As 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 8 and 11-12 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. The rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (EP 3 509 150) in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0344063) has been withdrawn because of the new matter rejections given below. If the new matter is dropped than the above rejection would apply.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5-13-2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/196,291; Application No. 18/119,000 and Application No. 18/119,082 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1: where the solvent comprises a compound having a monovalent group represented by Formula A and not comprising a monovalent group represented by Formula B in the reply filed on 1-29-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1-29-2026. Claim 3 is withdrawn because the electrolyte solution does not contain two or more types of the compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula (A). Claim 4 is withdrawn because the electrolyte solution does not contain an ether compound having both the monovalent group having the monovalent group represented by Formula (A) and the monovalent group represented by Formula (B).
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn because the electrolyte solution does not further contain another compound comprising the compound having at least one of a monovalent group represented by Formula (A). Claim 7 is now withdrawn because the electrolyte solution has to contain a compound containing the compound having a monovalent group represented by Formula (A) but the claim is claiming “free of the monovalent group representative of Formula (A)”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the electrolyte solution contains a first solvent comprising a fluorinated alkyl compound having at least one of ‘a’ monovalent group represented by Formula A and a second solvent comprising a diether compound that is free of a fluorine substituted alkyl group”. Claim 1 is objected to because the Examiner believes the claims should cite “the negative electrode current collector consist of at least one metal…”. Claim 8 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the negative electrode current collector consists of…”. Claim 12 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the one or both surfaces of the separator coated with the coating layer contains the polyvinylidene fluoride”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There has been no support found for the claim language “and an electrolyte solution not comprising a metal”. The negative limitation in claim 1 is not allowed in claim because the specification did not expressly set forth this negative limitation.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11-12 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. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear how the claim is claiming a lithium secondary battery when no negative active material is present. Claim 1 is rejected because unclear how the electrolyte solution does not comprise a metal when the electrolyte solution is comprising a lithium salt in which lithium is a metal. This makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear how the negative electrode can comprise the “at least one metal selected from …and SUS” when free of a negative electrode active material”. This makes the claim vague and indefinite. The Examiner believes these metals are citing the current collector materials. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected because it is unclear which surface of the separator is coated with the one coating layer in regard to the side facing the positive electrode or the negative electrode. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear which compound amount is the phrase “an amount of the compound is 60 volume or more…” in regard to the compound of the first solvent or compound of the second solvent.
Claim 8 is rejected because it is unclear how lithium metal can be formed on the surface of the negative electrode because no lithium compound is claimed for the secondary battery. This makes the claim vague and indefinite. If the lithium metal comes from the lithium salt, then the claim should cite “wherein during charging the battery, lithium metal is deposited on the surface of the negative electrode current collector from the lithium salt and during discharge the deposited lithium is electrolytically dissolved”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2021/0057715) in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0344063) in view of Honda et al. (US 2014/0363726). Hwang et al. teaches in claims 6-7 and 10-11, a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode current collector and not comprising a negative electrode material, an electrolyte solution and a separator with the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt, a 1st organic solvent and second solvent. Hwang et al. teaches in [0054], wherein some embodiments, the 1st organic solvent may include a mixture selected from FEC, EC, DEC, EMC, etc. and the 2nd organic solvent may be a mixture including solvents selected from 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), dimethoxyethane, triethylene glycol dimethyl ether, tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, etc. Hwang et al. teaches in [0057], that in some embodiments, the 2nd organic solvent may include an ether compound comprising 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) or 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropyl ether (TPE) [teaching compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula (A)]. Hwang et al. teaches in Embodiment 3, in an electrolyte solution comprising LiPF6 in FEC/TTE 3:7 [teaching compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula (A) in an amount of 60 vol% or more]. Since Hwang et al. teaches the same battery comprising and electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and a negative electrode comprising a current collector that is free of a negative active material then inherently the same battery during charging would deposit lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and during discharging the deposited lithium electrolytically dissolve would also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the same battery during charging would deposit lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and during discharging the deposited lithium electrolytically dissolve would have obviously been present once the Hwang et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Hwang et al. teaches the claimed invention teaching that it is known to use as a second solvent, an fluorinated ether solvent comprising a compound such as 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) in an amount greater than 60% by volume in an Example and teaches that the first solvent can be FEC, EC, DEC, EMC, etc. but does not teach including another solvent comprising a diether compound in an Example, but teaches that the second solvent can comprise a mixture of TTE and dimethoxyethane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both diether compounds, a fluorinated diether comprising 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) and a nonfluorinated diether comprising dimethoxyethane in the electrolyte solution taught by Hwang et al. because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose. Chang et al. teaches in claims 21-23, an electrolyte solution comprising a fluorine substituted ether represented by Formula 1, R-{O-CH2)a=1 or 2}b=o or 1—CH2—O—CnF2nH such as 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) and a non-fluorine substituted ether which is capable of solvating lithium ions such as ethylene glycol dimethylether (DME) where the amount of the ether compound of Formula 1 is an amount of 55-85% by volume in the amount of the non-fluorine substituted ether is in a range of 15-45% by volume based on the total volume of the non-fluorinated substituted ether and the fluorine substituted ether. Chang et al. teaches in [0043-0044] overlapping ranges for the fluorinated and non-fluorinated based solvent, where non-fluorinated ether compound is about 15%, and the fluorinated ether compound is about 55%. The high-rate charge and discharge characteristics may be improved along with improving ion conductivity without deteriorating oxidation resistance [0040]. Chang et al. teaches in claims 12-13, wherein the non-fluorine substituted ether is a glyme solvent or specifically an ethylene glycol dimethylether (DME) and teaches in claims8- 9, that the fluorine substituted ether as the formula R-{O-CH2)a=1 or 2}b=o or 1—CH2—O—CnF2nH where R=CF2H-CF2; b=0 and n=2. Thus, CF2H-CF2-CH2—O-CF2CF2H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ at least 60% by volume (vol%) of a solvent mixture with respect to the total volume of the electrolyte composition, comprising at least one fluorinated ether compound and at least one non-fluorinated ether compound (claim 1) as taught by Chang; in the electrolyte of Hwang et al., in order to increase the ion conductivity between electrodes without deteriorating oxidation resistance, and high-rate charge and discharge characteristics may be improved. 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). Furthermore, "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Hwang et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that one or both surfaces of the separator is coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride. Honda et al. teaches a separator for a secondary battery includes a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least on the elements of all 3 of the comfortable the symptoms of 60 couple of the e side of the porous substrate. Honda et al. teaches in [0031-0032], that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate instead of a conventional separator because Honda et al. teaches that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Hwang et al. in view of Chang et al. and Honda et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang et al. (EP 3 509 150) teaches in claim 1, an anodeless lithium metal battery comprising a cathode active material on a current collector; an anode current collector and an electrolyte solution comprising a first liquid electrolyte [Therefore, teaching a negative electrode free of an active material]. Chang et al. teaches in [0085-0086], that the anodeless lithium metal battery may further include a separator which may be a multi-layer structure comprising polyvinylene fluoride [teaching claims 1 and 12], etc. Chang et al. teaches in claims 4-5, where the first liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt [teaching claim 1, a lithium salt] and an organic solvent comprising at least one of an ether compound [teaching claim 1, comprising a 2nd solvent comprising a diether ether compound that is free of a fluorine substituted alkyl group], a fluorinated ether compound, etc. with a fluorinated ether compound is at least one of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether [CHF2-CF2-O-CH2-CF2-CHF2] [teaching claim 1, the first solvent comprising a compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula (A)] and the ether compound can comprise ethylene glycol dimethyl ether (1, 2-dimethoxyethane, DME) [teaching claim 1, the second solvent comprising the diether compound that is free of a fluorine-substituted alkyl group]. Chang et al. teaches in [0057-0058] that the amount of the fluorinated ether compound may comprise 50 vol% and teaches in [0059], that the fluorinated ether compound has a structure in which fluorinated functional groups are bonded to a -CH2-O moiety and has a small polarity, giving the fluorinated ether compound excellent miscibility with the ether solvent capable of solvating lithium ions and having high dissolution capability such as dimethyl ether (DME). Chang et al. teaches in Example 1, an anodeless lithium metal battery comprising an anode current collector comprising a copper foil [teaching claim 1]; a cathode and an electrolyte solution comprising LiFSI [teaching claim 1, a lithium salt] in DME. Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1) teaches embodiments for an electrolyte comprising a lithium-containing active salt, an ether-based solvent A and a diluent [0006]. In any or all of these electrolyte embodiments, the diluent can be a fluoroalkyl ether, a fluorinated carbonate, a fluorinated orthoformate or a combination thereof. Among other possibilities, the diluent can be 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl-2, 2, 2, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) [0006 and 0148].
PNG
media_image1.png
157
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In some embodiments, a rechargeable battery comprises an electrolyte embodiment as disclosed herein, a cathode, an anode and a separator [0164]. Among possible exemplary anodes, polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-sulfur composites (free of a negative electrode active material) are mentioned [0166]. Ren et al. further teaches that in any, or all, of the electrolyte embodiments, the ether-based solvent A is DME, diglyme, triglyme, dimethyl ether, diethyl ether, etc. or a combination thereof [0006]. Ren et al. teaches in [0006 and 0142], that the electrolyte can comprise lithium bis (fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) [LiN(SO2F)2]. Ren et al. teaches in [0154], in an embodiment, a volumetric ratio of solvent A to the diluent in the electrolyte ranges from 0.2-10. Thus, taking a total solvent arbitrary value of 1 L and a volumetric ratio of 0.2, the solvent A could be 0.17 L and the diluent 0.83 L, which for the diluent (fluorine solvent) it represents a 83% by volume of the “overall amount of solvent components in the electrolytic solution” [teaching the amount of the compound having at least one of a monovalent group of Formula (A) in an amount of 60% by volume].
Nakane et al. (US 2001/0036577) teaches the use of 2,2,3,3 terafluoropropyl difluoromethyl ether as an organic solvent of a lithium secondary battery. Nakane et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode (positive electrode); an anode and a liquid electrolyte (paragraph 11), wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent (paragraphs 43-44), and wherein the organic solvent is an ether such as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl difluoromethyl ether [i.e., fluorine compound of formula A] (paragraph 44). Nakane et al. further teaches that the liquid electrolyte comprises a chain-like ether compound such as 1,2-dimethoxyethane or 1,3-dimethoxypropane (paragraph 44).
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0251681) teaches embodiments of low flammability and nonflammable localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) which are useful in batteries, such as rechargeable lithium ion batteries (lithium secondary batteries) [0004 and 0171]. In some embodiments, a rechargeable battery comprises a low flammability or nonflammable LSE as disclosed herein, a cathode, an anode and optionally a separator [0172]. Among exemplary anodes for lithium ion batteries (lithium secondary batteries) polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-sulfur composites (not considered negative active materials) are mentioned [0174]. Embodiments of the LSEs comprise an active salt, a solvent A comprising a flame retardant compound and a diluent [0174]. Diluent exemplary fluorinated solvents include 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl-2, 2, 2, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) [0157], which correspond to Chemical Formula B if “X” is the tetrafluoroethyl group. If one hydrogen is removed from the tetrafluoroethyl group to create a bond with oxygen, this group is a monovalent group
PNG
media_image1.png
157
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights