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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. IDS statements of previous office actions have already been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group I without traverse in the response filed 04/22/2025. Applicant further elected Flame retardant A subspecies b with traverse and argues that the Flame retardant B overlaps in scope with the elected species of Flame retardant A. This argument is noted, however, is not found to be persuasive as each species presented in the restriction would require a unique and separate search and thus a search burden is present. This is further shown in the dependent claims wherein a plurality of dependent claims further limit each species wherein each species of the dependent claim would require a separate search. Thus the restriction and election of species dated 01/22/2025 is deemed proper and is final. Examiner notes that upon examination, Flame Retardant A and subspecies b and Flame Retardant B was found to be allowable over the prior art, thus a new group, Flame retardant A subspecies d, chosen for examination. Flame Retardant A subspecies a, b, and c have been withdrawn and will not be examined until Flame retardant A subspecies d is found to be allowable or a continuation or divisional application is filed.
Claim Status
Claim 28 has been amended with minor editorial amendments.
Claims 2-3, 5, 10-12, 19, 24, 27, 29-34, 37, 40-48 have been cancelled.
Claims 35-36, 38-39 have been withdrawn in view of the restriction requirement.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 13-18, 20-23, 25-26 and 28 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 13-18, 20-23, and 25-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (WO 2017210593 A1) in view of Tanako et al. (US 2019/0185445A1) and Xu (US 2005/0209357 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery which solution comprises:
A liquid electrolyte medium (Page 2- Summary of the Invention; organic solvent);
A lithium containing salt (Page 2- Summary of the Invention; a lithium salt) ; and
At least one oxygen containing brominated flame retardant (brominated flame retardant that contains oxygen as seen on pages 5-9).
Reed further discloses a lists of examples that the brominated flame retardant can be, however, is silent with respect to the specific flame retardant according to flame retardant A subspecies d of a brominated cyclic carbonate within the claim.
Tanako discloses a halogenated cyclic carbonate for battery cell electrolyte and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of electrolytes for batteries. Tanako discloses wherein a halogenated cyclic carbonate compound wherein x can be Bromine ([0024]; also see formula 5-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
164
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
153
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While, Tanako discloses compound 2-1 being an intermediate product to a preferred fluorinated compound, Tanako discloses a brominated cyclic carbonate. Tanako further discloses the product of reacting vinylene carbonate is used to achieve a high flame retardance and good rate characteristics and good oxidation resistance ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the flame retardant materials of Reed for the electrolyte flame retardant material taught by Tanako ( such as Compound 2-1 and/or compound 5-2) that is used in the electrolyte and has flame retardant properties as a simple substitution of one electrolyte flame retardant material for another. The combination would render obvious the material used in the electrolyte solution for the oxygen containing brominated flame retardant as the halogenated cyclic carbonate is used in the electrolyte and is within the scope of a brominated flame retardant. Therefore, the combination would render obvious the brominated flame retardant. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.), also see MPEP § 2144.04.
Additionally, Reed is silent with respect to wherein the brominated flame retardant is provided in an amount of 10 wt% or more of the total weight of the solution.
Xu discloses a flame redundant radiation curable composition that is analogous with the instant invention as being related to flame retardant materials. Xu discloses the use of a brominated flame retardant in which the content of bromine in the resin is 5-30 wt% ([0050-0060]) in order to provide a sufficient flame retardant effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the content of the flame retardant to be between 5-30 wt% in order to increase the effect of preventing flames within a battery. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to optimize the amount of the flame retardant within the battery electrolyte in order to provide the desired flame retardant effect as more flame retardant material would create a more flame retardant electrolyte/battery. Thus the amount of the flame retardant material can be adjusted and optimized in order to have the desired flame retardant effect. Thus through the combinations of claim 1, all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tanako further discloses wherein the brominated flame retardant of A is a brominated cyclic carbonate having a 5 membered ring (Compounds 2-1 and 5-2 discloses a halogenated cyclic carbonate such as bromine).
Regarding claim 13, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Reed further discloses wherein the liquid electrolyte medium is ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate or a mixture thereof, and/or wherein the lithium containing salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium di(fluoro)(oxolato)(borate) or lithium bis(oxolato)borate (Page 3- liquid medium can be ethylene carbonate; salts can be LiBOB).
Regarding claims 14-16, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Reed further discloses wherein at least one electrochemical additive can be an unsaturated cyclic carbonate containing three to four carbons and within an amount of 0.01-10 wt% (Pages 9-10 vinylene carbonate). 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).
Regarding claims 14 and 17-18, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Reed further discloses wherein at least one electrochemical additive can be a lithium containing salt within an amount of 0.01-10 wt% (Pages 9-10 LiBF4; Other lithium salts that can be used as an additional additive; Page 5-9 LIBOB).
Regarding claim 20, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 18. Reed further discloses wherein one or more additive can be included thus only a single additive can be used (Pages 9-10).
Regarding claims 21-23, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Reed further discloses wherein at least one electrochemical additive can be an unsaturated cyclic carbonate containing three to four carbons and within an amount of 0.01-10 wt% (Pages 9-10 vinylene carbonate; Other lithium salts that can be used as an additional additive; Page 5-9 LIBOB). 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).
Regarding claim 25, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 23. Reed further discloses wherein one or more additive can be included thus only a single additive can be used (Pages 9-10).
Regarding claim 26, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further disclose a nonaqueous lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode (Background; lithium ion battery contains a positive electrode, negative electrode and nonaqueous solvent with a lithium salt).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (WO 2017210593 A1) in view of Tanako et al. (US 2019/0185445A1) and Xu (US 2005/0209357 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Allmendinger et al. (US 2010/0273925 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Reed discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Reed further discloses a brominated cyclic carbonate which has about three to about ten carbon atoms (Tanako compounds 2-1 and 5-2), one to about five bromine atoms (Tanako compounds 2-1 and 5-2). Modified Reed is silent with respect to wherein the oxygen containing brominated flame retardant having a bromine content of about 40 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the oxygen containing brominated flame retardant.
Allmendinger discloses a flame proof expandable polymer comprising a flame retardant comprising a bromine content and is analogous to the instant invention as being reasonably pertinent to the problem and area of flame retardant materials. Allmendinger further disclose a polymer having a flame retardant wherein the bromine content is at least 50 % by weight in the organic bromine compound to function and provide flame retardant properties (abstract; [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Allmendinger and adjust the bromine content of the flame retardant to be 50 wt% or more in order to provide sufficient flame retardancy to the electrolyte. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 6 with regard to a brominated cyclic carbonate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-9 and 28 are objected for depending upon independent claim 1. Claims 7-9 and 28 contain further limitations related to the flame retardant and specifically the brominated cyclic carbonate such as the further makeup of the flame retardant having two or more hydrocarbyl groups, and the specific material of claim 28 with relation to the brominated cyclic carbonate limitations for Flame Retardant A subspecies d as being examined. The prior art cited fails to teach nor render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 7-9 and 28 as claimed with regard to Flame retardant A subspecies d.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered and are noted. Applicant provides remarks related to the previous rejection of record and provided a Declaration dated 03/19/2026. These arguments are noted, however, the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights