Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 and 25 November 2025 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, now based on the 35 USC 103 and newly cited prior art which teaches other variations of the fluorinated additives embraced by the claims. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant argues that the instant claims should be given a secondary consideration in view of the superior results shown in the instant specification. However, the Examiner notes that this application is attempting to claim a well-studied material, i.e. fluorinated electrolyte additives and the plethora of prior art, such as those references cited above, speak to the obviousness of the necessity to optimize the chemistry of the fluorinated ether or carbonate in the electrolyte composition. Furthermore, the instant claims fail to establish criticality of the claimed ranges (by failing to be reasonable commensurate in scope with the results shown in the specification – see MPEP 716.02(d)) because the instant claims embrace a large number of additives in various compositions and concentrations never tested.
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, 3-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 105977534 cited in IDS, using the attached translation) in view of Solvay SA (EP 2980063, newly cited, a copy of which is attached).
In regard to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13, Wang et al. teach a battery module (a lithium sulfur battery for an electric vehicle - paragraph [0004]) such as a lithium sulfur battery (paragraph [0008]) and an electrolytic solution to be used for the lithium sulfur secondary battery which comprises:
a positive electrode containing a sulfur-containing electrode active material containing at least one selected from the group consisting of simple sulfur, lithium and polysulfides (paragraph [0018]); and
a negative electrode containing a material that occludes and releases lithium ions (such as lithium metal anode - paragraph [0043-0045]), the electrolytic solution comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte lithium salt compound such as LiPF6 (paragraph [0013]) and a solvent,
wherein the solvent may be one or more carbonate organic solvents such as vinylene carbonate (VC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (paragraph [0015]).
While the prior art does not disclose an exact percentage of VC, the prior art discloses the solvent may be a single compound such as VC, i.e. 100% VC. Additionally, various combinations such as 1:1 and 1:3 of various carbonates are shown in the Examples as potential solvent combinations (paragraphs [0032-0034]) where varying the composition results in different properties such as conductivity and impedance of the electrochemical cells created – thus, establishing that solvent composition is a result effective variable that should be optimized depending on desired properties (see MPEP 2144.05 Part II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use VC alone or a combination of VC and FEC in a ratio such as 1:1 in the electrolyte composition of Wang et al. as various carbonate solvent combinations yield various properties for lithium sulfur battery electrolytes. VC alone or a combination of VC and FEC in a ratio such as 1:1 in the electrolyte composition of Wang et al. as various carbonate solvent combinations yield various properties for lithium sulfur battery electrolytes.
In regard to the amendment, the claim now differs from the prior art in calling for an additive to include a component that is slightly different than the FEC disclosed by Wang et al. However, Solvay SA teaches a similar lithium-sulfur battery (paragraph [0034]) and an electrolyte composition mainly comprised of an organic solvent such as vinylene carbonate (paragraph [0036]) and fluorosubstituted ethylene carbonates (paragraph [0037]) and the desirability to include an additive such as fluorinated ethers discussed generally in paragraphs [0011-0027], such as some of the specific structures reproduced below, in an amount such as such as 1 wt% (paragraphs [0045]) because such Is capable of modifying the viscosity and reducing the flammability of the battery (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use a fluorinate ether, such as those which conform to the claimed formula (2a) in the electrolyte of the lithium sulfur battery of Wang et al. as such increases the safety of the battery by reducing the flammability as taught by Solvay SA.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fluorinated Ethers and Carbonates Electrolytes Additives in Solvay SA in EP 2980063
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US Pub 2014/0342209, of record) in view of Solvay SA (EP 2980063, newly cited, a copy of which is attached).
In regard to claims 1, 3-9 and 11-13, He et al. teach a battery module (a lithium sulfur battery for an electric vehicle - paragraph [0002]) such as a lithium sulfur battery (paragraph [0030]) and an electrolytic solution to be used for the lithium sulfur secondary battery which comprises:
a positive electrode containing a sulfur-containing electrode active material containing at least one selected from the group consisting of simple sulfur, lithium and polysulfides (paragraph [0040-0050]); and
a negative electrode containing a material that occludes and releases lithium ions (paragraphs [0052-0055]), the electrolytic solution comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte lithium salt compound such as LiPF6 (paragraph [0034]) and a solvent,
wherein the solvent includes a first solvent and a second solvent and each may be one or more carbonate organic solvents such as vinylene carbonate (VC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (paragraph [0032-0035, 0087-0091]).
While the prior art does not disclose an exact percentage of VC, the prior art discloses the solvent may be a single compound such as VC, i.e. 100% VC or various combinations of carbonate solvents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use VC alone or a combination of VC and FEC in a varying ratio such as 1:1 in the electrolyte composition of He et al. as various carbonate solvent combinations yield various properties for lithium sulfur battery electrolytes.
In regard to the amendment, the claim now differs from the prior art in calling for an additive that is slightly different than the FEC disclosed by He et al. However, Solvay SA teaches a similar lithium-sulfur battery (paragraph [0034]) and an electrolyte composition mainly comprised of an organic solvent such as vinylene carbonate (paragraph [0036]) and fluorosubstituted ethylene carbonates (paragraph [0037]) and the desirability to include an additional additive such as fluorinated ethers discussed in paragraphs [0011-0027], some specific structures reproduced above, in an amount such as such as 1 wt% (paragraph [0045]) because such Is capable of modifying the viscosity and reducing the flammability of the battery (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use a fluorinated ether such as those which conform to the claimed formula (2a) in the electrolyte of the lithium sulfur battery of He et al. as such increases the safety of the battery by reducing the flammability as taught by Solvay SA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Pubs 2014/0023916 and 2018/0331393 teach similar carbonate solvents for lithium sulfur batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, Tong Guo can be reached on 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723