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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 30th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on June 30th, 2026:
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on May 28th, 2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on June 30th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-4 and 6-12 has been considered by the Examiner, however, said arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fails to disclose the instantly claimed electrolyte is not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that because the solvent system of Hwang is a ternary solvent system it fails to read on the instantly claimed non-aqueous organic solvent. This argument is not persuasive. While Applicant has amended the claim to read that the non-aqueous organic solvent (with emphasis) “consists essentially of a first solvent comprising a benzene-based compound and a second solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane,” this does not stop a solvent comprising the claimed components and additional materials from reading on the instantly claimed electrolyte (see MPEP 2111.03(III) wherein the limitation “consisting essentially of” includes materials that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed scope – this can be compared to MPEP 2111.03(II) wherein the limitation “consisting of” is defined to exclude any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim). The skilled artisan would recognize that since within the solvent system of Hwang the first solvent is selected from a group including benzene ([0024]) and the second solvent is selected from a group including 1,3-dioxolane ([0025]), and it would have been obvious to try each and every combination of solvents as disclosed by Hwang, that Hwang does disclose a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting essentially of a first solvent comprising a benzene-based compound and a second solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any amendment to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
The claim limitation “consisting essentially of,” as seen in at least line 4 of Claim 1, is interpreted to limit the scope of the claim(s) to the specified organic solvent components as claimed and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of said organic solvent, as defined in MPEP 2111.03(III).
Prior Art
Previously cited Hwang US PG Publication 2002/0045101 (“Hwang”)
Previously cited Scrosati US PG Publication 2014/0127575 (“Scrosati”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang US PG Publication 2002/0045101.
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
an electrolyte salt ([0017]) comprising lithium (such as lithium perchlorate LiClO4, , lithium tetrafluoroborate LiBF4, lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6, lithium trifluoro sulfonate LiCF3SO3, lithium hexafluoroarsenate LiAsF6, or lithium trifluoromethane sulfonyl imide LiN(CF3SO2)2) (which meets the claim limitation of a lithium salt) ([0035]); and
a solvent ([0014], [0017]),
wherein the solvent includes a first solvent comprising a benzene based compound (such as benzene) and a second solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane ([0014], [0017], [0024]-[0025]),
and Hwang discloses the use of between 5% and 30% by volume of the first solvent ([0030]) and 20% and 50% by volume of the second solvent ([0031]). Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Hwang discloses a volume ratio of the first solvent and the second solvent is 1:0.67 to 1:10 (which overlaps the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 1:4)1.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the solvent of Hwang is a non-aqueous organic solvent, as evidenced by Applicant’s own PG Publication paragraphs [0018]-[0019].
1 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Hwang discloses wherein the benzene-based compound comprises benzene (which meets the claim limitation of at least one selected from the group consisting of benzene, 1,4-difluorobenzene, 1,3,5-trifluorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrafluorobenzene, and hexafluorobenzene) ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 2, and Hwang discloses wherein the benzene-based compound comprises benzene ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Hwang discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium perchlorate LiClO4, lithium tetrafluoroborate LiBF4, lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6, lithium trifluoro sulfonate LiCF3SO3, lithium hexafluoroarsenate LiAsF6, and lithium trifluoromethane sulfonyl imide LiN(CF3SO2)2 (which meets the claim limitation of LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiB10Cl10, LiPF6, LiCF3CO2, LiC4BO8, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, LiSO3CH3, LiSO3CF3, LiSCN, LiC(CF3SO2)3, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiN(C2F5SO2)2, LiN(SO2F)2, lithium chloroborate, lithium lower aliphatic carboxylic acid having 4 or less carbon atoms, lithium tetraphenyl borate, and lithium imide) ([0035]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Hwang discloses wherein the concentration of the electrolyte salt is between 0.5M and 2.0M ([0035]), specifically 1M of LiSO3CF3 ([0044]) – or 1 mole of LiSO3CF3 per 1 liter of solvent. The skilled artisan would recognize that the greatest molar ratio between the second solvent and the lithium salt occurs when the solvent comprises 100% 1,3-dioxolane. Given a density of 1.06 g/mL of 1,3-dioxolane, this solution comprises 1,060 g of 1,3-dioxolane. And given a molar mass of 74.08 g/mol, there are 14.31 mol of 1,3-dioxolane present.
Therefore, Hwang discloses wherein a molar ratio of the second solvent and the lithium solvent is less than 14.31:1 (which encompasses the claimed ranges of 4:1 or more and 4.5:1 to 8:1)1.
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Hwang discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (Abstract), comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0040]-[0041]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0039]-[0040]);
and the electrolyte according to Claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang teaches the instantly lithium sulfur battery according to Claim 9, and Hwang discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of sulfur element (elemental sulfur) and sulfur compounds (such as Li2Sn (n≥1), an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur polymer of (C2Sx)n where x=2.5 to 50 and n≥2) ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed lithium sulfur battery according to Claim 9, and Hwang discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Li2Sn (n≥1), an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur polymer of (C2Sx)n where x=2.5 to 50 and n≥2 (which meets the claim limitation of inorganic sulfur, Li2Sn (n≥1), a disulfide compound, an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur polymer of (C2Sn)x (x=2.5 to 50 and n≥2) ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed lithium sulfur battery according to Claim 9, and Hwang discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium metal and lithium containing alloy ([0039]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang US PG Publication 2002/0045101, as applied to Claim 2, further in view of Scrosati US PG Publication 2014/0127575.
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 2. Hwang fails to disclose wherein the benzene-based compound comprises 1,4-difluorobenzene.2
However, Scrosati discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery ([0010], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: a lithium salt ([0044]), and a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0044], [0058]), and wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent includes a first solvent comprising a benzene-based compound ([0044], [0054]-[0057]) and a second solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane ([0044]-[0048], [0051]).
Scrosati teaches the use of a benzene-based compound including 1,4-difluorobenzene as an electrolyte solvent to effectively transfer ions during an electrochemical reaction of the battery ([0050]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Hwang such that the benzene-based compound comprises 1,4-dilfuorobenzene in order to effectively transfer ions during an electrochemical reaction of the battery, as taught by Scrosati.
2 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.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights