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
Amendments and Remarks filed on January 9, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 6, 2025 have been received and entered.
Certified copy of the PCT/JP2020/034710 and PCT/JP2021/014610 applications has been provided as required on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 6, 2025.
Claim 1 was amended and claims 2 and 3 were cancelled. Because of claim 1 amendment the objection made to this claim is overcome. Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1).
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been significantly amended to require that the electrolytic solution of the battery contain a fluorinated ether mixed solvent-selected from FIPME/TTFE, FIPFME/TTFE, DTFEOM/TTFE, DHFPOM/TTFE, FIPME/TFEE, FIPFME/TFEE, DTFEOM/TFEE, and DHFPOM/TFEE. Ren, regardless of whether considered under the standard of §102 or §103, fails to teach, suggest or otherwise prove obvious use of such an electrolytic solution (see Remarks page 6).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on January 9, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 4-10 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1), Park et al. (WO 2018236168 A1, see machine translation for citation) and Takei et al. (KR 20170112950 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Zheng et al. (High-Voltage LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 Cathode Stability of Fluorinated Ether Based on Enhanced Separator Wettability, see NPL documents for citation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1) in view of Park et al. (WO 2018236168 A1, see machine translation for citation) and Takei et al. (KR 20170112950 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Zheng et al. (High-Voltage LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 Cathode Stability of Fluorinated Ether Based on Enhanced Separator Wettability, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Ren 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 hydrofluoroether (HFE), a fluorinated carbonate, a fluorinated orthoformate or a combination thereof [0006, 0147 and 0148]. Regarding the hydrofluoroethers (HFE), combinations of these solvents are considered employable, and 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTFE) and 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (TFEE) are presented as examples [0148]. The electrolyte embodiments taught by Ren are useful in lithium ion rechargeable batteries [0163]. In some embodiments, a rechargeable battery comprises an electrolyte embodiment as disclosed herein, a cathode, an anode and optionally a separator [0164].
Ren does not teach the features wherein its negative electrode is free of a negative electrode active material and wherein the electrolytic solution contains a fluorinated ether mixed solvent selected from the group shown in claim 1.
Park teaches a lithium secondary battery prepared as an anode free battery, comprising a positive current collector (11) and a positive composite (13), a negative electrode including a negative current collector (21) (free of a negative electrode active material), a separator (30) and an electrolyte (not shown) interposed between them [Abstract, 0024 and Fig. 1]. The solvents employed for the electrolyte may include ethers and halogen-containing solvents [0138 and 0151]. It is taught that by forming a negative electrode-free battery structure, lithium metal is not exposed to the atmosphere at all during the battery assembly process, thereby fundamentally preventing problems such as the formation of an oxide film on the surface due to the high reactivity of lithium itself and the resulting degradation of the lifespan of the lithium secondary battery [0032].
Takei teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (10), which is identified as a lithium secondary battery (10), comprising a positive electrode (20), a negative electrode (30), and a separator layer (40) between them [0024, 0043 and Fig. 1]. Regarding the electrolyte it is taught that it contains various non-aqueous solvents used in lithium-ion secondary batteries, preferably it contains at least one fluoro-based non-aqueous solvent, such as a hydrofluoroether (HFE) [0097]. As candidates for the HFE solvent hexafluoroisopropyl methyl ether ((CF3)2CHOCH3) (FIPME) and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-Tetrafluoropropyl ether (HCF2CF2OCH2CF2CF2H) (TTFE) are mentioned, from which “a fluorinated ether mixed solvent FIPME/TTFE” can be obtained [0099]. Zheng evidence that the employment of a HFE diluent (solvent), enhance the separator wettability toward a nonaqueous electrolyte and the oxidative stability of the electrolyte is improved as well [p. A1456; par. 3].
Ren is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode and an electrolytic solution which may comprise two of the compounds shown on claim 1.
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode free of a negative electrode active material and an electrolytic solution.
Takei is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode and an electrolytic solution, wherein the electrolytic solution contains a fluorinated ether mixed solvent selected from the group shown on claim 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode and the diluent of Ren to include the features wherein its negative electrode is free of a negative electrode active material and wherein the electrolytic solution contains a fluorinated ether mixed solvent selected from the group shown in claim 1, because Park teaches that by forming a negative electrode-free battery structure, lithium metal is not exposed to the atmosphere at all during the battery assembly process, thereby fundamentally preventing problems such as the formation of an oxide film on the surface due to the high reactivity of lithium itself and the resulting degradation of the lifespan of the lithium secondary battery. In addition, Takei teaches the referred “fluorinated ether mixed solvent” feature and Zheng evidence that the employment of a HFE diluent (solvent), enhance the separator wettability toward a nonaqueous electrolyte and the oxidative stability of the electrolyte is improved as well.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ren further teaches further teaches that in any, or all, of the electrolyte embodiments, the ether-based solvent A is DME, diglyme, triglyme, tetraglyme, butyl diglyme, dimethyl ether, diethyl ether, polyethylene glycol, or a combination thereof [0006]. The features of both claims 4 and 5 are met by the ether-based solvent A possibilities as presented above.
Regarding claim 6, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. From claim 4 discussion, diglyme, triglyme, tetraglyme, butyl diglyme, and polyethylene glycol (if n=2-5) met the limitation “2 or more and 5 or less ether bonds”.
Regarding claim 7, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ren further teaches that in any, or all, of the electrolyte embodiments, the lithium-containing active salt can comprise lithium bis (fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI), which is LiN(SO2F)2 [0006 and 0142].
Regarding claim 8, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ren further teaches that in an independent embodiment, a volumetric ratio of solvent A to the diluent in the electrolyte may range from 0.33-3 [0154]. Taking an arbitrary amount of electrolyte total volume of 1 L, the volumetric amounts of the diluent (which comprises the fluorinated ether mixed solvent) may range from 75-25 vol. %. Based on the previous teaching, the limitation of claim 8 is met.
Regarding claim 9, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the diluent (which comprises the fluorinated ether mixed solvent) volumetric amount range calculated from Ren teachings for claim 8, because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Ren, Park, Takei and Zheng teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Ren further teaches that in an independent embodiment, a volumetric ratio of solvent A to the diluent in the electrolyte may range from 0.33-3 [0154]. Taking an arbitrary amount of electrolyte total volume of 1 L, the volumetric amounts of solvent A (which comprises the non-fluorine solvents) may range from 25-75 vol. %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the solvent A (which comprises the non-fluorine solvents) volumetric amount range calculated from Ren teachings, because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:30 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 04/07/2026