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 January 22, 2026:
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending. Claim 6 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn,
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However a new prior art rejection has been made in view of Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179), as necessitated by the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179).
Regarding Claim 1, Yonemaru teaches an ionic liquid electrolyte solution (i.e. an electrolyte composition) comprising an anion part and a cation part, wherein the cation part may be an equimolar complex of a glyme and a lithium salt wherein tetraglyme molecules are coordinated with Li+ cations (i.e. solvate ionic liquid having an anion and a complex comprising an ether and a cation) and the electrolyte solution also comprising a solvent (Para. [0083]) added with the aim of viscosity reduction (i.e. a diluter) (Para. [0120]) and the electrical storage device further includes a separator wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte may be adopted and the separator is formed of a photocurable resin (i.e. wherein the solvate ionic liquid and diluter are embedded within a polymer) (Para. [0087]).
Yonemaru does not teach the diluter comprising a phosphorus-containing flame-retardant selected from the group consisting of: diphenyloctyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate and a combination thereof having a dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20.
However, Shin et al. teaches a diluted concentrated electrolyte includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (i.e. an anion of TFSI- and a cation of Li+) (Para. [0020]) wherein a diluent and solvent in the diluted concentrated electrolytes interact to disperse the salt-solvent solution throughout the electrolyte (Para. [0038]) and the diluted concentrated electrolytes includes flame retardant additives (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the diluter comprises a flame retardant) wherein the flame retardant additive includes diphenyloctyl phosphate (Para. [0044]) (i.e. selected from the group consisting of: diphenyloctyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate and a combination thereof having a dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of diphenyloctyl phosphate as taught by Shin et al. as such a composition comprising the flame retardant (diphenyloctyl phosphate) would provide an electrolyte with low flammability and low volatility that do not compromise the safety of the electrolyte (Para. [0027]). Regarding the claimed dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20, as the dielectric constant is material property, the diphenyloctyl phosphate flame retardant as taught by Shin et al. would be expected to have a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 20. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yonemaru does not teach the electrolyte comprising the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the cation in the electrolyte is greater than or equal to about 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 2 M.
However, Park et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising a glyme-based solvent (Para. [0019]) and LiTFSI (Para. [0063]) wherein the lithium salt may be included in a range of 1.0 M to 6.0 M (Para. [0064]) (i.e. the electrolyte comprising the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the cation in the electrolyte is in range overlapping with the range of greater than or equal to 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 2 M).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yonemaru et al. to incorporate the teaching of the electrolyte comprising the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the cation in the electrolyte greater than or equal to 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 2 M, as such a range provides improved cycle life and capacity characteristics and prevent degradation of overall battery performance (Para. [0066]).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).
Yonemaru does not teach the polymer having a concentration of greater than about 45 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Uetani et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising an electrolyte salt, a solvent and a polymer matrix comprising a crosslinked polymer (Para. [0011]) (i.e. a polymer) wherein the crosslinked polymer is in the range of from 0.1 to 50% by weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0033]) (i.e. the polymer having a concentration of greater than about 45 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% based on a total weight of the electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the polymer in a range from 0.1 to 50% by weight of the electrolyte, as taught by Uetani et al., as such a range prevents electric characteristics of the battery from being lowered (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al. and Park et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the anion part may be [TFSI]- (Para. [0083]) (i.e. wherein the anion of the solvate ionic liquid is bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide).
Regarding Claim 3, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches an ionic liquid electrolyte solution (i.e. an electrolyte composition) comprising tetraglyme molecules (i.e. wherein the ether is an oligoether having the formula CH3O-(CH2CH2O)-n-CH3 where n = 4) coordinated with Li+ cations (i.e. and the cation is Li+) (Para. [0083]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach the diluter further comprises triethyl phosphate, trimethyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, phosphazene, tris(2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl)phosphate, or a combination thereof.
However, Shin et al. teaches a diluted concentrated electrolyte includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (i.e. an anion of TFSI- and a cation of Li+) (Para. [0020]) wherein a diluent and solvent in the diluted concentrated electrolytes interact to disperse the salt-solvent solution throughout the electrolyte (Para. [0038]) and the diluted concentrated electrolytes includes flame retardant additives (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the diluter comprises a flame retardant) wherein the flame retardant additive includes triethyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, (ethoxy)pentafluorocyclotriphosphazene (Para. [0044]) (i.e. triethyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, phosphazene or a combination thereof).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of triethyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate and/or (ethoxy)pentafluorocyclotriphosphazene as taught by Shin et al. as such a composition comprising the flame retardant (triethyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate and/or (ethoxy)pentafluorocyclotriphosphazene) would provide an electrolyte with low flammability and low volatility that do not compromise the safety of the electrolyte (Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach the diluter further comprising triethyl phosphite, trimethyl phosphite, triphenyl phosphite, bis(2.2.2.-trifluoroethyl) methyl phosphonate, diethyl phosphonate, diethyl ethyl phosphonate or combination thereof.
However, Shin et al. teaches a diluted concentrated electrolyte includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (i.e. an anion of TFSI- and a cation of Li+) (Para. [0020]) wherein a diluent and solvent in the diluted concentrated electrolytes interact to disperse the salt-solvent solution throughout the electrolyte (Para. [0038]) and the diluted concentrated electrolytes includes flame retardant additives (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the diluter comprises a flame retardant) wherein the flame retardant additive includes triphenyl phosphite, bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)methylphosphonate and diethyl ethyl phosphonate (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of triphenyl phosphite as taught by Shin et al. as such a composition comprising the flame retardant (triphenyl phosphite, bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)methylphosphonate, and diethyl ethyl phosphonate) would provide an electrolyte with low flammability and low volatility that do not compromise the safety of the electrolyte (Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the molar ratio of the cation part, which comprises the complex, to the anion part is 1:1 (Para. [0083] (i.e. wherein the solvate ionic liquid comprises an anion:complex molar ratio of about 1:1).
Regarding Claim 11, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach the electrolyte composition is a gel electrolyte.
However, Uetani et al. teaches a gel electrolyte (Para. [0031]) (i.e. the electrolyte composition is a gel electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the gel electrolyte as taught by Uetani et al., as it would be possible to obtain batteries that are free from a fear of liquid leakage and have high performance and durability (Para. [0122]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the electrical storage device comprising the ionic liquid composition (Para. [0087]) comprises a secondary battery (Para. [0026]) (i.e. an electrochemical cell comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0214685).
Regarding Claim 7 Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach wherein the solvate ionic liquid and the diluter are present in a solvate ionic liquid:diluter ratio of from about 1:10 to about 5:1 by volume.
However, Chang et al. teaches an electrolyte including a lithium salt, ionic liquid and sacrificial solvent (i.e. a diluter) wherein the amount of sacrificial solvent is about 10 vol% to about 80 vol.% based on a total volume of the ionic liquid and the sacrificial solvent (i.e. a solvate ionic liquid:diluter ratio of from 1:9 to about 4:1 , overlapping with the claimed range of 1:10 to about 5:1 by volume) (Para. [0105],[0106]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solvate ionic liquid and the diluter ratio of modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the volumetric ratio as taught by Chang et al., as when the amount of ionic liquid is within these ranges, the lithium battery may have improved conductivity and safety (Para. [0106]). 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2021/0020986).
Regarding Claim 9, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach a solid electrolyte interface additive.
However, Shen et al. teaches a sacrificial electrolyte additive such as vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate is able to produce SEIs (i.e. a solid electrolyte interface additive) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of a solid electrolyte interface additive, as such an additive produced a solid electrolyte interface with desirable chemical composition and physical properties (Para. [0028]) improve battery performance (Para. [0027]) and excellent cyclability (Para. [0099]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2020/0161706).
Regarding Claim 10, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach the electrolyte composition is substantially free of solvents that are not ionic liquids or solvate ionic liquids.
However, Cao et al. teaches an electrolyte solutions where there are few to no free solvent molecules in the diluted electrolyte (i.e. wherein the electrolyte composition is substantially free of solvents that are not ionic liquids or solvate ionic liquids) (Para. [0144]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of few to no free solvent molecules in the diluted electrolyte as taught by Cao et al., as a reduced presence of free, unassociated solvent molecules facilitates formation of a stabilized SEI layer and increases cycling stability of a battery including the electrolyte (Para. [0142]).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Chang et al. (US 2019/0214685), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179).
