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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11-20-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of an electrolyte solution comprising an ethylene carbonate solvent, a lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salt and further comprising a lithium hexafluorophosphate salt and the solvent does not does further comprising a third solvent and does not further comprise a third salt, lithium difluorophosphate salt in the reply filed on 4-25-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-6, 14 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4-25-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 is rejected because the claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends from because claim 1 already claims 16% < WLiFSI + WEC < 24%. Claim 16 is rejected because the claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends from because claim 1 claims that the solvent comprises EC in an amount between 8.3-15.2 wt% and claim 16 claims that EC can comprise 10-18 wt%.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2019/0305317). Cheng et al. teaches in [0057], an electrolyte solution comprising a solvent comprising 15-50% by volume of ethylene carbonate with the larger content of EC will contribute to higher energy costs of desolvation which affects the charging speed therefore DMC and EMC are also included. The volume ratio of EC/DMC/EMC for better viscosity and ion conduction is defined as x:y:100- x- y, where x equals 15-50 vol% [teaches 15-15.2 vol% of EC] and y is 20-60 vol% [teaches 52-58 vol% or 55-58 vol% of EMC]. Cheng et al. teaches in [0055-0056], that the electrolyte solution comprises an imide anion-based lithium salt, LiFSI and a conventional salt such as LiPF6 in a total concentration in the range of 0.1-3 M. Cheng et al. teaches in the examples that the electrolyte solution comprises 0.6 5 M of LIFSI and 0.6 5 M of LiPF6; 1 mass% LiPO2F the solvent in a mixed solvent of EC/DMC/EMC. Cheng et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not specifically teach using 4.5-11% or 6-11% of LiFSI salt and 6.25-11.25% of LiPF6 salt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 4.5-11% or 6-11% of LiFSI salt and 6.25-11.25% of LiPF6 salt, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 4.5-11% or 6-11% of LiFSI salt and 6.25-11.25% of LiPF6 salt, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The presently claimed property of using 4.5-11% or 6-11% of the electrolyte salt LiFSI; containing 6.25-11.25% of LiPF6; satisfying the equation of 0.9 < WLiFSI/(16.77%-WEC) < 2.9 or 1.05 < WLiFSI/(16.77%-WEC) < 2.9 and the sum of the mass % of EC + LiFSI = 16-24% would have obviously been present once the Cheng et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
In addition, the presently claimed property of the sum of the mass% of the LiPF6 + LiFSI = 15.7-17.2 % would have obviously been present once the Cheng et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuno et al. (EP 2 958 183) teaches Table 1, Example 11, an electrolyte solution comprising 15% EC, 85% EMC, 0.40 M LiFSI and 1.00 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 14, an electrolyte solution comprising 10% EC, 90% EMC, 0.50 M LiFSI and 1.00 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 15, an electrolyte solution comprising 15% EC, 85% EMC, 0.50 M LiFSI and 1.00 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 18, an electrolyte solution comprising 15% EC, 85% EMC, 0.60 M LiFSI and 1.00 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 19, an electrolyte solution comprising 15% EC, 85% EMC, 0.70 M LiFSI and 1.00 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 22, an electrolyte solution comprising 10% EC, 90% EMC, 1.00 M LiFSI and 0.20 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches Table 1, Example 23, an electrolyte solution comprising 10% EC, 90% EMC, 1.20 M LiFSI and 0.20 M LiPF6. Mizuno et al. teaches in claim 4, a secondary battery comprising the electrolyte solution. Liao et al. (CN 111640977) teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte solution comprising the conductive lithium salt, an additive and a solvent wherein the additive comprises lithium difluorophosphate, etc. and the solvent further comprises a cyclic carbonate such as ethylene carbonate and linear carbonates comprising methyl ethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, etc. Liao et al. teaches that the lithium difluorophosphate can be added in an amount of 0.1-2 mass%. Liao et al. teaches that the conductive lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [LiFSI] and lithium hexafluorophosphate [LiPF6] in the amount of 14-20 mass % where LiPF6 is present in an amount of 3-16 mass %. Liao et al. teaches in in Table 1, Example 13, an electrolyte solution comprising a solvent comprising 10 wt% of EC and lithium salts comprising 10 wt% LiFSI, 5 wt% LiPF6 and 1 wt% LiDFP.
Demeaux et al. (EP 3 703 174), machine translation teaches an electrolyte solution in Table 1, Examples B-E, L and Q comprising 10 vol% EC, 0.3 M LiFSI [lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and 0.7 M LiPF6 [lithium hexafluorophosphate]. Demeaux et al. teaches an electrolyte solution in Table 1, Example M comprising 10 vol% EC, 0.5 M LiFSI [lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and 0.5 M LiPF6 [lithium hexafluorophosphate].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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 at 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723