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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites verbatim the limitations in section B) of Claim 1, on which Claim 9 depends, and does not further limit the claim the subject matter of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-100406480-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
A nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery (“a non-aqueous electrolyte for batteries used in lithium secondary batteries,” see [0003]), which solution comprises
i) a liquid electrolyte medium; ii) a lithium-containing salt (“an appropriate amount of lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent,” see [0004]);
and iii) a flame retardant, in a flame retardant amount, wherein the flame retardant comprises at least one brominated flame retardant
Kim does not teach the addition of a flame retardant. However, Kim teaches using an additive in the electrolyte solution which can suitably be dibromobenzene, see [0020]. Kim teaches the genus of dibromobenzene. The genus dibromobenzene contains three species; 1,2-dibromobenzene, 1,3-dibromobenzene, and 1,4-dibromobenzene. The skilled artisan can envisage each species of the genus and readily acknowledge that the genus of dibromobenzene contains the species of 1,3-dibromobenzene. The species of dibromobenzene to use as additive in Kim represents a problem with a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely, 1) 1,2-dibromobenzene, 2) 1,3-dibromobenzene, and 3) 1,4-dibromobenzene. It is the Examiners position that any of the presented predictable solutions are obvious.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have pursued the presented known potential solution of using 1,3-dibromobenzez as the additive in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The instant specification recognizes 1,3-dibromobenzene as a brominated flame retardant, see instant-spec [0006].
wherein A) the flame retardant amount is about 20 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the solution, and the flame retardant is selected from (1) a mixture of 1,2-dibromoethane and 2,3-dibromo-2-propen-1-ol, (2) 1,3-dibromobenzene, and (3) bromochloromethane
As rendered obvious above, Kim teaches the addition of 1,3-dibromobeneze. Kim further teaches this additive is preferably added in an amount of 2-40 wt% which overlaps the claimed range. Additionally, Kim teaches within this weight percent range the charge-discharge cycle life characteristics are improved.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed 1,3-dibromobeneze wt% range in order to arrive at favorable charge-discharge cycle life characteristics.
or B) the flame retardant amount is about 6 wt% or more flame retardant molecules relative to the total weight of the electrolyte solution, the at least one brominated flame retardant is 1,3-dibromopropane or 1,2-dibromoethane (optional limitation).
The modification of Kim with the rational given above further teaches:
(per Claim 25) the flame retardant amount about 20 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the solution, and wherein the brominated flame retardant is 1,3- dibromobenzene.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yew et al. (US-20060194118-A1) in view of Reed et al. (WO-2017210593-A1 as provided in the IDS dated 08/15/2022) and Okamoto et al. (US-20130130128-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yew with the following modification in view of Redd and Okamoto teaches:
A nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery, which solution comprises i) a liquid electrolyte medium; ii) a lithium-containing salt; and iii) a flame retardant, in a flame retardant amount, wherein the flame retardant comprises at least one brominated flame retardant (a nonaqueous electrolyte for a lithium battery that has a lithium salt (LiPF6) and 1,2-dibromoethane (DBE) dissolved in a mixed solvent including ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, see [0056] and [0061]. The instant specification recognizes 1,2-dibromoethane as a brominated flame retardant, see instant-spec [0006]),
wherein A) the flame retardant amount is about 20 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the solution, and the flame retardant is selected from (1) a mixture of 1,2-dibromoethane and 2,3-dibromo-2-propen-1-ol, (2) 1,3- dibromobenzene, and (3) bromochloromethane (optional limitation);
Yew does not necessarily teach:
or B) the flame retardant amount is about 6 wt% or more flame retardant molecules relative to the total weight of the electrolyte solution, the at least one brominated flame retardant is 1,3-dibromopropane or 1,2-dibromoethane,
Example 6 of Yew discloses using 1,2-dibromoethane in the amount of 5 wt%. Therefore, the embodiment of Example 6 does not teach “the flame retardant amount is about 6 wt% or more flame retardant molecules relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution.” However, Yew teaches the 1,2-dibromoethane can suitably be added in the amount of 0.1-10 wt%.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the 1,2-dibromoethane in the amount of 0.1-10 wt% because Yew teaches this is a suitable amount. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Yew does not teach:
the flame retardant further comprises a non-brominated flame retardant,
wherein the non-brominated flame retardant is 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5- triazatriphosphinine, and the weight ratio of the at least one brominated flame retardant to the 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5- triazatriphosphinine is about 1.5:1 to about 3:1.