Regarding Claim 13, Yonemaru teaches an electrical storage device comprising an ionic liquid composition (Para. [0087]) a positive electrode, and a negative electrode (Para. [0088]) comprising positive electrode active material and a lithium metal sheet, respectively, (i.e. a positive electrode comprising positive electroactive particles and a negative electrode comprising negative electroactive particles) (Para. [0127], [0131]) wherein the electrical storage device comprises a secondary battery (Para. [0026]) (i.e. an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte composition) wherein the an ionic liquid electrolyte solution (i.e. an electrolyte composition) comprising an anion part and a cation part, wherein the cation part may be an equimolar complex of a glyme and a lithium salt wherein tetraglyme molecules are coordinated with Li+ cations (i.e. solvate ionic liquid having an anion and a complex comprising an ether and a cation) and the electrolyte solution also comprising a solvent (Para. [0083]) added with the aim of viscosity reduction (i.e. a diluter) (Para. [0120]) wherein the molar ratio of the cation part, which comprises the complex, to the anion part is 1:1 (Para. [0083] (i.e. wherein the solvate ionic liquid comprises an anion:glyme-lithium complex molar ratio of about 1:1) and the electrical storage device further includes a separator wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte may be adopted and the separator is formed of a photocurable resin (i.e. a polymer, wherein the solvate ionic liquid and diluter are embedded within the polymer) (Para. [0087]).
Yonemaru does not teach the diluter comprising a phosphorus-containing flame-retardant selected from the group consisting of: diphenyloctyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate and a combination thereof having a dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20.
However, Shin et al. teaches a diluted concentrated electrolyte includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (i.e. an anion of TFSI- and a cation of Li+) (Para. [0020]) wherein a diluent and solvent in the diluted concentrated electrolytes interact to disperse the salt-solvent solution throughout the electrolyte (Para. [0038]) and the diluted concentrated electrolytes includes flame retardant additives (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the diluter comprises a flame retardant) wherein the flame retardant additive includes diphenyloctyl phosphate (Para. [0044]) (i.e. selected from the group consisting of: diphenyloctyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate and a combination thereof having a dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of diphenyloctyl phosphate as taught by Shin et al. as such a composition comprising the flame retardant (diphenyloctyl phosphate) would provide an electrolyte with low flammability and low volatility that do not compromise the safety of the electrolyte (Para. [0027]). Regarding the claimed dielectric constant of less than or equal to about 20, as the dielectric constant is material property, the diphenyloctyl phosphate flame retardant as taught by Shin et al. would be expected to have a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 20. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yonemaru does not teach wherein the solvate ionic liquid and the diluter are present in a solvate ionic liquid:diluter ratio of from about 1:10 to about 5:1 by volume.
However, Chang et al. teaches an electrolyte including a lithium salt, ionic liquid and sacrificial solvent (i.e. a diluter) wherein the amount of sacrificial solvent is about 10 vol% to about 80 vol.% based on a total volume of the ionic liquid and the sacrificial solvent (i.e. a solvate ionic liquid:diluter ratio of from 1:9 to about 4:1, overlapping with the claimed range of 1:10 to about 5:1 by volume) (Para. [0105],[0106]), wherein the electrolyte comprise an organic solvent including a glyme compound (Para. [0085]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solvate ionic liquid and the diluter ratio of modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the volumetric ratio as taught by Chang et al., as when the amount of ionic liquid is within these ranges, the lithium battery may have improved conductivity and safety (Para. [0106]). 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).
Yonemaru does not teach the electrolyte comprises the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the glyme-lithium cation in the electrolyte is greater than or equal to about 0.5M to less than or equal to about 2 M.
However, Park et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising a glyme-based solvent (Para. [0019]) and LiTFSI (Para. [0063]) wherein the lithium salt may be included in a range of 1.0 M to 6.0 M (Para. [0064]) (i.e. the electrolyte comprising the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the cation in the electrolyte is in range overlapping with the range of greater than or equal to 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 2 M).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentration of the lithium salt (i.e. the glyme-lithium cation) of Yonemaru et al. to incorporate the teaching of the electrolyte comprising the diluter in an amount such that a concentration of the lithium cation in the electrolyte greater than or equal to 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 2 M, as such a range provides improved cycle life and capacity characteristics and prevent degradation of overall battery performance (Para. [0066]). 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).
Regarding the property of “a capacity retention of greater than or equal to about 95% after 100 cycles of charging and discharging”, as modified Yonemaru teaches the same structure as the instant claim, the claimed property of capacity retention would either be (a) be expected to satisfy a capacity retention of greater than or equal to about 95% after 100 cycles of charging and discharging or (b) differences in the capacity retention set forth in the instant claim, having a capacity retention of greater than or equal to about 95% after 100 cycles of charging and discharging would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure of the electrochemical cell if modified Yonemaru is substantially identical in structure to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the electrochemical cell of modified Yonemaru would satisfy this conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the capacity retention) would be small and obvious. 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).
Yonemaru does not teach the polymer having a concentration of greater than about 45 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Uetani et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising an electrolyte salt, a solvent and a polymer matrix comprising a crosslinked polymer (Para. [0011]) (i.e. a polymer) wherein the crosslinked polymer is in the range of from 0.1 to 50% by weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0033]) (i.e. the polymer having a concentration of greater than about 45 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% based on a total weight of the electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the polymer in a range from 0.1 to 50% by weight of the electrolyte, as taught by Uetani et al., as such a range prevents electric characteristics of the battery from being lowered (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Chang, Park et al. et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the anion part may be [TFSI]- (Para. [0083]) (i.e. wherein the anion of the solvate ionic liquid is bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide) and the ionic liquid electrolyte solution (i.e. an electrolyte composition) comprising tetraglyme molecules (i.e. wherein the glyme of the solvate ionic liquid is tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether [G4]) (Para. [0083]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Chang, Park et al. et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the anion part may be [TFSI]- (Para. [0083]) (i.e. wherein the anion of the solvate ionic liquid is bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide) and the ionic liquid electrolyte solution (i.e. an electrolyte composition) comprising tetraglyme molecules (i.e. wherein the glyme of the solvate ionic liquid is tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether [G4]) (Para. [0083]).
Yonemaru does not teach the diluter comprises triethyl phosphate.
However, Shin et al. teaches a diluted concentrated electrolyte includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (i.e. an anion of TFSI- and a cation of Li+) (Para. [0020]) wherein a diluent and solvent in the diluted concentrated electrolytes interact to disperse the salt-solvent solution throughout the electrolyte (Para. [0038]) and the diluted concentrated electrolytes includes flame retardant additives (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the diluter comprises a flame retardant) wherein the flame retardant additive includes triethyl phosphate (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the diluter comprises triethyl phosphate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of triethyl phosphate taught by Shin et al. as such a composition comprising the flame retardant (triethyl phosphate) would provide an electrolyte with low flammability and low volatility that do not compromise the safety of the electrolyte (Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Chang, Park et al. et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the electrical storage device further includes a separator wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte may be adopted and the separator is formed of a photocurable resin (i.e. wherein the electrochemical cell further comprises a polymeric separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the electrolyte composition is a liquid comprising the solvate ionic liquid embedded within a polymer matrix) (Para. [0087]) wherein the electrolyte performs the function of transmitting ions between electrodes of an electrode storage device (Para. [0063]) and includes a solvent (Para. [0083])(i.e. diluter) (i.e. wherein the electrolyte composition is capable of transporting lithium ions between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the diluter embedded within the polymer matrix).
Regarding Claim 17, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Chang, Park et al. et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Yonemaru further teaches the electrical storage device further includes a separator wherein the ionic liquid electrolyte may be adopted and the separator is formed of a photocurable resin (i.e. wherein the solvate ionic liquid and diluter are embedded within a polymer matrix) (Para. [0087]) wherein the electrolyte performs the function of transmitting ions between electrodes of an electrode storage device (Para. [0063]) and includes a solvent (Para. [0083])(i.e. diluter) (i.e. wherein the electrolyte composition is in contact with the positive electroactive particles and the negative electroactive particles, the diluter embedded within the polymer matrix).
Yonemaru does not teach wherein the electrochemical cell is a solid-state electrochemical cell further comprising a solid-state electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the electrolyte composition is in contact with the solid-state electrolyte.
However, Chang et al. teaches a porous polymer membrane and further comprising a solid electrolyte (Para. [0047]) (i.e. a solid-state electrochemical cell further comprising a solid-state electrolyte) wherein the solid state electrolyte (Fig. 2B, #13) is disposed between a cathode (i.e. Fig. 2B, #19) and an anode (Fig. 2B, #21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell of modified Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of the solid electrolyte as taught by Chang et al.
(forming a solid-state electrochemical cell further comprising a solid-state electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the
electrolyte composition is in contact with the solid-state electrolyte), as it would provide improved energy density, lifetime characteristics and high-rate characteristics (Para. [0166]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemaru (US 2021/0305554) in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0218061), Park et al. (US 2021/0359342) and Uetani et al. (US 2003/0207179) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2016/0028111).
Regarding Claim 21, Yonemaru as modified by Shin et al., Park et al. and Uetani et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Yonemaru does not teach wherein a phosphorus containing flame retardant comprises tributyl phosphite.
However, Ahn et al. teaches an electrolyte composition comprising a first additive (Para. [0023]) wherein the first additive is a flame retardant additive component (Para. [0026]) which is tributyl phosphite (claim 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Yonemaru to incorporate the teaching of a flame retardant additive component of tributyl phosphite ad taught by Ahn et al., as such a component decreases the effect of oxygen in an air atmosphere and reinforces flame retardancy (Para. [0026]), providing thermal safety (Para. [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729