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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/28/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/29/26. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, and 13 are amended. Claims 2, 7-10, and 14 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, 11-13, and 15-18 are pending and are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0291036) in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0212486).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent ([0063], a lithium salt ([0026]-[0027]), a phosphorus-based cesium salt, ([0031]), and an additive in an amount of 0.01 to 11 % by mass ([0035]),
wherein the additive comprises two or more compounds such as a sultone and cyclic carbonate ([0035]-[0036], [0040]-[0043]).
Further regarding claim 1 and regarding claims 3-4, as discussed above, Liu teaches that the additive includes a sultone and cyclic carbonate ([0035]), for example, the compound in which A is O=S=O has the Chemical Formula 4 (see formula III-6 of [0039]), and the compound in which A is C=O has the Chemical Formula 7, 8, or 9, i.e. vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, or vinylethylene carbonate ([0041], [0043]).
With regard to claim 1, Liu teaches the relative weight ratio of PS (Chemical formula 4) to FEC (Chemical formula 8) of 1:1.5 (Table 2 Example 2-13). Liu further teaches the amount of phosphorus-based cesium salt is, for example, 4.0% by mass ([0030]), which would result in the ratio of 1:1.5:1 for the relative amounts of PS and FEC above.
With further regard to claim 1, Liu teaches a cesium salt as discussed above but is silent on the specifics of the compound.
Xu teaches an electrolyte including an organic solvent, lithium salt, additives such as FEC and PS (which are the compound in which A is C=O of Liu as discussed above), and CsPF6 salt ([0087]). Xu further teaches that CsPF6 salt is desirable for use with carbonate-based solvents in order to suppress Li dendrite formation ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include CsPF6 salt as the phosphorus-based cesium salt of Liu in order to suppress Li dendrite formation.
As for claim 11, Liu teaches that the lithium salt is, for example, LiPF6 ([0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches that the solvent comprises EC, DEC, and EMC ([0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte discussed above (abstract).
As for claims 16-18, concerning the properties of the battery of claim 15, the examiner finds that, since the battery of Liu is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I
Claims 5-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0094024).
The teachings of Liu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Liu teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 but fails to teach the compound in which A is selected form P-F as represented by Chemical Formulas 10 or 11 and fails to teach the relative amount of such a compound with the C=O based additive. The examiner finds that the limitation of claim 5 as amended to “a compound in which A is C=O” is met by the teachings of Liu as discussed above.
As for claim 5, Park teaches an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the electrolyte comprises an additive of, for example, 2-fluoro-4-methyl-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane and fluoroethylene carbonate ([0093]).
Park further teaches that the inclusion of the O=P=O and C=O additives is desirable for suppressing decomposition of the electrolyte, thereby increasing stability and high temperature storage characteristics of the resultant battery ([0013], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include the 2-fluoro-4-methyl-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane additive of Liu in the amount suggested by Park in order to suppress decomposition of the electrolyte.
As for claim 6, as is discussed above with respect to claim 1, Liu teaches the claimed ratio.
With regard to claim 13, Liu teaches an additional additive in addition to the additive discussed above, such as a boron compound of a second fluorine-containing metal salt, wherein the additive is included in an amount of less than 10 % by mass ([0030], [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that the claimed electrolyte solution, specifically all of the claimed components combined at the claimed amounts, is obvious over the references cited for the reasons provided above.
As to Applicant arguments concerning the effects, i.e. properties, resulting from the combination as found in claims 16-18, the examiner maintains that the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Applicant is reminded that, once the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the Applicant. MPEP 2112 V. In the remarks, Applicant merely states that the properties are not taught by the reference, but fails to provide any evidence that the properties are not inherent.
Further, Applicant is reminded that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention, and that the fact that Applicant recognizes another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise be obvious. MPEP 2145 II
With specific regard to the alleged “unpredictable synergistic effects,” Applicant has failed to provide any data to support the argument. Applicant is reminded that evidence is required to support an argument of “synergism” or other unexpected, or “unpredictable,” results. MPEP 716.02 in general, and 716.02(a) I specifically
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights