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
The amendment filed on 07/31/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claims 5 and 6, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 5 and 6 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 7-11 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the liquid electrolyte of Hirano is totally different from a non-aqueous electrolyte that does not use water however Hirano clearly presents the liquid of the liquid electrolyte may be organic solvent and provides a list of acceptable solvents(¶[0075]).
Applicant argues Wei does not teach formula 1 as an additive in an electrolyte, however Zhang is relied upon to teach imidazoles as an additive in an ionic liquid based liquid electrolyte and Wei is relied upon solely to teach specific selection of the R groups of the imidazole already taught in Zhang.
Applicant also argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include the lithium salt taught by Zhang in liquid electrolyte of Hirano. The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out Hirano points to the use of their liquid electrolyte invention in lithium ion batteries with lithium salts(¶[0002).
Applicant finally argues Hirano does not teach the wt % of additive because the amount of solvent or the addition of lithium is not found in Hirano, however the amount of solvent is not claimed and the addition of lithium salt is taught in combination with Zhang where the amount of solvent and lithium salt may be a wide range of values leading to overlapping ranges of the molar ratio of additive taught by Hirano and the claimed range.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US20070269710A1), further in view of Wei (CN103012275, cited in IDS dated 11/21/23), and further in view of Zhang (US2012082903A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-9, Hirano discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (¶[0024]), the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising an additive represented by formula (1) below
PNG
media_image1.png
284
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula 1, R1, R2 and R4 may be hydrogen atoms and R3 may be cyclohexyl (¶[0049]-[¶[0052]). Hirano does not disclose a specific example of Formula 1 within claim 1 in the instant application.
Wei, related to N-alkyl imidazoles, teaches a compound according to Formula 1 of the instant specification, where R is a cyclic alkyl group having 6 carbon atoms (page 3, Embodiment 6, N-cyclohexylimidazole) and is known to act as an important starting material for imidazolium-based ionic liquids (page 2, first paragraph under technical background) such as those in the electrolyte solution containing the imidazole-based base and phosphoric acid of Hirano.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the imidazole of Wei is the same as the structure suggested in Hirano and it would act as an important starting material for the ionic liquid in the electrolyte solution of Hirano.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided N-cyclohexylimidazole synthesized by Wei as the base for the electrolyte solution of Hirano to provide an effective ionic liquid.
Hirano also discloses the liquid electrolyte may contain an organic solvent (¶[0075]) and further discloses suitability for secondary batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries (¶[0001]-[0002]), but does not disclose a lithium salt added to the solution.
Zhang, related to electrolyte solutions, teaches ionic liquids containing N-alkyl imidazoles (¶0187]) in electrolyte solutions (abstract) which also contain added lithium salts (¶[0168]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize adding the lithium salt of Zhang to the electrolyte solution of Hirano would provide added ionic conductivity (¶[0169]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the lithium salt of Zhang to the electrolyte of Hirano to improve ionic conductivity.
Hirano also discloses wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution additive, in this case the imidazole base, is present in an amount of 1:1 to 1:99 mole ratio of base to acid (¶[0093]) before addition of the organic solvent and lithium salt providing solutions including those containing 0.2 wt.% to 2.5 wt.% of additive based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution.
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hirano discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1, further comprising a phosphate-based compound, in this case phosphoric acid (¶[0093]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hirano discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution claim 1, and Hirano further discloses suitability for secondary batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries (¶[0001]-[0002]), but does not disclose the specifics of the battery.
Zhang further teaches an electrochemical device containing a cathode (positive electrode), anode (negative electrode), and electrolyte solution (¶[0177]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing the positive and negative electrode of Zhang would provide a fully functioning lithium-ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the positive and negative electrode of Zhang to provide a fully functioning battery.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 28 January 2026