DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2 and 5-7 are pending as amended on 12 December 2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) of claims 1, 2 and 5 over US 2015/0380768A1(Mizuno). The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment does not distinguish from US2015/0249269A1 (Yoon).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered.
With respect to Yoon, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yoon emphasizes an ether based solvent and fails to teach “a cyclic carbonate and optionally an auxiliary solvent, wherein a molar ratio of the auxiliary solvent to the cyclic carbonate is 0.05 or less”. The examiner disagrees. The examiner acknowledges that Yoon teaches an ether based solvent, however, Yoon expressly discloses that presence of cyclic carbonate in an molar ratio to the ether based solvent of up to 90:10 ([0019]-[0020]), thus Yoon anticipates embodiment wherein cyclic carbonate as the main solvent. As to the presence of auxiliary solvent and its ratio to the cyclic carbonate as well as its effect on the ionic conductivity , the examiner noted that the auxiliary solvent is an optional embodiment. Yoon teaches the claimed cyclic carbonate thus meets the claim.
As such the rejection over Yoon stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2 and 5 stand, and new claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon as evidenced by Mizuno.
Regarding claims 1-2, Yoon exemplifies a lithium-salt containing electrolyte comprises 0.9M lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in a solvent in which ethylene carbonate and dimethoxyethane were mixed in a volumetric ratio of 2:8 ([0069]), thus ethylene carbonate is present In an amount of about 3 mol/L calculated by the examiner based on a specific gravity of 1.321 and a molar mass of 88.06 of ethylene carbonate as evidenced by Mizuno ([0050]) (i.e., 0.2X1000X1.321/88.06), thus the ratio of the lithium amide to the carbonate is 0.9: 3, i.e., 0.3, which meets the claimed ratio.
Yoon further teaches that the electrolyte may further include an inorganic solid electrolyte such as Li2SiS3, Li2S, etc. ([0051] and [0053]), which meets a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 5, Yoon teaches a lithium secondary battery including a cathode, an anode and a separator impregnated with the electrolyte ([0023]-[0025] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon teaches alternative embodiment thus meets the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of US2020/0185758A1 (Gewirth).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7, Mizuno exemplifies an electrolyte solution comprises 0.60 mol/L lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, which meets the claimed lithium amide, 1mol/L of LiPF6, and a cyclic carbonate with the molar ratio of cyclic carbonate to Li+ is 1.41 (Table 1, Experimental 18), thus the cyclic carbonate is present in an amount 2.256 mol/L, calculated by the examiner, i.e., 1.41X(0.6+1), the molar ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to the cyclic carbonate is 0.6 : 2.256, i.e., 0.265, which meets the claimed ratio.
Mizuno does not teach the presence of a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Gewirth teaches adding solid-phase lithium thiophosphates such as Li7P3S11 to liquid electrolyte including carbonate ester solvated lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide may simplify and improve the processability of electrolytes for lithium metal battery cells, increase the mechanical stability of the electrolyte and reduce cell resistance ([0020] and [0022]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the sulfide solid electrolyte of Gewirth to the electrolyte solution of Mizuno. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Gewirth that to do so would improve the processability of electrolytes for lithium metal battery cells, increase the mechanical stability of the electrolyte and reduce cell resistance ([0020] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator impregnated in the electrolyte solution ([0059] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno teaches the solvent consists of cyclic carbonate as a solvent ([0046]), which meets the alternative embodiment thus the claim.
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 AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766