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 responsive to amendment and remarks filed on 3/11/2026.
Claim 1, has been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12-15 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the objection to drawings is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on page 9 of 20 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument on page 9 of 20 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, KAI [0030] states "Preferably, the electrolyte is further added with an auxiliary additive, and the auxiliary additive includes at least one of lithium nitrate, potassium nitrate, cesium nitrate, lanthanum nitrate, and copper acetate; preferably lithium nitrate. The present invention has found that auxiliary additives, especially lithium nitrate and the additives described in the present invention have an unexpected synergistic effect, which can significantly improve the initial specific capacity and cycle retention rate of lithium-sulfur batteries." This clearly shows that prior data exists, and provides ample motivation to combine for one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill would lack motivation or that the “reference is simply too vast” and therefore lacks a prima facia case for obviousness is without merit. There is enough motivation for a person of ordinary skill to simply try this short list of auxiliary additives without the need for undue experimentation that is quite within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to the applicant’s argument on page 10 of 20 that there are alleged surprising and unexpected results the office points out that the allegation of unexpected results IS NOT commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The examiner would like to point to table 1 of the instant specification where Examples 1-6 all have 2-methylfuran as the first solvent, dimethoxyethane as the second solvent, and BTFE as the third solvent. Only comparative examples 3 and 4 share the composition of the first two solvents and do not have BTFE. Furthermore, out of those two comparative examples only comparative example 4 contains La(NO3)3. Applicant is reminded the alleged unexpected data must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The last amendment brought both canceled claims 5 and 11 into claim one which creates a claim broader than the alleged results. It is the examiner’s recommendation to narrow the claim so that a proper analysis of the allegation of surprising and unexpected results can be made.
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, 4, 6, 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/084449 A2 (US 20190245203 A1 is used as an English equivalent, of IDS of 05/19/2023) , CHO et al., in view of US 20180254524 A1, ZHANG et al., in further view of CN 110148787A KAI a machine translation from espacenet.com is used for the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, CHO discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery [0076], comprising two or more solvents [0087], a weak polar solvent group , a strong polar solvent group and a lithium metal protecting solvent group is preferred.
CHO discloses the heterocyclic compound furan [0091].
CHO explains that the lithium metal protecting solvent is defined as a solvent having charge and discharge cycle efficiency of 50% or greater and forming a stable solid electrolyte interface (SEI) on lithium metal [0088].
CHO [0087] also discloses a second solvent which is referred to as a strong polar solvent that is defined as a solvent with a dielectric constant of larger than 15 capable of dissolving lithium polysulfide among non-cyclic carbonate, and ester compounds [0088].
CHO [0088] discloses a third solvent which is referred to a weak polar solvent which include ether containing compounds.
CHO discloses the solvents but fails to disclose the concentration of the solvents of an amount of the first solvent is 10 vol.% to 30 vol.%, an amount of the second solvent is 60 vol.% to 80 vol.%, and an amount of the third solvent is 5 vol.% to 10 vol.%, based on a total amount of the first solvent, the second solvent and the third solvent or that the mixing ratio of the second solvent and the third solvent is 7:1 to 15:1 as a volume ratio.
However, 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).
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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
CHO does not disclose the third solvent being bis(2,2,2- trifluoroethyl)ether (BTFE) which is instantly claimed.
ZHANG discloses localized super-concentrated electrolytes (LSE) for stable cycling of electrochemical devices [Title] comprising bis(2,2,2- trifluoroethyl)ether (BTFE) [0010] compound, and a lithium salt [0009].
ZHANG further teaches a diluent, wherein the active salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the active salt in the solvent [0006].
ZHANG goes on to disclose that a diluent in which the salt is insoluble or poorly soluble can resolve some or all of the problems associated with too viscous of an electrolyte [0117].
Cho discloses a second solvent which is referred to as a strong polar solvent that is defined as a solvent with a dielectric constant of larger than 15 capable of dissolving lithium polysulfide among non-cyclic carbonate, and ester compounds[0088] but not the ether containing compound that is instantly claimed ZHANG discloses an ether-containing compound that does not contain fluorine as triethylene glycol dimethylether [0132].
ZHANG further teaches a bridge solvent. The bridge solvent is selected to be miscible with both solvent A and the diluent, thereby enhancing the practical miscibility of solvent A, and the diluent. In some embodiments, molecules of the bridge solvent are amphiphilic, including both a polar end or moiety, and a non-polar end or moiety, such that molecules of the bridge solvent will associate both with molecules of solvent A and molecules of the diluent, thereby improving the miscibility between solvent A, and the diluent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use triethylene glycol dimethylether as a bridge solvent in order to increase the miscibility of the cosolvents.
Neither CHO nor ZHANG disclose lanthanum nitrates.
KAI discloses an electrolyte with an auxiliary additive such as lanthanum nitrate [0030].
KAI [0033] discloses a lithium salt that “[p]referably, the lithium salt is at least one of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [(or LIFSI)], lithium tetrafluoroborate and lithium perchlorate.”
KAI [0034] further discloses that “[t]he concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is 0.5-10 mol/L.”
KAI [0031] also then discloses that the auxiliary additives, especially lithium nitrate and the additives described in the present invention i.e., lanthanum nitrate have an unexpected synergistic effect, which can significantly improve the initial specific capacity and cycle retention rate of lithium-sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the lithium nitrate, a lithium salt preferably lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [(or LIFSI)], and lanthanum nitrate taught by KAI to the electrolyte of modified CHO because this would improve the initial specific capacity and cycle retention rate of the lithium-sulfur battery.
Regarding claim 4, CHO [0088] discloses a third solvent which is referred to a weak polar solvent which include ether containing compounds.
CHO does not disclose the third solvent further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of bis(fluoromethyl)ether, 2-fluoromethylether, 1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3 -tetrafluoropropylether, propyl 1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethylether, isopropyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethylether, 1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethylisobutylether, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropylethylether, 1H,1H,2'H,3H- decafluorodipropylether and 1H,1H,2'H-perfluorodipropylether.
ZHANG [0010] discloses 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropylether (TFTFE) which ZHANG refers to as a diluent.
ZHANG [0062] further discloses “the concentration of active salt is lowered by addition of the diluent without significant reduction in the performance of batteries”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used TFTFE as a diluent in order to lower the needed concentration of the active salt.
Regarding claim 6, CHO discloses LiCl [0086].
Regarding claim 9, KAI discloses potassium nitrate [00029-30].
Regarding claim 10, KAI discloses lithium nitrate and lanthanum nitrate [0061] is 2% by weight.
a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to experiment within the ranges in the instant application.
Regarding claim 12, CHO discloses 2- methylfuran [0091] as the first solvent, and dimethoxyethane [0089] as the second solvent, ZHANG discloses bis(2,2,2- trifluoroethyl)ether [0010] as the third solvent as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 13-15, CHO discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery including a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0076]. CHO further teaches a separator may be additionally included [0082]. The electrolyte is discussed above in claim 1 as is incorporated herein.
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 at (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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights