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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 20-22 are currently pending. Claims 17-19 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-16 are amended. Claims 20-22 are new. Support for the new and amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13, and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “about” renders the amounts and ratios of the recited electrolyte components in claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13, and 15-16 indefinite. The scope of what is claimed is therefore unclear as there is no provided standard or margin of what the term “about” encompasses in reference to the claimed limitations. Claims 4-7, 9-10, 12, and 14 are subsequently rejected for being dependent on the indefinite claims. For examination purposes, the term “about” will be considered to encompass amounts slightly above and below the claimed amounts and measures.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20210234198 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20130157147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a high rate capable electrolyte for a lithium-based cell (paragraph 0002) consisting of: about 1.3M to about 2.5M lithium salt (paragraph 0053, 1.0 M to 1.5 M of LiFSI and less than 0.5 M of LiPF6, equivalent to 1 M to 2M lithium salt, overlapping the claimed range), consisting of from about 0.05M to about 0.8M LiPF6 (paragraph 0053, less than or equal to 0.5 M of LiPF6, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.4 M LiPF6, within the claimed range), from about 0.8M to about 2.1M lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (paragraph 0053, 1.0 to 1.5 M LiFSI, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.8 M LiFSI, within the claimed range), and no more than about 5 mole percent optional other lithium salts (paragraph 0079, no other salts included in the electrolyte); from about 5 weight percent (wt%) to about 25 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraphs 0010-0011 less than or equal to 10 wt% formation additive which may be FEC, paragraph 0108, 5 wt% FEC); and no more than about 10 wt% optional additives relative to the total electrolyte weight (paragraphs 0009-0013, contains 1-5 wt% corrosion-resistant additives, less than or equal to 10 wt% formation additive, and less than or equal to 5 wt% stabilizer additives, equivalent to 1-20 wt% additives, paragraph 0108, cell 630 includes an electrolyte system with about 6 wt% additives, within the claimed range). He further discloses that the solvent may comprise nonaqueous solvents including dimethyl carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and ethyl acetate (paragraph 0055). He is silent regarding the electrolyte containing from about 65 wt% to about 95 wt% cosolvent consisting of at least about 30 wt% dimethyl carbonate, from about 0 to about 50 wt% fluorinated linear carbonate, from about 0 to about 20 wt% propylene carbonate, from about 0 to about 20 wt% alkyl acetate, and mixtures thereof, wherein the weight percent values of fluoroethylene carbonate and cosolvent add to 100 wt%.
Li discloses an electrolyte for a lithium based battery comprising 1.05 to 2.0M of electrolyte salt which may include LiPF6 (Li paragraphs 0005, 0008). Li further discloses that the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate as a solvent system in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:4 (paragraph 0038, equivalent to 20% FEC and 80% DMC to 50% FEC and 50% DMC, overlapping the claimed ranges). The reference teaches that the solvent combination improves cycling capacity and low temperature performance (Li paragraph 0083-0084). Li and He are analogous because they both disclose nonaqueous electrolyte systems for lithium based batteries comprising lithium salts including LiPF6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by He to include the solvent disclosed by Li. Doing so would improve cycling capacity and low temperature performance.
Regarding claim 2, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses that the lithium salt consists essentially of about 0.1M to about 0.4M LiPF6 and LiFSI (paragraph 0053, LiFSI and less than or equal to 0.5 M of LiPF6, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.4 M LiPF6, within the claimed range, and LiFSI are the only lithium salts).
Regarding claim 3, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He is silent regarding wherein the cosolvent consists of from about 75 wt% to about 95 wt% dimethyl carbonate.
Li discloses an electrolyte for a lithium based battery comprising 1.05 to 2.0M of electrolyte salt which may include LiPF6 (Li paragraphs 0005, 0008). Li further discloses that the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate as a solvent system in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:4 (paragraph 0038, equivalent to 20% FEC and 80% DMC to 50% FEC and 50% DMC, overlapping the claimed range). The reference teaches that the solvent combination improves cycling capacity and low temperature performance (Li paragraph 0083-0084). Li and He are analogous because they both disclose nonaqueous electrolyte systems for lithium based batteries comprising lithium salts including LiPF6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by He to include the solvent disclosed by Li. Doing so would improve cycling capacity and low temperature performance.
Regarding claim 5, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses that the solvent can comprise dimethyl carbonate and linear fluorocarbonate, indicating that the solvents are functionally equivalent nonaqueous solvents selected from a group (paragraph 0055, for example, trifluoro methyl carbonate). He is silent regarding wherein the cosolvent consists essentially of dimethyl carbonate and the linear fluorocarbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cosolvent disclosed by modified He with one including the functional equivalents of dimethyl carbonate and linear fluorocarbonate as disclosed by He because 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 7, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 5. He further discloses that the linear fluorocarbonate is CF3CH2O(CO)OCH3 (paragraph 0055, trifluoro ethyl methyl carbonate).
Regarding claim 8, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 7. He is silent regarding the weight ratio of dimethyl carbonate to CF3CH2O(CO)OCH3 being from about 1:0.6 to about 1:1.2.
However, "[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. Moreover, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, modified He discloses all cosolvents included in the claimed configuration, wherein the only difference is the recited weight ratio. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been able to discover the optimum range through routine experimentation with the cosolvents that are known in the art, rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He is silent regarding wherein the cosolvent consists essentially of dimethyl carbonate and the hydrofluoro ether. However, He does disclose that the organic solvent for the electrolyte may comprise nonaqueous solvents including fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and a hydrofluoro ether (paragraphs 0055-0056, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether), indicating that the solvents are functional equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cosolvent disclosed by modified He with one including the functional equivalents of dimethyl carbonate and a hydrofluoro ether as disclosed by He because 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 10, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 9. He further discloses that the hydrofluoro ether comprises CHF2(CF2)3CH2OCF2CHF2 (paragraph 0056, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether).
Regarding claim 11, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 10. He is silent regarding wherein the hydrofluoro ether comprises CHF2(CF2)3CH2OCF2CHF2.
However, "[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. Moreover, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. In this case, modified He discloses all cosolvents included in the claimed configuration, wherein the only difference is the recited weight ratio. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been able to discover the optimum range through routine experimentation with the cosolvents that are known in the art, rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, modified He discloss the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses that the optional additives are selected from the group of 1,3-propane sultone (PS) (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 13, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 12. He further discloses that the electrolyte comprises from about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% optional additives (paragraphs 0009-0013, contains 1-5 wt% corrosion-resistant additives, less than or equal to 10 wt% formation additive, and less than or equal to 5 wt% stabilizer additives, equivalent to 1-20 wt% additives, overlapping the claimed range). 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). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He further discloses that the optional other lithium salts comprise LiBF4, LiBOB, LiDFOB, or mixtures thereof (paragraph 0059).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20210234198 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20130157147 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 20070178379 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 5. He is silent regarding wherein the linear fluorocarbonate comprises fluoroethylmethylcarbonate.
Tamura discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous eqlectrolyte (Tamura paragraph 0015). Tamura further discloses that the nonaqueous solvent in the electrolyte includes a compound expressed by formula (I) which includes 1-fluoroethylmethylcarbonate (Tamura paragraphs 0057, 0043). The reference teaches that when the electrolyte contains the compound of the formula, which may be 1-fluoroethylmethylcarbonate, degradation and expansion of the negative electrode active material are restricted, and charge-discharge cycle performances in the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery are greatly improved (Tamura paragraph 0015). Tamura and He are analogous because they both disclose nonaqueous electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by modified He to include 1-fluoroethylmethylcarbonate as the hydrofluoro ether as disclosed by Tamura. Doing so would restrict degradation and expansion of the negative electrode active material and improve charge-discharge cycle performances in the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20210234198 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20130157147 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jow et al. (US 7172834 B1).
Regarding claim 15, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 14. He is silent regarding wherein the optional other lithium salts comprises from about 0.1 mole percent to about 2.5 mole percent lithium of the salt additive.
Jow discloses a lithium ion battery including a nonaqueous electrolyte which includes an additive salt (Jow Col. 3, lines 57-67). Jow further discloses that the additive salt is LiBOB, and is included in an amount of 0.1-60 mole percent of the total electrolyte salt mixture (Jow Col. 3, lines 57-67). The reference teaches that the LiBOB additive promotes formation of a SEI with reduced irreversible capacity consumption (Jow Col. 6, lines 10-24) and that it is used in only a small amount to minimize its drawbacks (Jow Col. 7, lines 27-30). Jow and He are analogous because they both disclose nonaqueous electrolytes for lithium based batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte disclosed by He to include the additive LiBOB salt in the amount disclosed by Jow. Doing so would promote formation of a SEI with reduced irreversible capacity consumption while minimizing drawbacks.
Claims 4, 9, 16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20210234198 A1) in view of Ugawa et al. (US 20040202941 A1).
Regarding claim 16, He discloses a high rate capable electrolyte for a lithium-based cell (paragraph 0002) consisting of: about 1.3M to about 2.5M lithium salt (paragraph 0053, 1.0 M to 1.5 M of LiFSI and less than 0.5 M of LiPF6, equivalent to 1 M to 2M lithium salt, overlapping the claimed range), consisting of from about 0.05M to about 0.8M LiPF6 (paragraph 0053, less than or equal to 0.5 M of LiPF6, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.4 M LiPF6, within the claimed range), from about 0.8M to about 2.1M lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (paragraph 0053, 1.0 to 1.5 M LiFSI, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.8 M LiFSI, within the claimed range), and no more than about 5 mole percent optional other lithium salts (paragraph 0079, no other salts included in the electrolyte); from about 5 weight percent (wt%) to about 25 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraphs 0010-0011 less than or equal to 10 wt% formation additive which may be FEC, paragraph 0108, 5 wt% FEC); and no more than about 10 wt% optional additives relative to the total electrolyte weight (paragraphs 0009-0013, contains 1-5 wt% corrosion-resistant additives, less than or equal to 10 wt% formation additive, and less than or equal to 5 wt% stabilizer additives, equivalent to 1-20 wt% additives, paragraph 0108, cell 630 includes an electrolyte system with about 6 wt% additives, within the claimed range). He further discloses that the solvent may comprise nonaqueous solvents including dimethyl carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and ethyl acetate (paragraph 0055). He is silent regarding the electrolyte containing from about 65 wt% to about 95 wt% cosolvent consisting of at least about 35 wt% to about 70 wt% dimethyl carbonate, from about 0 to about 50 wt% linear fluorocarbonate, from about 0 to about 20 wt% propylene carbonate, from about 0 to about 20 wt% alkyl acetate, and mixtures thereof, wherein the combined weight percent of of hydrofluoroether, fluorinated linear carbonate, and alkyl acetate is at least about 10 wt%, wherein the weight percent values of fluoroethylene carbonate and cosolvent add to 100 wt%.
Ugawa discloses a lithium secondary battery including an electrolytic solution containing a high dielectric constant solvent (paragraph 0053). Ugawa further discloses that the solvent includes dimethyl carbonate in an amount of 58 wt% to 93wt% and propylene carbonate in an amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt%, overlapping the claimed ranges (Ugawa paragraph 0011, meeting the claimed limitation of wherein the combined weight percent of hydrofluoroether, fluoronated linear carbonate, propylene carbonate and alkyl acetate is at least about 10 wt%). The reference teaches that the inclusion of these solvents improves chemical stability and provides sufficient capacity and cycle characteristics (Ugawa paragraph 0053). Ugawa further teaches that the inclusion of PC is electrochemically stable and provides improved battery characteristics, and DMC lowers viscosity to improve cycle characteristics (Ugawa paragraph 0036). Ugawa and He are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for lithium based batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by He to include propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in the amounts disclosed by Ugawa. Doing so would improve chemical stability and provide sufficient capacity and cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 4, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 16. He does not explicitly disclose that the cosolvent consists essentially of dimethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate and an alkyl acetate. However, He discloses that the organic solvent for the electrolyte may comprise nonaqueous solvents including ethyl acetate, fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and propylene carbonate (paragraph 0055), indicating that the solvents are functional equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cosolvent disclosed by modified He with one including the functional equivalents of dimethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and ethyl acetate as disclosed by He because 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 9, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 1. He is silent regarding wherein the cosolvent consists essentially of dimethyl carbonate and the hydrofluoro ether. However, He does disclose that the organic solvent for the electrolyte may comprise nonaqueous solvents including fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and a hydrofluoro ether (paragraphs 0055-0056, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether), indicating that the solvents are functional equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cosolvent disclosed by modified He with one including the functional equivalents of dimethyl carbonate and a hydrofluoro ether as disclosed by He because 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 20, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 16. He further discloses that the lithium salt consists essentially of about 0.1M to about 0.4M LiPF6 and LiFSI (paragraph 0053, LiFSI and less than or equal to 0.5 M of LiPF6, overlapping the claimed range, paragraph 0079, 0.4 M LiPF6, within the claimed range, and LiFSI are the only lithium salts).
Regarding claim 21, modified He discloss the limitations of claim 16. He further discloses that the optional additives are selected from the group of 1,3-propane sultone (PS) (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 22, modified He discloses the limitations of claim 16. He further discloses that the optional other lithium salts comprise LiBF4, LiBOB, LiDFOB, or mixtures thereof (paragraph 0059).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112(b) , Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claims and that a prima facie rejection has not been established. MPEP 2173.05(b) sets forth that when a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended. In the instant case, as explained in the previously mailed Office Action, the term “about” in the context of the claims is not defined, the specification provides no standard of ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” renders the scope claimed amounts and measures indefinite to the skilled artisan as the requisite degree is undefined and therefore the scope of infringement cannot be understood. Without an established definition or standard of the term of degree, the boundaries of the claimed limitations is unclear.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine He and Li because they teach different lithium salts in the respective electrolyte systems. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both references are drawn to electrolyte systems comprising lithium salts in organic solvents. He teaches that several solvents may be used including fluoroethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. Li teaches a FEC and DMC solvent system overlapping the claimed range in order to improve cycling capacity and low temperature performance. Both references are drawn to analogous electrolyte solvent systems with lithium salts, and therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look to the solvent system disclosed by Li for the disclosed advantages.
Applicant asserts that neither reference teaches the solvent of amended claim 1. However, Li discloses a range of FEC:DMC which overlaps the claimed range, rendering the claimed limitations obvious in view of Li (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Ugawa with the teaching of He because they teach different lithium salts in the electrolytes. Applicant further asserts that Ugawa discloses an electrolyte containing a solvent not claimed in claim 16. However, both references are drawn to electrolyte systems comprising lithium salts in organic solvents. He teaches that several solvents may be used including propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. Ugawa teaches a PC and DMC solvent system overlapping the claimed range, as PC is electrochemically stable and provides improved battery characteristics, and DMC lowers viscosity to improve cycle characteristics (see claim 16 rejection). Both references are drawn to analogous electrolyte solvent systems with lithium salts, and therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look to the amounts of the PC and DMC solvents disclosed by Ugawa. Further, He already teaches that the claimed solvents may be included, and looking to Ugawa for the claimed amounts of PC and DMC would be obvious to the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727