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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in Instant Specification paragraph [0084], the compound represented by Formula 1-1 is described as 2-trifluoromethyl-3-methoxyperfluoropentane (TMMP); however, 2-trifluoromethyl-3-methoxyperfluoropentane (TMMP) (or 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane) is represented by the chemical formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
390
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is not the compound represented by Formula 1-1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 11, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues a) Newhouse teaches 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane which is not encompassed by claimed Formula 1 and claimed Formula 1-1 as the claimed compound has one extra CF2 and b) the teachings of Newhouse of the volume ratio rely on different compounds as the ones claimed in claim 1.
Regarding argument A, Applicant’s argument regarding the chemical compound taught by Newhouse differing from Applicant’s Formula 1-1 is found to be persuasive as 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane does not have the extra CF2 as described by Formula 1-1. However, Newhouse teaches each of the one or more first solvent is selected from the group consisting a low-coordinating solvent, a non-polar solvent, and a surfactant-type solvent, and in particular, exemplary low-coordinating solvents are selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane and other fluoro-substituted ethers (see e.g., paragraph [0043]). Newhouse teaches the incorporation of fluoride in the group of fluoro-substituted ethers constituting the low-coordinating first solvents to increase capacity and increase average discharge voltage, thereby achieving markedly higher energy and power while maintaining electrochemical stability at both the high voltage of the cathode and low voltage of the lithium anode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]).
Wang teaches an electrolyte (see e.g., Abstract) comprising a fluoroether with a general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine (see e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0074]). Wang teaches the content of the fluoroether reduces the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of the lithium ion battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would substitute the fluorine-substituted ether represented by the general formula I of Newhouse to be the fluoroether with general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine, and thus, include an addition CF2 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane, as taught by Wang, to reduce the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of a lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Regarding argument B, regarding the volume ratio of two first solvents, Newhouse teaches the volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 when the two first solvents are TFE-TFPE and BTFE (see e.g., paragraph [0083] and Figures 8-9). Newhouse teaches a possible reasoning for this ratio is the highest degree of capacity fade is displayed in the bottom, right corner of the plot wherein the lithium salt molarity is about 5 M LiDFOB in DME and the first solvent volume fraction is >45% BTFE as well as the upper left-hand corner wherein the lithium salt molarity is about 6-6.5 M LiDFOB in DME and the first solvent volume fraction is <20% TFE-TFPE (see e.g., paragraph [0079] and Figure 6); therefore, while Newhouse does not explicitly teach the volume ratio as recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 for two first solvents as taught by Newhouse in order to produce the lowest degree of capacity fade (see e.g., paragraph [0079]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newhouse et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0198933 A1) in view of Wang (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200099103 A1), hereinafter referred to as Newhouse.
Regarding claim 1, Newhouse teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical cell (“a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery”) with relatively high efficiency and stability that can be charged to relatively high voltages (see e.g., Abstract). Newhouse teaches the electrolyte includes one or more first solvents, one or more second solvents, and one or more lithium salts (“a lithium salt”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Newhouse teaches the one or more second solvents (“a non-aqueous solvent”) is a coordinating solvent, such as dimethoxyethane (DME), ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), propylene carbonate (PC) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents is selected from the group consisting of a low-coordinating solvent, a non-polar solvent, and a surfactant-type solvent (see e.g., paragraph [0043]). Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents (e.g., low-coordinating solvent) include a fluorine-substituted ether represented by the general formula I and II:
R—{O(CH2)a}b-CH2-O—CnF2nH general formula I,
wherein R is —CmF2mH or —CmF2m+1, n is an integer of 2 or greater, m is an integer of 1 or greater, a is an integer of 1 or 2, and b is 0 or 1, and
R—O—R′ general formula II,
wherein R and R′ are separately represented by CaFbHc, a is an integer of 2 or greater, b and c are integers >0 with b>c (see e.g., paragraphs [0043]-[0045]). Specifically, Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents also includes 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy-pentane (Applicant’s Formula 2-1) and 1H,1H,5H-octafluoropentyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (OFP-TFEE) (Applicant’s Formula 2-2) (“a compound represented by Formula 2, wherein, in Formula 2, R4 and Rs are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, R6 to Rs are each independently hydrogen, fluorine, or an alkyl group having 1 to 7 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine, and R9 is an alkyl group having 1 to 7 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine”) (see e.g., paragraph [0043]).
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound represented by Formula 2 are present in a volume ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:1.5”; however, Newhouse teaches when a combination of two first solvents are utilized in the electrolyte, such as TFE-TFPE and BTFE, there is a range of optimal ratios that produce the lowest degree of capacity fade (see e.g., paragraph [0079] and Figure 6) and does teach the volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 when the two first solvents are present (see e.g., paragraph [0083] and Figures 8-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 of Applicant’s Formula 1-1 and 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (OFP-TFEE) (Applicant’s Formula 2-2) as taught by Newhouse in order to produce the lowest degree of capacity fade (see e.g., paragraph [0079] and Figure 6).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratios of 1:2 to 2:1 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “a compound represented by Formula 1, herein, in Formula 1, R1 to R3 are each independently an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine”; however, Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents includes 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (see e.g., paragraph [0043]) and other fluoro-substituted ethers, and Newhouse teaches the incorporation of fluoride in the group of fluoro-substituted ethers constituting the low-coordinating first solvents to increase capacity and increase average discharge voltage, thereby achieving markedly higher energy and power while maintaining electrochemical stability at both the high voltage of the cathode and low voltage of the lithium anode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]).
However, Wang teaches an electrolyte (see e.g., Abstract) comprising a fluoroether with a general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine (see e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0074]). Wang teaches the content of the fluoroether reduces the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of the lithium ion battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would substitute the fluorine-substituted ether represented by the general formula I of Newhouse to be the fluoroether with general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine, and thus, include an addition CF2 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane, as taught by Wang, to reduce the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of a lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Regarding claim 2, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “wherein, in Formula 1, R1 to R3 are each independently an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine”; however, Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents includes 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (see e.g., paragraph [0043]) and other fluoro-substituted ethers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include an addition CF2 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane because Newhouse teaches the incorporation of fluoride in the group of fluoro-substituted ethers constituting the low-coordinating first solvents to increase capacity and increase average discharge voltage, thereby achieving markedly higher energy and power while maintaining electrochemical stability at both the high voltage of the cathode and low voltage of the lithium anode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Newhouse teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “wherein, in Formula 1, R1 to R3 are each independently an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine”; however, Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents includes 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (see e.g., paragraph [0043]) and other fluoro-substituted ethers, and Newhouse teaches the incorporation of fluoride in the group of fluoro-substituted ethers constituting the low-coordinating first solvents to increase capacity and increase average discharge voltage, thereby achieving markedly higher energy and power while maintaining electrochemical stability at both the high voltage of the cathode and low voltage of the lithium anode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]).
However, Wang teaches an electrolyte (see e.g., Abstract) comprising a fluoroether with a general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine (see e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0074]). Wang teaches the content of the fluoroether reduces the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of the lithium ion battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would substitute the fluorine-substituted ether represented by the general formula I of Newhouse to be the fluoroether with general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine, and thus, include an addition CF2 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane, as taught by Wang, to reduce the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of a lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Regarding claim 4, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is a compound represented by Formula 1-1”; however, Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents includes 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)pentane (see e.g., paragraph [0043]) and other fluoro-substituted ethers, and Newhouse teaches the incorporation of fluoride in the group of fluoro-substituted ethers constituting the low-coordinating first solvents to increase capacity and increase average discharge voltage, thereby achieving markedly higher energy and power while maintaining electrochemical stability at both the high voltage of the cathode and low voltage of the lithium anode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]).
However, Wang teaches an electrolyte (see e.g., Abstract) comprising a fluoroether with a general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine (see e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0074]). Wang teaches the content of the fluoroether reduces the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of the lithium ion battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would substitute the fluorine-substituted ether represented by the general formula I of Newhouse to be the fluoroether with general formula of Rf1-O-Rf2 wherein Rf1 and Rf2 are each independently a linear or branched C1 to C12 fluoroalkyl group having at least one hydrogen atom replaced by fluorine, and thus, include an addition CF2 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl) pentane, as taught by Wang, to reduce the internal resistance and thickness expansion rate of a lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0195]).
Regarding claim 5, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents also includes 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy-pentane (Applicant’s Formula 2-1) and 1H,1H,5H-octafluoropentyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (OFP-TFEE) (Applicant’s Formula 2-2) (“wherein, in Formula 2, R4 and R5 are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, R6 is fluorine or an alkyl group having 1 to 7 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine, R7 and Rs are each independently hydrogen or fluorine, and R9 is an alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms which is substituted with at least one fluorine”) (see e.g., paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 6, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse teaches the one or more first solvents also includes 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy-pentane (Applicant’s Formula 2-1) and 1H,1H,5H-octafluoropentyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (OFP-TFEE) (Applicant’s Formula 2-2) (“wherein the compound represented by Formula 2 comprises at least one of compounds represented by Formula 2-1 and Formula 2-2”) (see e.g., paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse does not explicitly teach “wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound represented by Formula 2 are present in a volume ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:1”; however, Newhouse teaches when a combination of two first solvents are utilized in the electrolyte, such as TFE-TFPE and BTFE, there is a range of optimal ratios that produce the lowest degree of capacity fade (see e.g., paragraph [0079] and Figure 6) and does teach the volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 when the two first solvents are present (see e.g., paragraph [0083] and Figures 8-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a volume ratio of 1:2 or 2:1 of Applicant’s Formula 1-1 and 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (OFP-TFEE) (Applicant’s Formula 2-2) as taught by Newhouse in order to produce the lowest degree of capacity fade (see e.g., paragraph [0079] and Figure 6).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratios of 1:2 to 2:1 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 10, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse teaches a battery comprising the electrolyte described in above claim 1 (“a lithium secondary battery comprising the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1”) (see e.g., paragraph [0072]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newhouse et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0198933 A1) in view of Wang (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20200099103A1), and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 110994023 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ma.
Regarding claim 8, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Newhouse, as modified by Wang, does not explicitly teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery further comprising at least one additive selected from succinonitrile, trimethyl phosphate, and di-(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) carbonate.
However, Ma teaches a safe electrolyte for a lithium battery comprising an electrolyte additive, solvent, latent solvent and solvent additive (see e.g., Abstract). Ma teaches the solvent additive comprises trimethyl phosphate (“further comprising at least one additive trimethyl phosphate”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) to improve the working temperature range of the lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electrolyte of Newhouse, as modified by Wang, to include trimethyl phosphate, as taught by Ma, in order to improve the working temperature range of the lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Newhouse, as modified by Wang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 8, as previously described.
Newhouse, as modified by Wang, does not explicitly teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 and the additive are present in a volume ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:5.
However, Ma teaches the solvent additive comprises trimethyl phosphate to the solvent is present in a volume ratio of 1:1-3.5% (“wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 and the additive are present in a volume ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:5”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) to improve the working temperature range of the lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the electrolyte of Newhouse, as modified by Wang, to include trimethyl phosphate to the solvent be present in a volume ratio of 1:1-3.5%, as taught by Ma, in order to improve the working temperature range of the lithium battery (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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 T 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728