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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received March 3, 2026:
Claims 4-5, and 7 are pending.
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of the remarks.
WO 2018/079585 (Maeda et al.) (US 2019/0280300 as the English translation), previously relied upon, is no longer relied upon. A new reference is relied upon to render obvious the newly cited claim limitations.
The core of the previous rejection US 2017/0317352 (Lee et al.) in view of US 2018/0062207 (Matsuoka et al.) is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
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 2018/0062207 (Matsuoka 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): Lee et al. teaches 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) exemplified; see example 9 para 0258). The compound taught by Lee et al. is seen to have close structural similarity, such that obviousness exists (as the only difference is the fluorine substitution at the latter named portion of the compound), as such similar chemical compounds would yield the predictable result of having similar functions. Similar chemical compounds with similar properties are obvious; compounds that differ by the same group are obvious (including “tri” versus “tetra” forms of the same composition); see MPEP 2144.09(I) and (II).
With respect to (b): Matsuoka et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of an electrolyte having a mixture of salts, particularly the inclusion of an oxalate-group containing salt, such as lithium oxalato difluoroborate (LiBF2(C2O4)) included in an amount of most preferably 0.05 mol/L or more and 0.2 mol/L or less (para 0064-0066) (overlaps claimed range of 0.1 mol/L or less, thus rendering it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)). The motivation for adding LiBF2(C2O4) in an amount of 0.05-0.2 mol/L is to ensure improved load characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics while preventing deposition into the solution (para 0064-0066). 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 add LiBF2(C2O4) in an amount of 0.05-0.2 mol/L (as taught by Matsuoka et al. and applied to Lee et al.) is to ensure improved load characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics while preventing deposition into the solution.
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 Matsuoka 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since Matsuoka et al.’s electrolyte is from that of Lee et al., (a) one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to apply its teaching regarding the lithium salt with an oxalic acid to Lee, and (b) the modification would impermissibly change its principal operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to (a): Matsuoka et al.’s teaching shows that its addition ensures improved load characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics while preventing deposition into the solution (para 0064-0066).
With respect to (b): All electrolytes serve to transport ions; it is unsure how the combination would change the principal operation of the electrolytes.
Thus, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that using 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluroether as the second ether (over 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether) provides an unexpected results (a 1.1% difference).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not met the burden to show unexpected results. For example, MPEP 716.02(b) requires Applicant establish and explain why the results are unexpected and different, which has not been done. It is unsure what unexpected result is achieved when a 1.1% difference is seen. Thus, no unexpected results have been shown. Examiner suggest Applicant review MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden required to show unexpected results. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 5 overcomes Maeda.
Examiner submits that in light of the amendment, Maeda is no longer relied upon. However, Horikawa et al. is relied upon to render obvious the new claim limitation.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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