To solve the same problem of providing a non-aqueous electrolytic solution for a battery (see Abstract), Okamoto teaches addition of 0.1 to 3% by weight, relative to the non-aqueous electrolytic solution of phenoxypentafluorocyclotriphosphazene (i.e., 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6- pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine) as a blister inhibitor which inhibits gas generation, see [0140] and [0151]-[0152].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added phenoxypentafluorocyclotriphosphazene in the amount of 0.1 to 3% by weight as taught by Okamoto into the electrolyte solution of Yew to inhibits gas generation.
The modification given above indicates having an electrolyte solution with 1,2-dibromoethane and 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6- pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine in amounts that at least have some overlap with the amount of 6 wt% of flame retardant and the claimed ratio of “1.5:1 to about 3:1.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 8, as rendered obvious above, Yew in view of Reed teaches a “mixture of 1,2-dibromoethane and 2,3-dibromo-2-propen-1-ol.”
Regarding Claim 10, Yew discloses a mixture of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate with a lithium salt of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), see [0056] and [0061].
Regarding Claim 23, Yew teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of his invention is added in a lithium battery which has a positive electrode and a negative electrode, see [0012].
Claims 11-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yew et al. (US-20060194118-A1) in view of Reed et al. (WO-2017210593-A1 as provided in the IDS dated 08/15/2022) and Okamoto et al. (US-20130130128-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Dubois et al. (US-20170084951-A1).
Regarding Claims 11-15 and 18-20, Yew does not teach the addition of a saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfates to the electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing electrolyte compositions for lithium ion batteries (see Abstract), Dubois teaches adding ethylene sulfate (1,3,2-dioxathiolane, 2,2-dioxide) to the electrolyte at an amount of 2 wt% aids specific discharge capacity and decreases gas generation, see Table 3-Example 4-5 and [0176]. Ethylene sulfate has the structure below in which both A groups are hydrogen, see [0009].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added 1,3,2-dioxathiolane, 2,2-dioxide at an amount of 2 wt% as taught by Dubois in the electrolyte solution of Yen to aid specific discharge capacity and decreases gas generation.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modification above teaches the claim limitations of:
(per Claim 11) further comprising at least one electrochemical additive selected from: g) saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfates having a 5-membered or 6-membered ring and containing two to about six carbon atoms
(per Claim 12) wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from: g) saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfates having a 5-membered ring and containing two to about four carbon atoms.
(per Claim 13) wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from: ,g) a saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfate in an amount of about 0.25 wt% to about 5 wt%, relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution
(per Claim 14) wherein the electrochemical additive is a saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfate,
(per Claim 15) wherein the electrochemical additive is a saturated cyclic hydrocarbyl sulfate in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%
(per Claim 18) wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from…1,3,2-dioxathiolane 2,2-dioxide
(per Claim 19) wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from: 1,3,2-dioxathiolane 2,2-dioxide in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%, relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution.
(per Claim 20) wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from …1,3,2-dioxathiolane 2,2- dioxide… 1,3,2-dioxathiolane 2,2-dioxide, in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%...relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution.
Regarding Claim 17, the modifications of Yew in view of Reed and Dubois do not teach addition of any other electrochemical additives. The scope of other electrochemical additives is interpreted as being based on the list of additive provided in the instant specification at paragraph [0035]-[0046].
Regarding Claim 22, the modifications of Yew in view of Reed and Dubois do not teach addition of any other electrochemical additives. The scope of other electrochemical additives is interpreted as being based on the list of additive provided in the instant specification at paragraphs [0035]-[0046].
Claims 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yew et al. (US-20060194118-A1) in view of Reed et al. (WO-2017210593-A1 as provided in the IDS dated 08/15/2022) and Okamoto et al. (US-20130130128-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (US-20020037458-A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Yew does not teach:
wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution further comprises vinylene carbonate in an amount of about 8 wt% to about 11 wt%, relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution.
To solve the same problem of providing a nonaqueous electrolyte for a secondary battery, Yamaguchi teaches adding vinylene carbonate within a range of 0.05 wt % or more to 20 wt % or lower relative to all the nonaqueous electrolyte solution. Yamaguchi further teaches that within this range of the vinylene carbonate the cyclic characteristic of the battery can be enhanced without deteriorating the capacity of the battery, see [0066].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added vinylene carbonate in order to enhance the cyclic characteristic without deteriorating the capacity of the battery. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Claim and Specification Objection
In light of the amendments made to the claims and specification the objections are withdrawn.
Rejections under U.S.C. 35 §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8-15, 17-20, 22, 25, and 29 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 except for the following.
Applicant argues on pages 19-20, that the combination of Yew in view of Reed and Okamoto do not contemplate the advantageous effects of enhanced flame retardancy when the claimed triazatriphosphine is mixed with either 1,3-dibromopropane or 1,2-dibromoethane in the claimed amounts. In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights