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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 24, 2026:
Claims 4-5 and 7 are pending.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed July 30, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 4-5 and 7 based upon US 2017/0317352 (Lee et al.) in view of US 2018/0062207 (Matsuoka et al.) as set forth in the last Office action because: the arguments/data provided therein do now show unexpected results.
Lee.et al. is relied upon in the same manner. However, a new reference has been relied upon in place of Matsuoka (with similar teachings to Matsuoka).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0317352 (Lee et al.) in view of US 2015/0171476 (Onozaki et al.).
As to claim 7, Lee et al. teach a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte with lithium-ion conductivity (para 0257-0258 (li-ion conductivity a property of the electrolyte)),
wherein, on the negative electrode, a lithium metal is deposited by charging and the lithium metal is dissolved in the non-aqueous electrolyte by discharging (this is the manner in which a lithium-metal battery operates; see title for lithium metal battery and para 0209 which indicates charge/discharge),
the non-aqueous electrolyte includes an electrolytic salt and a solvent (para 0258),
the solvent includes a first ether compound represented by a general formula (1): R1-(OCH2CH2)n-OR2,
where R1 and R2 are independently an alkyl group with a carbon number of 1 to 5, and n represents 1 to 3 (1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) exemplified; see example 9, para 0258) (note: fits claimed formula, as para 0033 of the instant application shows that the materials in the prior art fits the claimed formula),
and a second ether compound having a fluorination rate of 60 % or more and represented by a general formula (2): Ca1Hb1Fc1Od1(CF2OCH2)Ca2Hb2Fc2Od2
where a1 ≥ 1, a2 ≥ 0, b1 ≤ 2a1, b2 ≤ 2a2, c1=(2a1+1)-b1, c2=(2a2+1)-b2, (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) exemplified; see example 9 para 0258) (note: fits claimed formula, as para 0036 of the instant application shows 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether fits the claimed formula)
and a proportion of a total amount of the first ether compound and the second ether compound in the solvent is 80 volume% or more (as example 9 only has the first ether compound and the second ether compound (para 0258)),
a concentration of electrolyte salt in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is from 0.8 mol/L to 1.8 mol/L (1 M exemplified (para 0258)), and
a volume ratio V1/V2 of a volume of the first ether compound 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME)) to a volume V2 of the second ether compound (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE)) is 0.25 or more and less than 0.5 (2:8 ratio exemplified, which is 0.25) (para 0258).
Lee et al. do not teach (a) that the second ether compound includes 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluroether or (b) the electrolytic salt includes lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate: LiBF2(C2O4) at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L or less.
With respect to (a): in the same field of endeavor (non-aqueous electrolyte battery including a fluorinated ether solvent; abs), Onozaki et al. teach of fluorinated ether compounds such as compound (2): R2 – O – R3 (para 0041). Examples of compound 2 include CF3CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether) and CHF2CF2CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether) (para 0051). The substitution of CF3CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether) (in Onozaki et al.) for CHF2CF2CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether) (in Onozaki et al and Lee et al.) would yield the predictable result of acting as a fluorinated ether solvent within a nonaqueous lithium-based battery (substituted components and their functions known in their art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute CF3CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether) for CHF2CF2CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a fluorinated ether solvent within a nonaqueous lithium-based battery (substituted components and their functions known in their art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): in the same field of endeavor (non-aqueous electrolyte battery including a fluorinated ether solvent and a lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate; abs), Onozaki al. teach the electrolyte has a complex fitting compound (1), specifically setting forth the formula of 1-1, which is LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) (para 0017, 0027, 0190). The total amount of lithium salt is preferably 0.8-1.6 mol/L, with two components – the first component being compound (1) in a particularly preferable range of 1-40 mol%; the second component being LiFP6 in a particularly preferable range of 60-99 mol% (para 0030-0033). Accordingly, the amount of compound (1) (encompassing LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate)) overlaps the claimed amount of 0.1 mol/L or less, as a 1 mol/L solution with 2% mass being LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) would yield 0.02 mol/L of LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) (see table 1, example 2, which exemplifies a 2 mass % of LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) in the lithium salt). “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I). The motivation for having LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) in an amount of, for non-limiting example 0.02 mol/L (generally 1-40% of a 0.8-1.6 mol/L amount lithium salt) is to ensure improved excellent battery properties, such as cycle properties and rate properties (para 0017, 0030-0033, 0216; table 1, example 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add LiBF2(C2O4) (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate) in an amount of 0.02 mol/L (as taught by encompassed by Onozaki et al. and applied to Lee et al.) is to ensure improved excellent battery properties, such as cycle properties and rate properties.
As to claim 4, Lee et al. teach the electrolytic salt includes LiN(SO2F)2 (LiFSI; lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide) (para 0258).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Onozaki et al., as applied to claim 7 and claim 4 above, further in view of US 2010/0285373 (Horikawa et al.)
