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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the remarks filed on 1/9/2026.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2-9, 11 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 14-18 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Despite the amendment the objection to drawings is maintained. A detailed explanation is provided in the objection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons. The crux of the applicants' argument is that the
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, While DOJO does not disclose an example with all three solvents; DOJO does state that the first solvent and the second solvent can each contain multiple solvents therefore envisioning an electrolytic solution with three solvents. DOJO also teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a reversible charge/discharge reaction is performed, good cycle performance and charge/discharge efficiency can be obtained, and high capacity and high energy density can be achieved [0013].
Regarding the limitation of claim 1 concerning LiTFSI, PARK teaches away from its use and is noted in the rejection below.
Furthermore, the claims are still not commensurate in scope with the data applicant is relying upon. MPEP 716.02(d). While the applicant has narrowed the claims with respect to the solvents and salts the ranges are still not commensurate in scope with the data of table 1 of the instant specification. The claimed ranges should match the ranges disclosed in the data of the samples used.
Applicant is reminded, “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.” In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). “(Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.") MPEP 716.02(d).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/18/2025. The amendments to figures 1-2 are acknowledged and while the office concedes that the graphs are more legible than the original submission, the objections to the drawings for figures 1-2 still stand for the following reasons:
Regarding figures 1-2. The examiner thanks the applicant for the clarification of what the two lines for each example represent. The figures are still objected to because an explanation of the two lines should be explained in a legend. For example: the upper lines for each example represent the charging of the sample in voltage with respect to capacity and the lower lines represent the discharge of the sample in voltage with respect to capacity.
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, 10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005108724 (A), DOJO et al. in view of US 20190051940 A1; PARK et al.
Regarding claim 1: DOJO discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery [0003], comprising-
a first solvent comprising dimethoxyethane [0037];
a second solvent comprising 2-methylfuran [0036];
a third [0014] solvent comprising 2-methyltetrahydrofuran [0036]
While DOJO does not disclose an example with all three solvents; DOJO does state that the first solvent and the second solvent can each contain multiple solvents therefore envisioning an electrolytic solution with three solvents. DOJO also teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a reversible charge/discharge reaction is performed, good cycle performance and charge/discharge efficiency can be obtained, and high capacity and high energy density can be achieved [0013].
Furthermore, “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
DOJO [0035] teaches that the first solvent is greater than 50%, in the instant application the first and second solvents are equivalent to the first solvent in DOJO. The third solvent of the instant application is equivalent to the second solvent taught by DOJO. Therefore, the third solvent would be greater than 5%.
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
DOJO does not disclose the lithium salt comprises LiFSI and lithium nitrate.
PARK discloses a lithium sulfur battery [0064] teaches LiFSI [0053] and Lithium Nitrate [0019].
Park teaches that LiFSI is particularly favored when used in polymer batteries [0053] and has lower corrosiveness and problems such as current collector corrosiveness that used to occur when using LiTFSI as a liquid electrolyte lithium salt may be improved.
PARK [0030] also teaches an electrolyte of the present disclosure is capable of increasing lithium electrode stability by forming a solid membrane on the lithium surface, and exhibits excellent capacity retention and an effect of improving a battery lifespan property when used in a lithium secondary battery.
PARK [0053] teaches away from the use of LiTFSI thereby meeting the claim limitation of excluding its use.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use LiFSI and lithium nitrate of PARK in an electrolyte of DOJO in order to lower corrosiveness and improve the lifespan of the battery. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the three solvents in to a solution because a good cycle performance and charge/discharge efficiency can be obtained.
Regarding claim 10: DOJO discloses an electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery wherein the lithium salt is LiBF4 [0045].
Regarding claim 12: PARK [0019] teaches potassium nitrate (KNO3).
Regarding claim 14: DOJO discloses an electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte solution is suitable for use in a lithium-sulfur battery [0014].
Regarding claim 15: DOJO discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0014]; and the electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (figure 1, 4 -separator is between the electrodes).
DOJO [0030] discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode, a positive electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Regarding claim 16: DOJO discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 15, wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur battery [0014].
Regarding claim 17 and 18: DOJO discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery according to claim 16, would be expected to inherently exhibit all the claimed limitations, since the electrolyte comprises the three solvents claimed in claim 1.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727