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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 18, 20 and 28 are amended. Claims 5, 8-16, 24 & 27 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-23, 25-26 & 28-32 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25-26 & 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2018/0076485 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 & 28-31, Zhang teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte formulation consisting of a lithium salt such as lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (i.e LiTFSI); a compound represented by the claimed formula Ia and Ib where m=0; n can be 2 to 4; W=H; either one of T1 and T2 can be CF3 with the other of T1 and T2 being H; and Z is a fluorinated alkyl; and an optional co-solvent ([0018]-[0022] & [0043]). Using the known density of 1175 g/L (when n=2 and m=0) for the claimed compound represented by formulas Ia and Ib and using the known molar mass of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide of 187.07 g/mol as well as the electrolyte salt concentration of 1 mol/L, the content by weight of the salt in the electrolyte can be calculated as follows. Assuming an arbitrary 1 L basis for the electrolyte, the total mass of the solvent is: (1L * 1175 g/L) = 1175 g and the total mass of the salt is: (1 L * 1 mol/L * 187.07 g/mol): 187 g. Thus, the metal salt makes up 15.9 wt% of the electrolyte.
Regarding claims 7 & 32, Zhang teaches the solvent represented by the claimed formula I being present in the formulation along with a co-solvent such as dioxolane (i.e DOL), EC or PC at volume ratios of 2:1 and 1:1 in specific embodiments ([0021] & [0043]) which reads on the presently claimed limitation since the claimed compound represented by formula I and the co-solvent as the only liquid components of the formulation.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches a method of reducing the flammability of a battery and/or a battery electrolyte, the method comprising adding to the battery and/or the battery electrolyte, the formulation according to claim 1 ([0044] & [0048]).
Regarding claims 18, 22-23 & 25, Zhang teaches a method of powering an article comprising a battery, the method comprising adding to the battery a compound of formula (I) in a formulation comprising a lithium salt such as lithium, bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in an amount of 15.9 wt% (as noted above), wherein a capacity and/or charge transfer within the battery is improved relative to a battery without the formulation ([0018]-[0022] & [0043]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang teaches the solvent represented by the claimed formula I being present in the formulation along with a co-solvent such as dioxolane (i.e DOL), EC or PC at volume ratios of 2:1 and 1:1 in specific embodiments ([0021] & [0043]) which reads on the presently claimed limitation since the claimed compound represented by formula I and the co-solvent as the only liquid components of the formulation.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2017/0358827 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki teaches a non-aqueous battery electrolyte formulation comprising a compound of formula (I) but is silent as to said compound being prepared by polymerizing an epoxide precursor having formula (IV). However, it is noted that the compound represented by the claimed formula (I) corresponds to a polyether similar to the PFPE of Suzuki except that the claimed compound represented by formula (I) in Suzuki is not perfluorinated. Specifically, only the methyl groups at the ends of the compound in formula (I) and one methyl group attached to a single carbon atom of each repeating unit in the polyether is fluorinated. The PFPE of Suzuki can be prepared by polymerizing an epoxide ([0033]). Thus, since each repeating unit in Suzuki’s glyme derivative (i.e compound represented by Formula (I), has two hydrogen atom attached to a first carbon atom and a hydrogen atom and a trifluoroalkyl group attached to a second carbon atom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the claimed compound with formula (I) by polymerizing an epoxide in which R1 is CF3 and R2=R3=R4=H.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-23, 25-26 & 28-32 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. The amendments to claims 1, 18, 20 & 28 have prompted a new ground of rejection in view of Zhang as presented above. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-4, 6-7, 17-23, 25-26 & 28-32 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727