As to claim 5, Lee et al. appreciates LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI (LiN(SO2F)2) as electrolytic salts alone or in combination (para 0229) and exemplifies using lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (para 0258).
Lee et al. do not teach a combination of salts including LiFSI and LiPF6 having a ratio M1/M2 of a molar concentration M1 of LiFSI to a molar concentration M2 of LiPF6 in the non-aqueous electrolyte is from 0.2 to 0.5.
However, Horikawa et al. teach using an electrolyte salt mixture of LiFSI and LiPF6 in a 0.2:0.8 ratio (i.e. 0.25) (para 0055). The substitution of an electrolyte salt mixture of LiFSI and LiPF6 in a 0.25 (as taught by Horikawa et al.) for having only LiFSI as a salt (in Lee et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing an operable electrolyte (as each of the salt mixture and salt would have operated as known salts in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute an electrolyte salt mixture of LiFSI and LiPF6 in a 0.25 ratio for LiFSI, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an operable electrolyte (as both the salt combination and salt are known to act as electrolytic salts). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed August 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (pp 4-7) / Declaration dated July 30, 2026 (sections 5-7 and 13 of the declaration) regarding the combination using Matsuoka et al. are moot, as Matsuoka et al. is no longer relied upon.
Examiner submits the removal of Matsuoka et al. in the rejection does not represent agreement with the arguments/declaration. Generally, Applicant’s above argument/declaration was drawn towards Matsuoka’s electrolyte using a different solvent, wherein Applicant concludes that the use of lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate used as a secondary salt to improve load characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics would not be applicable due to the different solvent system. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as set forth in the previous rejection, Matsuoka et al. teaches the effect of a secondary salt (para 0065); nothing suggests that such a secondary salt is only operable for the given reason in the construct of Matsuoka’s electrolyte. Nothing in the arguments/declaration provide objective proof of Applicant’s assertions (regarding the use of lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate lacking expectation of success in being used in other nonaqueous electrolyte solvent systems). Onozaki et al., which teaches the combination of a fluorinated ether (required by the claimed invention) and of lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (claimed) teaches that of lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate is added for cycle properties and rate properties (para 0017, 0027, 0190) (overlaps reasons set forth in Matsuoka et al.). Thus, using lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate as a secondary salt within a nonaqueous electrolyte (even with different solvents) would be expected to have the same effect (i.e. improving cycle characteristics), as shown by multiple reference with different electrolyte solvent combinations.
Applicant argues that CF3CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether) (FE-1) and CHF2CF2CH2OCF2CHF2 (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether) (FE-2) are not equivalent, and that the addition of LiFOB in a low concentration is critical to the claimed invention (remarks pp 7-8/Declaration dated July 30, 2026 sections 9-13), specifically that LiBOB in FE-1 systems improve capacity maintenance ratio (example 1 in the disclosure with additional examples 2, 4, original example 1 regarding capacity maintenance ratio at 50th cycle %), while LiBOB in FE-2 does not show the same capacity maintenance (higher without in original example 3, as compared to additional examples 5, 3, and 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has failed to show how any of the differences are unexpected. Among the examples, the capacity maintenance ratio at 50% ranges in the 83.6-89.6% (for FE-1 and FE-2 with and without LiBOB). It is unsure why at 3 % difference shows anything unexpected. Thus MPEP 716.02(a) is not met. Additionally, Applicant has not explained why the results are unexpected and significant (how is a 3% difference unexpected and significant?); thus Applicant has failed to meet MPEP 716.02(b). Examiner emphasizes that differences in prior art are not necessarily an indication of unexpected results (i.e. slightly different electrolyte solutions would naturally have slight different results due to differences in either similar compounds not being exactly the same, or a composition with salts/solvents in slightly different amounts. Again, Applicant has the burden of explaining why the differences are indeed significant and unexpected. Additionally, the application does not show enough data – only a 1M amount of FE-1 and FE-2 is shown, wherein other amount combinations with LiBOB may show different results; thus the entire range is not shown. Furthermore, capacity maintenance is only shown at the 50th cycle, which is not representative of how LiFOB interacts with FE-1 across other cycles (may improve at other cycles). For non-limiting example Onozaki et al., cited above, shows capacity retention rate at cycle 50 and cycle 100. Accordingly, MPEP 716.02(d) (establishing unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claim) has not been shown, and MPEP 716.02(d)(II) (comparing a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range) has not been met. Thus, unexpected results has not been shown. Examiner suggests reviewing MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden required to show unexpected results. Thus, the argument/declaration is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
IMPORANT NOTE: Applicant’s amendment and remarks appear to try to establish the newly cited combination achieves unexpected results. A successful showing of unexpected results using FE-1 in particular (narrower than the original fluorinated ether originally claimed/taught, as FE-2 originally fit the claimed formula and was exemplified in the disclosure as originally filed as inventive) would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed subject matter is a different invention than the originally disclosed range. See MPEP 2163(I)(B). No new matter issue has been made at this time, as arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
