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
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 70/09/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12, and 20 are currently amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claim 36 is new. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 36 are presented for examination.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2017/0033406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a nonaqueous battery electrolyte formulation ([0023]), consisting of: a metal electrolyte salt ([0028]); optionally, a solvent selected from the group consisting of dimethoxyethane ([0026]); and optionally a film-forming agent additive (additive that further enhances the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase, [0029]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose an embodiment including a compound of Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
92
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
wherein R’ is selected from the group consisting of Cl, CF3, and fluoroalkyl; and wherein each R is, independently, selected from the group consisting of H, F, Cl, CF3, alkyl, and fluoroalkyl.
However, Zhang discloses that the electrolyte includes a non-polar fluorinated ether solvent ([0023]) and lists 2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane, which is a compound of Formula (1) wherein R’ is CF3 and wherein each R is H, as an example of said solvent ([0025]). As Zhang presents a finite number of identified, predictable choices for the non-polar fluorinated ether solvent, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used 2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane in the electrolyte of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2143E].
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1, wherein R’ is CF3; and wherein each R is H (2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane, [0025]).
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2017/0033406 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by ACS (CAS SciFinder Substance Detail: 110-71-4, 2344-09-4, and 21324-40-3, 2025).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1, wherein the metal electrolyte salt is a salt of lithium ([0028]).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the metal electrolyte salt is present in an amount of from 0.1 to 20 wt% relative to a total mass of the formulation.
However, Zhang teaches that the metal electrolyte salt is present in a concentration of from about 0.1M to about 3.0M ([0028]). ACS evidences that the density of 2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane is 1.37 g/cm3 (p. 2) and the molar mass of LiPF6, one of the lithium salts taught by Zhang ([0028]), is 151.9 g/mol (p. 3). Assuming a basis of 0.1 L of electrolyte, the formulation would include 137g of 2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane. The lithium salt would be added in an amount of 0.152g to obtain a concentration of 0.1M and in an amount of 45.6g to obtain a concentration of 3.0M. Zhang therefore teaches wherein the metal electrolyte salt is present in an amount of from 0.11 to 25 wt% relative to a total mass of the formulation, overlapping the claimed range of from 0.1 to 20 wt% and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)].
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 3, wherein the metal electrolyte salt is a salt of lithium selected from the group consisting of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4). lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium triflate (LiSO2CF3), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI, Li(FSO2)2N), and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI, Li(CF3SO2)2N) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1, further comprising the solvent (dimethoxyethane or DME, [0026]) in an amount of from 0.1wt% to 99.9wt% of a liquid component of the formulation. (Zhang teaches that a volume ratio of the non-polar fluorinated ether solvent (2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane, see [0025] and rejection of claim 1) to the solvent (DME) is from about 1:9 to about 9:1 ([0027]). ACS evidences that the room temperature densities of these components are 1.37 g/cm3 and 0.863 g/cm3, respectively (p. 1-2). A volume ratio of 2-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dioxolane:DME of 1:9 therefore corresponds to a weight ratio of 14:78 and a volume ratio of 9:1 to a weight ratio of 123:8.63, and Zhang
teaches that the formulation comprises the solvent in an amount of 6.55wt% to 85.0wt%, which reads on the claimed range.)
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view of Zhang (US 2017/0033406 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (US 2012/0082890 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1. Zhang teaches that the film-forming additive (additive that further enhances the formation of a solid electrolyte interface, [0029]) may include Li[BF2(C2O4)] (LiBFOB) and is present at a concentration of from about 0.1M to about 0.4M ([0029]). Zhang further teaches that the metal electrolyte salt is a salt of lithium ([0028]).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the film-forming additive is selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC), ethylene sulfite (ES), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), cyclohexylbenzene (CHB), ortho-terphenyl (OTP), and combinations thereof; and wherein the film-forming additive is present in an amount of from 0.1 to 3 wt% relative to a total mass of the formulation.
Dong teaches a nonaqueous battery electrolyte formulation ([0072]) comprising Li[BF2(C2O4)] (LiBFOB) or Li[C2O4)2B] (LiBOB) and an additional lithium metal electrolyte salt ([0042]). Dong teaches that both LiBFOB and LiBOB are film-forming additives (additives that form a uniform solid electrolyte interface, [0007]) A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention therefore would find it obvious to modify the formulation of Zhang by substituting LiBOB for LiBFOB with a reasonable expectation of success because Dong teaches that both compounds function as film-forming additives ([0007]). In addition, Zhang teaches that the formulation may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0055]) and it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved [MPEP § 2143B].
Dong further teaches that the film-forming additive (Li[C2O4)2B] or LiBOB) should be present in an amount of from 0.001 wt% to 8 wt% relative to a total mass of the formulation ([0043]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have included the film-forming additive of Zhang in view of Dong in an amount of from 0.001 wt% to 8 wt% relative to a total mass of the formulation as taught by Dong ([0043]), overlapping the claimed range of from 0.1 to 3 wt% and thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)], with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights