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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07-06-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection has been applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 13, 17, 20-21, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 49-53 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10-02-2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,051,325 hereinafter Shishikura.
Regarding Claims 1 and 29, Shishikura teaches a secondary battery (energy storage device) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolyte composition), wherein the electrolyte comprises an acyclic ether (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane), cyclic ether (i.e., tetrahydrofuran), and a sodium-based salt (column 10, lines 1-27).
Shishikura further teaches that a mixed solvent of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with another ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 (column 10, lines 50-55). Shishikura teaches that the mixed solvent comprises acyclic ether with cyclic ether (column 10, lines 12-21).
Alternatively, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrolyte composition for a secondary battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises a mixed solvent of acyclic ether with cyclic ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can form an electrolyte with improved electric conductivity.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 13, 17, 20-21, 29-31, 33-35, 38 and 49-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0161706 hereinafter Cao in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,051,325 hereinafter Shishikura.
Regarding Claim 1, Cao teaches an electrolyte comprising: an active salt; and a solvent (paragraph 193), wherein the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Cao does not specifically teach that the cyclic ether is present at a higher volume than the acyclic ether.
However, Shishikura teaches a secondary battery (energy storage device) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolyte composition), wherein the electrolyte comprises an acyclic ether (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane), cyclic ether (i.e., tetrahydrofuran), and a sodium-based salt (column 10, lines 1-27).
Shishikura further teaches a mixed solvent of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with another ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 (column 10, lines 50-55). Shishikura teaches that the mixed solvent comprises acyclic ether with cyclic ether (column 10, lines 12-21).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrolyte composition for a secondary battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises a mixed solvent of acyclic ether with cyclic ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can form an electrolyte with improved electric conductivity.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Cao teaches that the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Regarding Claim 8, Cao teaches that the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200).
Regarding Claims 13 and 17, Cao teaches that the active salt has a molar concentration in the electrolyte within a range of from 0.1 M to 3 M (paragraph 201).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Cao teaches an electrolyte that comprises an active salt (i.e., sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI]) (paragraph 200), and a solvent (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL)) (paragraph 195). With regards to recitation “operable below -40oC” and “operable below -150oC”, such recitation is considered a functional limitation and therefore not given patentable weight. In addition, the electrolyte composition of Cao is substantially similar to that of the claims and therefore capable of being operated at similar temperatures (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 29, Cao teaches an energy storage device (paragraph 214) comprising an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising: an active salt; and a solvent (paragraph 193), wherein the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Cao does not specifically teach that the cyclic ether is present at a higher volume than the acyclic ether.
However, Shishikura teaches a secondary battery (energy storage device) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolyte composition), wherein the electrolyte comprises an acyclic ether (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane), cyclic ether (i.e., tetrahydrofuran), and a sodium-based salt (column 10, lines 1-27).
Shishikura further teaches that a mixed solvent of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with another ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 (column 10, lines 50-55). Shishikura teaches that the mixed solvent comprises acyclic ether with cyclic ether (column 10, lines 12-21).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrolyte composition for a secondary battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises a mixed solvent of acyclic ether with cyclic ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can form an electrolyte with improved electric conductivity.
Regarding Claim 30, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a battery (paragraph 214).
Regarding Claim 31, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a lithium ion or sodium ion battery (paragraph 174).
Regarding Claims 33 and 34, Cao teaches that the energy storage device is a sodium metal battery (paragraph 173).
Regarding Claim 35, Cao teaches that the energy storage device comprises an electrode, wherein the electrode is a carbon-based electrode (paragraph 174).
Regarding Claim 38, Cao teaches that the energy storage device comprises an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises a sodium metal anode (paragraph 182).
Regarding Claim 49, Cao teaches that the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 195).
Regarding Claim 50, Cao teaches that the active salt comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI] (paragraph 200).
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, Cao teaches that the active salt has a molar concentration in the electrolyte within a range of from 0.1 M to 3 M (paragraph 201).
Regarding Claim 53, Cao teaches an electrolyte that comprises an active salt (i.e., sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [NaFSI]) (paragraph 200), and a solvent (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL)) (paragraph 195). With regards to recitation “operable below -40oC”, such recitation is considered a functional limitation in an apparatus claim and therefore not given patentable weight. In addition, the electrolyte composition of Cao is substantially similar to that of the claims and therefore capable of being operated at similar temperatures (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Claim(s) 1 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0057795 hereinafter Bi in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,051,325 hereinafter Shishikura.
Regarding Claims 1 and 29, Bi teaches an energy storage device comprising an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising: an electrolyte salt; and a solvent, wherein the electrolyte salt comprises sodium perchlorate [NaClO4] (paragraph 21), and wherein the solvent comprises 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) and 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) (paragraph 23).
Bi does not specifically teach that the cyclic ether is present at a higher volume than the acyclic ether.
However, Shishikura teaches a secondary battery (energy storage device) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolyte composition), wherein the electrolyte comprises an acyclic ether (i.e., 1,2-dimethoxyethane), cyclic ether (i.e., tetrahydrofuran), and a sodium-based salt (column 10, lines 1-27).
Shishikura further teaches a mixed solvent of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with another ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 (column 10, lines 50-55). Shishikura teaches that the mixed solvent comprises acyclic ether with cyclic ether (column 10, lines 12-21).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrolyte composition for a secondary battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises a mixed solvent of acyclic ether with cyclic ether at a volume ratio of from 2/1 to 1/20 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can form an electrolyte with improved electric conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
