DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 23rd, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
In response to the amendments received on June 23rd, 2026:
Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application. Claim 9 is amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Misnumbered Claim 98 has been renumbered as Claim 9.
Claim 21 is newly added to include limitations from misnumbered claim 4 (duplicated claim 4). Therefore, all claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the originally filed claims. No new matter has been added.
The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1), equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Visco et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130295471 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Kondo et al. (JP Pat. No. 2017091715 A). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Badding et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175542 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Nimon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220399567 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 23 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claim 1 based upon the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) and Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A). as set forth in the last Office action because: t Applicant provides objective evidence to support unexpected results of a specific electrolyte composition comprising a DOL/DME solvent in a 1:1 ratio, LiNFBSI in a concentration of 1M, and TFEB (as the fluorinated borate) in a concentration of 25 mM (see para. 7-8 of the Declaration).
“Evidence of superior properties in one species [is] insufficient to establish the nonobviousness of a subgenus containing hundreds of compounds” (see MPEP 2145).
In this case, the nonaqueous solvent and “fluorinated borate or fluorinated borane” of Claim 1 are examples of a broad subgenus containing many compounds; and the evidence of superior properties is provided for a species of said subgenus (i.e., DOL/DME solvent, TFEB). Therefore, the Examiner recommends further amending Claim 1 to be commensurate with the filed declaration and the conditions in which superior properties are observed (e.g., limiting the claim language to include the specific solvent, electrolyte components, and compositions thereof) to sufficiently establish unexpected results.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 as amended. Applicant argues that Laicer does not teach an electrolyte comprising an additive comprising a fluorinated borate or a fluorinated borane; and Laicer does not recognize any special effects of combining LiNFBSI with a fluorinated borate or fluorinated borane in a Li-S electrochemical cell (see pg. 6 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145 (II)).
In this case, primary reference Laicer teaches an electrolyte comprising LiNFBSI ([0055]); "the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). The electrolyte of Laicer is modified by Zuo to further comprise a fluorinated borate such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) (para. 14, 44)) in which is used to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve the cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14). Therefore, the teachings of the prior art can be combined to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable motivation to perform the described modification. The synergistic benefits of the present application would flow naturally from following the suggestions of the prior art; and cannot be the basis for patentability.
Applicant argues that Laicer nor Zuo individually teach a combination of LiNFBSI and a fluorinated borate or a fluorinated borane and the complimentary nature thereof (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As described above, the electrolyte comprising LiNFBSI of Laicer is modified by Zuo to further comprise a fluorinated borate such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) (para. 14, 44)) with a reasonable motivation (i.e., to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve the cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14)). Therefore, obviousness is established by combining the teachings of Laicer and Zuo based in view of the benefits disclosed in Zuo.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments in view of the declaration are deemed unpersuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) (“Laicer et al.”)
Previously Cited Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A) (“Zuo et al.”)
Previously Cited Visco et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130295471 A1) (“Visco et al.”)
Previously Cited Kondo et al. (JP Pat. No. 2017091715 A) (“Kondo et al.”)
Previously Cited Badding et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175542 A1) (“Badding et al.”)
Previously Cited Nimon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220399567 A1) (“Nimon et al.”)
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 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Laicer et al. teaches an electrochemical cell comprising ([0053]):
a cathode comprising sulfur ([0004]);
an anode comprising lithium metal ([0004]);
an electrolyte comprising: a non-aqueous solvent ([0026] teaches a DOL: DME solvent) and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]).
Laicer et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprising an additive comprising a fluorinated borate or a fluorinated borane.
Zuo et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising an additive comprising a fluorinated borate (the additive comprises a boron-containing element and a fluorine-containing functional group, such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (para. 14, 44)) in which is used to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include a fluorinated borate such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate as taught by Zuo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Laicer et al. does not disclose wherein the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 20 mM to about 500 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches the fluorinated borate such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate) (para. 44) present in an amount of 400 mM (0.4 M, para. 31), within the claimed range of about 20mM to about 500 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate present in a concentration of 400 mM (0.4 M, para. 31) as taught by Zuo et al., within the claimed range of about 20mM to about 500 mM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Claim 1 does not require the presence of the fluorinated borane within the electrolyte. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising at least one lithium salt such as lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]). The Li salt has a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M. "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)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select LiNFSBI from the list of Li salts disclosed by Laicer et al. as LiNFSBI is deemed a suitable strongly bonded Li salt ([0062]); Laicer et al. further teaches that salt and solvent combinations can be tailored by those skilled in the art for specific application such as high rate, low temperature, or reduced flammability ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 9, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches lithium polysulfide present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0 mM to 8000 mM (0 M to 8 M, [0058]), overlapping the claimed range of 10 mM to 200 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 10, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches the non-aqueous solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) solvent ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches that the electrolyte comprises lithium nitrate (LiNO3) ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 13, Laicer et al. teaches preparation of polysulfide pre-dissolved electrolyte in which Li2S and S8 are contacted with a baseline nonaqueous electrolyte comprising DOL and DME ([0095]-[0096]) to form a lithium polysulfide of formula Li2S6 (meeting the claim limitations). Laicer et al. discloses the use of pre-dissolved lithium polysulfides to prevent polysulfide dissolution in the electrolyte by decreasing the solubility of the polysulfide ([0066]). Laicer et al. teaches that fluorinated ether cosolvents have been used in lithium sulfur batteries to mitigate polysulfide dissolution at room temperature conditions and provide improvements in capacity retention, coulombic efficiency, and self-discharge performance in LSB cells compared to baseline DOL/DME electrolytes ([0006]).
As the method disclosed is taught and/or suggested by the prior art, the function of providing a method for recovering insoluble sulfur species in an electrochemical cell is deemed inherent, and does not impart any structural limitations to the claims or require any additional method steps. "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. ‘There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.’ In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims" (emphasis added to original, see MPEP 2112(III)).
Laicer et al. does not teach the nonaqueous solvent comprising tris- (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB).
Zuo et al teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery (LSB) comprising an additive comprising a fluorinate borate (the additive comprises a boron-containing element and a fluorine-containing functional group, such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (para. 14, 44)). Zuo et al. teaches that the fluorinated borate additive solves the problem of gas production and decomposition of the electrolyte (para. 14).
It would have been obvious to modify the baseline nonaqueous solvent used to form the lithium polysulfide of Laicer et al. to include tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) as taught by Zuo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent gas production and decomposition of the electrolyte as described above.
Regarding Claim 15, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. The formation of the dissolved lithium polysulfide in less than 60 seconds is deemed a whereby clause and is a result of a step positively recited. In this case, the formation of the dissolved lithium polysulfide in the timeframe disclosed is formed based on the addition of TFEB in which is taught by Laicer et al. as modified by Zuo et al. as applied to Claim 1. “The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))”(see MPEP 2111.04.I.). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 16, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Laicer et al. teaches that the nonaqueous solvent mixture comprises LiNO3 ([0095]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 17, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 13, the non-aqueous solvent of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include TFEB to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the TFEB is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches the fluorinated borated such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate, para. 44) present in the electrolyte in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27), overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include TFEB present in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27) as taught by Zuo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 18, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 13, Laicer et al. teaches that the non-aqueous solvent comprises 1,3- dioxolane (DOL) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) ([0095]-[0096]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 19, Lacier et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery ([0004]) comprising: a non-aqueous solvent ([0022] teaches a DOL: DME solvent) and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 20, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 19 above. As applied to Claim 19, Laicer et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising at least one lithium salt such as lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]). The Li salt has a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M (see MPEP 2144.05.I). "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select LiNFSBI from the list of Li salts as LiNFSBI is deemed a suitable strongly bonded Li salt ([0062]); Laicer et al. further teaches that salt and solvent combinations can be tailored by those skilled in the art for specific application such as high rate, low temperature, or reduced flammability ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 21, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches that the fluorinated borated such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate, para. 44) is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27), overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate present in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27) as taught by Zuo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1), equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Visco et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130295471 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach the additive comprising the fluorinated borate and the fluorinated borane.
Visco et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (a fluorinated borane) ([0087]). Visco et al. teaches fluorinated borates such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TTFEB) as suitable anion receptors ([0082]); and further teaches that one or more anion receptors can be used in the electrolyte ([0128]). The teachings of Visco et al. can also be applied to lithium-sulfur batteries ([0133]). Visco et al. teaches that the anion receptor functions as a solubilizing agent within a non-aqueous electrolyte and aids to improve cell cycle life and/or delivered discharge capacity ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include one or more additives (anion receptors) selected from a group comprising a fluorinated borate and fluorinated borane as taught by Visco et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable additive composition for a nonaqueous electrolyte for a Li-S battery in which can improve cell cycle life and/or delivered discharge capacity as described above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Kondo et al. (JP Pat. No. 2017091715 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, Laicer et al. teaches that LiNFBSI can be present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Laicer et al. does not teach that the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte at a concentration of about 20 mM to about 30 mM.
Kondo et al. teaches a fluorinated borate compound present in an electrolyte in a concentration of about 10 mM to 400 mM (0.01 mol/L to 0.4 mol/L, para. 23). When the concentration is within said range, gas generation in the lithium battery can be further suppressed and higher temperature durability can be further enhanced (para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate in a concentration of about 10 mM to 400 mM (0.01 mol/L to 0.4 mol/L, para. 23) as taught by Kondo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 20 mM to about 30 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to suppress gas generation in a lithium battery and enhance high temperature durability as described above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Badding et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175542 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Laicer et al. does not teach that the cathode further comprises a conductive carbon.
Badding et al. teaches a cathode for a lithium sulfur secondary battery comprising conductive carbon to impart the cathode with high lithium ion conductivity and improved impedance ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cathode of Laicer et al. to include a conductive carbon as taught by Badding et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to impart the cathode with high lithium ion conductivity and improved impedance as described above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Nimon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220399567 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above.
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the non-aqueous solvent has a temperature of about 20°C to about 30°C.
Nimon et al. teaches preparation of a lithium polysulfide in a nonaqueous solvent at room temperature (universally known as 20-22°C) ([0299]), for use in high performance battery cells and high energy density secondary batteries ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the non-aqueous solvent of Laicer et al. to have a temperature between 20-22 °C as taught by Nimon et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a method of forming a lithium polysulfide for use in high energy density secondary batteries as described above; further, it is well known in the field of endeavor that processes requiring lower temperature can reduce costs related to high energy requirements and reduce overall processing/manufacturing time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights