features new recited in claim 15, and (response 3/20/2025) that the test results described in Examples 1 and 2 show that the inventive orthoformate-containing E5 formulation included in a battery exhibit substantially improved performance.
This argument is not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments on pages 6-7 appear to focus on example E5. Despite the amendment, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicants’ examples have specific materials and combination of materials that are not claimed. The electrolyte is E5 is disclosed in Table 2 to be:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In order to compare the various battery properties, the electrolyte would need to be the only change in the examples. The disclosure (page 22, line 5 to page 23, line 10) notes a Ketjen black/sulfur composite (IKB/S) electrode with CMC and CNF. It is not clear if these are utilized in all examples and specifically E5.
Further, the unexpected results are not clear with respect to example E5 as compared with the other examples. The specification notes that the electrolytes (E3, E4 and E5) based on ethers and orthoformates show much high CE of above 99%, which is much higher than the conventional carbonate electrolyte E1 and the regular ether electrolyte E2. It would be helpful to have a clear record of what applicant regards as the unexpected result and how it is different than electrolytes E3 and E4.
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 Mark Ruthkosky whose telephone number is (571)272-1291. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Gregory Tryder can be reached at 571-270-7365. 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.
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785