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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, “the ether solvent molecule is a cyclic ether, a cyclic carbonate, or a cyclic ester, or a mixture thereof, that is 5% to 15% by weight of the electrolyte composition” See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: adding the required claimed subject matter into the specification. Although the specification lists specific example of an ether solvent, DOL, with a content of 5-15 wt.%, there is no clear language in the specification that the broad term ether solvent is 5% to 15% by weight of the electrolyte composition.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ether solvent” should be rewritten as “the ether solvent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the -CyHzF2y+1-z” should be rewritten as “the -α-CyHzF2y+1-z”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8, 11-16, 19-26, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2017/0207459) in view of Manthiram et al. (US 2020/0203765).
Regarding claims 1 and 31-33, Okada discloses a lithium ion battery comprising an electrolyte composition comprising an ether solvent of at least one of cyclic ether, a cyclic carbonate, or a cyclic ester ([0139], [0153-0159]), an amphiphilic molecule [0155], an electrolyte solvent [0057], and a LiPF6 as the lithium salt [0135]. Although Okada discloses the volume ratios between the mixed solvents [0137-0142], Okada fails to disclose the concentration of the solvent with respect to the electrolyte composition.
Manthiram discloses an electrolyte composition for a battery, which is an analogous art to Okada, comprising an ether solvent of 5 wt.% or more of the electrolyte composition [0057-0058]) or 10 wt.% or less [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okada’s ether solvent concentration to be within the claimed range, since Manthiram discloses that this would result in high operating voltage stability [0006].
Regarding claims 5-6, Okada discloses the ether solvent with the structure as claimed ([0139] and [0157-0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Okada discloses ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate [0139]
Regarding claims 11-16, Okada discloses CF3CH2OCH3 [0155].
Regarding claim 19, given that Okada discloses the amphiphilic structure as claimed, Okada would inherently disclose that the amphiphilic molecule is capable of self-formation of a micelle.
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 20-26, Okada discloses that the electrolyte solvent is CHF2CF2OCH2CF3 [0057] and/or CF3CH2OC2F5 [0155]. In addition, claims 21-22 and 27-28 narrows the definition of perfluorinated alkane and hydrofluoroether, but do not remove CHF2CF2OCH2CF3 from possible solvent compounds.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2017/0207459) in view of Manthiram et al. (US 2020/0203765), and further in view of Yoon (US 2015/0079466).
Okada discloses an electrolyte comprising ether solvent, wherein that it uses (EC, PC, DMC, and/or DEC) instead of 1,3-dioxolane or gamma-lactone.
Yoon discloses a battery comprising an electrolyte, which is an analogous art to that of Okada. Yoon shows that 1,3-dioxolane and gamma-lactone is an equivalent structure known in the art [0020]. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute (EC, PC, DMC, and/or DEC) for 1,3-dioxolane or gamma-lactone in the invention of Okada. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claims 7, 9-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2017/0207459) in view of Manthiram et al. (US 2020/0203765), and further in view of Li (US 2015/0140446).
Okada discloses an electrolyte comprising a PC compound instead of dioxolane, lactone, and/or methyl trifluoromethyl sulfone.
Li discloses a battery comprising an electrolyte, which is an analogous art to that of Okada. Li shows that 1,3-dioxolane, lactone, and methyl trifluoromethyl sulfone is an equivalent structure known in the art [0026]. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute PC for 1,3-dioxolane, lactone, and/or methyl trifluoromethyl sulfone in the invention of Okada. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights