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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/16/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Response
This Office Action is in response to the arguments and affidavit filed 12/22/25.
Claim 16 is added and is rejected over Ji as discussed below.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-16 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2016/0240889) in view of Cho et al. (US 2020/0119398).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising:
a non-aqueous solvent ([0045]);
a compound represented by Formula 1, i.e. 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate ([0081]);
and a lithium salt ([0045]).
Cheng teaches Formula (1), specifically 2,2,2 trifluoroethyl acrylate, in an amount of, for example, 0.5 weight percent (Tables 4 and 5).
Cheng fails to teach a heteroatom-containing lithium salts as required by claim 1.
Cho teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous solvent and additives including a lithium salt having an oxalic acid skeleton, i.e. LiBOB, in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% of the electrolyte (abstract, [0076], [0079]).
Cho further teaches that the addition of the additive such as LiBOB in the amount discussed above is desirable for improving battery life ([0051], [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to add LiBOB in the amount taught by Cho to the electrolyte of Cheng in order to improve battery life.
As for claim 3, Cho teaches LiBOB in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% ([0079]).
With regard to claim 4, Cheng further teaches LiPF6 ([0045]).
As for claim 5, Cho further suggests adding a cyclic carbonate such as vinylene carbonate to the electrolyte, which the skilled artisan will easily recognize as a cyclic carbonate having an unsaturated carbon-carbon bond, in order to optimize the characteristics of the battery ([0080]-[0082]). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to includes vinylene carbonate in the electrolyte of Cheng such as suggested by Cho in order to improve characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches a secondary battery including the electrolyte above wherein the negative electrode is Si (abstract) and the positive electrode is a lithium NMC material ([0067]). The instant published specification names Si as a negative electrode material ([0141]) and a lithium NMC material as a positive electrode material ([0137]); therefore the skilled artisan would understand that those materials are capable of occluding and releasing metal ions.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. (US 2015/0364794) in view of Cheng.
Nakazawa teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising:
a non-aqueous solvent such as ethylene carbonate ([0160], [0164], [0222]);
a lithium salt electrolyte ([0141]-[0159]);
and a compound represented by Formula (3) and/or an isocyanate ([0027]-[0028]).
Further regarding claim 7 and with regard to claim 8, Nakazawa fails to teach a compound represented by Formula (2).
Cheng teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte including
a non-aqueous solvent ([0045]);
a compound represented by Formula 2, i.e. 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acrylate in an amount of, for example, 0.5 weight % (Tables 4 and 5);
and a lithium salt ([0045]).
Chen further teaches that the inclusion of Formula 2 in an ethylene carbonate based electrolyte is desirable for improving capacity retention in the battery (Table 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to includes Formula 2 in the electrolyte of Nakazawa as suggested by Cheng in order to improve capacity retention.
As for claim 9, Nakazawa teaches isocyanate in the amount of 0.01% by mass to 10% by mass ([0034]).
As for claim 10, Nakazawa in view of Cheng teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte battery comprising a negative electrode and positive electrode capable of occluding and releasing lithium atoms and the electrolyte solution above ([0027]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0087306).
The teachings of Cheng and Cho as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cheng in view of Cho teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 but fails to teach the lithium salt of claims 11-13.
Lee teaches an electrolyte including a monomer such as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate and an alkali metal salt such as LiBOB or LiN(FSO2)2 for improving ionic conductivity ([0147]-[0151]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to substitute the LiBOB salt of Cheng in view of Chow with LiN(FSO2)2 such as suggested by Lee in order to improve ionic conductivity and the results of the substitution, i.e. improved conductivity, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
As for claim 14, Cheng teaches a silicon based anode (see, e.g., abstract, [0009]), but fails to teach specifically the material used for the anode.
Lee teaches silicon-based anodes for non-aqueous electrolyte batteries, wherein the anode material is, for example, SiOx where 0.5<x<1.5 ([0263]-[0264]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the known silicon based anode material of Lee in the battery of Cheng and the results of the substitution, e.g. a functional anode material, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Cheng as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee.
The teachings of Nakazawa, Cheng, and Lee as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Nakazawa teaches a silicon based anode (see, e.g., abstract), but fails to teach specifically the material used for the anode.
Lee teaches silicon-based anodes for non-aqueous electrolyte batteries, wherein the anode material is, for example, SiOx where 0.5<x<1.5 ([0263]-[0264]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the known silicon based anode material of Lee in the battery of Nakazawa in view of Cheng and the results of the substitution, e.g. a functional anode material, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2019/0181500).
The teachings of Cheng and Cho as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cheng in view of Cho teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solvent of claim 1 including a lithium salt having an oxalic acid skeleton but fails to teach a lithium salt having an F-S bond.
Ji teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent including a compound represented by formula (1), i.e. 2-2-2,triflouroethyl acrylate ([0077]), and a lithium-containing salt selected from a list comprising, e.g., LiTFSi, LiFSI, and lithium salts having an oxalic acid skeleton, and lithium difluorophosphate ([0078]).
Ji further teaches that the electrolyte additives discussed above can form a SEI layer to improve battery performance ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to substitute the known lithium salts having an F-S bond for the lithium salt having an oxalic acid skeleton in the electrolyte of Cheng in view of Cho such as suggested by Ji and the results of the substitution, e.g. improved battery performance due to SEI layer formation, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The affidavit and arguments pertain to the amount of the compound, represented by formula (1) in claim 1 and by formula (2) in claim 2, which is called “Compound 1-1” in the affidavit (see page 3). According to the arguments, Applicants have filed the affidavit to support a finding of unexpected results for the inclusion of Compound 1-1 in an amount of up to 1% by mass. It is alleged that, in amounts of up to 1% by mass, the Compound 1-1 produces unexpected results that are not found in amounts above 1% by mass. The examiner strongly disagrees with the assertion that the data provided in the affidavit filed 12/22/25 show unexpected results.
Applicant is reminded that a showing of unexpected results requires a showing of a difference of kind, rather than of degree. The data, shown in the graphs provided on page 4 of the affidavit, clearly show a change in properties that follow trend lines and therefore any results are expected and are difference of degree. The examiner maintains that there is no showing of unexpected results.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729