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 .
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 30th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 2-4 and 21 are cancelled.
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on July 30th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of April 30th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1, 12-14, and 18 over Giroud (US 2011/0151317) and further in view of Zhao (Dual-functionalized ionic liquids: synthesis and characterization of imidazolium salts with a nitrile-functionalized anion) are maintained.
The 103 rejections of claims 15-17 over Giroud in further view of Zhao, Abe (US 2009/0136838 A1), and Su (US 2020/0044285 A1) are maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 20 over Giroud and further in view of Zhao is withdrawn.
The objections to claims 18-20 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 2-4 are moot because those claims have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant cites experimental results on pages 9-13 that successfully demonstrate how an electrolyte with the claimed compound performs better than a control electrolyte without the claimed compound. However, this control electrolyte does not have a trifluoroborate. The ionic liquid of Giroud in view of Zhao does have a trifluoroborate additive, similar to the claimed electrolyte. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the prior art’s ionic liquid would also have improved performance compared to a control electrolyte because the prior art’s ionic liquid contains an additive with the reactive functional groups that are identical to the claimed additive. Therefore, the Applicant’s exemplary results do not distinguish it over the prior art because those results are in comparison to an electrolyte composition that is not being taught by the prior art.
The Applicant also argues that their claimed compound distinguishes it over Zhao’s compound because Zhao’s compound contains an additional C2H4 between the trifluoroborate functional group and the cyano functional group. The Examiner disagrees. The claimed structure and Zhao’s structure are still structurally similar and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have different utility. The additional carbon-based groups do not sterically prevent the functional groups from being exposed to their environment and thus are analogously chemically active to the claimed compound. See MPEP 2144.09 (I). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroud (US 2011/0151317 A1) and further in view of Zhao (Dual-functionalized ionic liquids: synthesis and characterization of imidazolium salts with a nitrile-functionalized anion”).
Regarding claim 1, Giroud teaches ionic liquid electrolytes with an imidazolium ion and a quaternary ammonium ion [0065] with an anion containing a halogenic element, but is silent with respect to the organotrifluoroborate claimed in Formula I and the wt. % of the additive. Zhao is analogous art to Giroud because both teach ionic liquids. Zhao teaches the ionic liquids that contain the imidazolium ion taught by Giroud and the anion depicted below (an organotrifluoroborate whose structure and utility are sufficiently similar to the claimed compound). See MPEP 2144.09 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhao continues to teach that ionic liquids with this structure have low viscosities and melting points (Zhao, right column, page 2500), and Giroud indicates that a low viscosity is beneficial for electrolytes ([0075] and [0105]–[0109]). Substituting the ionic liquid of Giroud’s with the ionic liquid of Zhao’s results in a structure where the anion is patentably indistinct from the claimed compound and the “M+” is an imidazolium ion.
Giroud teaches that the electrolyte that contains the ionic compound, an organic solvent (in an amount of 5-20% by mass of the electrolyte [0165]), a conducting salt [0072], and small percentage of anionic surfactant [0143]. In this case, the content of the organotrifluoroborate would be overlapping with the claimed range of at least 0.01 wt.%.
Moreover, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the ionic liquid of Zhao in place of the ionic liquid of Giroud in order to create an electrolyte that has low viscosity to improve electrolyte performance.
Furthermore, Giroud teaches a cathode comprising a cathode active material disposed on a cathode current collector ([0168] and Figure 1, #3), an anode comprising an anode active material disposed on an anode current collector ([0168] and Figure 1, #1) and a separator disposed between them ([0180] and Figure 1, #2). As seen in Figure 1, the two electrodes are facing each other, and the liquid electrolyte is disposed between the cathode and anode. The liquid electrolyte may be comprised of the ionic liquid [0163]. Figure 1 is depicted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
415
1081
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12-14, Giroud teaches that the electrolyte may be comprised of LiPF6 in a range of 0.1M – 10M ([0072] and [0074]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8M to 1.6M. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Giroud teaches that a mixture of conducting salts may be used in the electrolyte, including LiODBF [0072]. LiODBF is an alternative acronym for LiDFOB. Therefore, Giroud teaches using LiDFOB as a component or additive of the electrolyte.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroud in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (US 20090136838 A1) and Su (US 2020/0044285 A1). Giroud teaches that the electrolyte comprising of an ionic liquid “may further contain other components such as organic solvents…currently used in electrolytes such as carbonates” ([0164]- [0165]), but is silent on specific organic solvents or carbonates. Su and Giroud teach non-aqueous electrolytes and therefore are analogous art. Su teaches that an electrolyte fluid may be a mixture of propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), and other solvents ([0054]), thus it would be prima facie obvious to use them as solvents in Giroud’s electrolyte based on their suitability for their intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Abe and Giroud teach non-aqueous electrolytes and therefore are analogous art. Abe teaches that using propyl propionate (PP) and ethyl propionate (EP) as solvents in an electrolyte fluid obtains excellent low-temperature output characteristics, especially in temperatures under -20 ℃ ([0027]–[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the solvents of modified Giroud, Su, and Abe such that the electrolyte comprises of Giroud’s ionic liquid, the PC and EC taught by Su, and the PP and EP taught by Abe in order to improve battery function in sub-zero temperatures.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroud and Zhao as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Su, Xiao (US 2006/0147808 A1), Moganty (US 2017/0305869 A1), and Cheng (US 2019/0326625 A1). Su teaches the usage of succinonitrile and fluoroethylene carbonate as additives to an electrolyte ([0052] and [0054]). These materials are suitable for intended use in an electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use succinonitrile and fluoroethylene carbonate as additives to Giroud and Zhao’s electrolyte. See MPEP 2144.07.
Giroud and Zhao are silent on the usage of propane sultone. Xiao is analogous art to Giroud because both discuss materials used in batteries (title, Giroud; title, Xiao). Xiao teaches that batteries with electrolytes containing propane sultone have improved over-charge characteristics and reduce gas generation during charging and discharging (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include propane sultone in modified Giroud’s electrolyte to improve the over-charge characteristics of a battery containing said electrolyte.
Giroud and Zhao are silent on the usage of pro-1-ene-1, 3-sultone in an electrolyte. Moganty is analogous art to Giroud because both discuss batteries (Giroud, title; Cheng, title). Moganty teaches the usage of 1-propene, 1,3 sultone (the same compound with a different naming style) as an additive in an electrolyte [0042] to protect the electrodes from degradation [0039]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use 1-propene, 1,3, sultone in modified Giroud’s electrolyte to help prevent the degradation of electrodes in a battery that uses modified Giroud’s electrolyte.
Giroud and Zhao are silent on the usage of methylene methanedisulfonate in an electrolyte. Cheng is analogous art to Giroud because both discuss batteries (Giroud, title; Cheng, title). Cheng teaches that methylene methandisulfonate may be added to an electrolyte, explicitly stating that “any anode electrolyte additive with suitable properties may be used” [0033]. This demonstrates that the art recognizes the suitability of MMDS for the intended use of being an electrolyte additive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add MMDS to modified Giroud’s electrolyte due to its suitability for intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an electrolyte comprising all of the additives recited in claim 18 based on the teachings of Giroud, Zhao, Cheng, Su, Moganty, and Xiao.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached on 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights